Fundamentalist. I love this word. I'd wager that your
mind went in a particular direction and brought into your consciousness certain
images and ideas, something you read once, or a past experience with that word. Fundamentalist. I would even entertain the idea that it nearly has onomatopoeic
power, like *ding* or *boing*. Fundamentalist. If you deviate at all, it may be to only think of synonyms for
such a word, and I’ll leave those up to you
to chew on and volunteer none of my own.
Fundamentalist. I'm intentionally not attaching a picture this post just to leave your visual imagination alone. Fundamentalist. So, let’s keep
walking in the direction your mind pointed you, and I’ll try to walk parallel with
you for a bit in the hopes of helping you truly accept what happens in your
mind when you hear or read that word, and at the end, I'll ask you if you’re brave
enough and willing enough to go one step further.
Can a person be a fundamentalist
volleyball player, hand washer, comedian, or lip balm user? Probably
not. No, I can probably not apply the
term fundamentalist to these things. But,
for the sake of our little stroll together, I'm willing to do so by perhaps looking at it in terms of there being a "fundamentally" right or wrong way to
engage in these activities, or perform these tasks or jobs. For example, I can wash my hands with fresh manure
with the hopes of cleaning my hands, or I can apply lip balm to dry ice with
the hopes of soothing my chapped lips. We
can agree that this would be a wrong way to go about achieving the desired
effects of those actions because by performing the actions these ways we can
rationally remove our ability to state that we are in fact washing our hands or
using lip balm. We can agree that to
engage in the act of hand washing, successfully washing one’s hands, is not
to use excrement as a cleansing and rinsing agent. We can agree that to engage in the act of using
lip balm, successfully applying lip balm to one’s lips, one can safely bet on
the higher chance of probability that those lips may experience more soothing
comfort were one to not apply the balm to frozen CO2 instead.
So perhaps being a
fundamentalist only applies to doing things fundamentally "wrong". I can reasonably state that one
can have “bad fundamentals” as a volleyball
player, but they would still be engaged in the act of playing volleyball - of
being on the court and performing the effort of playing the game. However, would one be correct in saying that a fundamentalist volleyball player would be
one that has sound fundamentals which allows them to serve over the net perfectly, without fail, every single time
they attempt to do so? It's a stretch. Doubtful at best. Similarly, is a comedian whose whole act is to go on
stage and just sit there on a chair, staring blankly into a random direction in the distance, a fundamentally bad comedian or just a fundamentalist comedian because he genuinely
believes that his act ought to be riotously funny and the crowd
just doesn't get the joke because they don't have the truly deep insight he does into true comedy? Or would he
in fact just not really be a comedian? If he’s making genuine and
sincere efforts with an act like that, but he just isn't funny,
then would that be any different than the volleyball player who just has
fundamentally bad serving skills? Probably not. Perhaps desire and intent are important distinctions to make regarding the efforts because it just doesn't work otherwise... but I doubt it.
What’s more, am I a computer
fundamentalist because I only use Windows based operating systems, and not a Mac? Probably not.
Are there fundamentals missing from my driving skills because I choose to drive a Ford, and not a Chevy? Probably not.
Is it then simply nonsensical, given all the examples above, to try to use the
term fundamentalist in describing or relating to anything other than what that word is
known as fact to be associated with? Do we accept
the definition of the term “Fundamentalist” as it currently exists, or will we
try our best to escape reality like I did with my examples and
choose instead to engage in word play and definition dodging? Here’s my challenge: If you are willing to accept what is known to
be the definition of the word fundamentalist, synonyms and all, then ask
yourself this question: Can that word exist without the fundamentals of what one can be a fundamentalist about - can the word fundamentalist exist without its root
word? If you think yes, then either
please re-read the examples above, or take a nap, or eat a snack to raise your blood sugar, or quickly embrace how difficult it
would be to define the word eyelid without using the word "eye" or to not even
imply that an eyelid has anything to do with the word “eye”… annnnd now we’re back on track.
So, I challenge you to embrace and not grapple with the following: Knowing what your mind gave back to you when you gave it the word fundamentalist, can you really be intellectually honest with yourself when you attempt to
disconnect that word from its root? By holding the source of where fundamentalists
get their ideas from, can you really simultaneously disconnect that from your mind's vision of a fundamentalist? Probably not.
We need to accept that religious fundamentalists are not the problem.
The problem... are the fundamentals of religions.
Start holding followers of religions accountable.
Take a stand. They do not have a free pass.
The problem... are the fundamentals of religions.
Start holding followers of religions accountable.
Take a stand. They do not have a free pass.
