[Notethis]

Couldn't fit the question in the title. I was wondering why the phrase "Islamic fundamentalist" is almost unequivocally, in the United Kingdom, reserved for "Islamic extremists", and not used when describing somebody who simply rejects empirically persuasive scientific data and the extrapolated theories (the type of muslim in the majority in the UK). On the other hand, the term "Christian fundamentalist" is readily thrown about in reference to a Christian rejecting those same theories, as evidenced by the perpetual lambasting of the evangelical baptist population in the United States. We consider them absolutely backwards, and the states in which constitute the majority, retrogressive.

It seems that it is more acceptable to be an Islamic fundamentalist than it is to be a Christian fundamentalist in the United Kingdom.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Notethis)
Couldn't fit the question in the title. I was wondering why the phrase "Islamic fundamentalist" is almost unequivocally, in the United Kingdom, reserved for "Islamic extremists", and not used when describing somebody who simply rejects empirically persuasive scientific data and the extrapolated theories (the type of muslim in the majority in the UK). On the other hand, the term "Christian fundamentalist" is readily thrown about in reference to a Christian rejecting those same theories, as evidenced by the perpetual lambasting of the evangelical baptist population in the United States. We consider them absolutely backwards, and the states in which constitute the majority, retrogressive.

It seems that it is more acceptable to be an Islamic fundamentalist than it is to be a Christian fundamentalist in the United Kingdom.

Not really, most people don't like either but over here Islamic fundamentalists are far more likely to be arrested.

[Notethis]

(Original post by Kiss)
Not really, most people don't like either but over here Islamic fundamentalists are far more likely to be arrested.

Yes, really. They are both acceptable from a legal perspective, but the difference occurs in terms of social acceptance. Whereas Christian fundamentalists form the minority of the Christian population, and would be ostracised by degrees in any classroom or office across the country, a fundamentalist muslim is accepted as the rule rather than the exception; whilst there is ridicule of the former, there are integration schemes for the latter.

[RightSaidJames]

Fundamentalism in itself isn't a bad thing; it's when it's combined with extreme evangelism that it can become a problem.

In other words:
Fundamentalism = Fine, whatever you want to believe.
Evangelism = Fine, no harm in telling others about your beliefs, whatever they happen to be.
Evangelical Fundamentalism = The people you're preaching to might think you're a bit weird/deluded but that's not really a problem.
Extreme Evangelical Fundamentalism = At best you'll alienate the majority of people you come across, at worst you'll cause serious offence.

[Mequa]

Believing all non-believers will be tortured in hell for eternity, and that this is just = fundamentalist in my book, whatever "holy" book they derive their dogma from.

[Xotol]

(Original post by Mequa)
Believing all non-believers will be tortured in hell for eternity, and that this is just = fundamentalist in my book, whatever "holy" book they derive their dogma from.

Surely people don't believe in religion because they want non-believers to burn in hell. They usually find other reasons to believe (i.e. evidence from Holy Books, philosophical arguments etc), and the rest (i.e. heaven and hell) naturally follows on. If a certain God is true, it seems rather pointless to worry about what he or she decides to do.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Mequa)
Believing all non-believers will be tortured in hell for eternity, and that this is just = fundamentalist in my book, whatever "holy" book they derive their dogma from.

I don't think that believing that is a bad thing...that's what the religion teaches and followers must accept it.

However, if Christians for example were to start killing all unbelievers to send them to hell..that's where the problem would be. They don't do that...so it's not a problem.

Muslim fundamentalists however...do that. So it's a problem.

Just because you add the word fundamentalist after a religion doesn't mean they're the same type of fundamentalists and equally ostracized. Fundamentalism means something different in each religion because the belief systems are quite different.

[Mequa]

(Original post by Xotol)
If a certain God is true, it seems rather pointless to worry about what he or she decides to do.

Why would a certain God be true?

[Xotol]

(Original post by Mequa)
Why would a certain God be true?

I don't know, which is exactly why I put an 'if' in front of the sentence.

But if someone finds reasons to believe that a God does exist, it seems sensible to actually believe instead of denying based on details.

[Mequa]

(Original post by .eXe)
I don't think that believing that is a bad thing...that's what the religion teaches and followers must accept it.

Not necessarily - while that was the norm in Christianity in the past, most Christians today do not accept such a dogma, believing eternal torture of all non-Christians incompatible with the notion of a loving and just God, and seeing no need to take their holy books as literally as fundamentalists do. That is what fundamentalism ultimately comes down to - accepting certain doctrines (such as belief in the inerrancy of a holy book which teaches the justice of eternal torture for all non-believers) as "fundamentals". This is not the case in less militant approaches to faith. A non-fundamentalist Christian needn't believe in Hell because they aren't committed to biblical inerrancy, and can interpret the Bible in a less literal fashion.

I wouldn't consider that kind of bigoted stance a good thing. Making belief the deciding factor between eternal bliss and eternal torture is a pretty skewed sense of justice by any stretch of the imagination, and suggests a serious lack of compassion - those who are on the side of justice and compassion would shun such a dogma as medieval superstition, and focus on other aspects of their religious tradition. There may be reasons given for believing in it, but I haven't seen a single good reason given for considering this to be true, yet alone just or right.

And ultimately this isn't just believing that Big Guy In The Sky is gonna torture those who don't believe in him (while sparing others due to assent to a proposition) - it's believing he is a perfectly just and benevolent being and thus is perfectly doing the right thing. It defines perfect justice and benevolence in terms of eternal torture for "thought criminals" and puts this on the table as the morally superior position in the 21st century. As such, it is worthy of serious criticism.