Good question, Dan S de Merengue. I've often wondered myself.

>>What is a Christian fundamentalist?<<

Wikipedia gives us some namby-pamby, wishy-washy stuff along the lines that Christian Fundamentalism had been "defined by historian George M. Marsden as 'militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.'"

All sounds very Wikipedia-worthy.

I much prefer examples, myself, rather than definitions. Like this set, the "Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian".

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

I think I like this one best. For obvious reasons.

"5. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old."

Meanwhile, from an earlier post:

>>Freedom of choice is no ultimate value or measure for anything.<<

Very true.

The same may be said of freedom itself, of course.

Since it is always relative to something else - imprisonment, for example. Or living under tyranny. Or being subject to laws that dictate what you are allowed, and not allowed to wear.

Oddly, though, freedom is something that humans value quite highly. Especially, I understand, when they don't have any, or when it is restricted in some way.

>>Neither could freedom of choice be the ultimate guiding principle for any legislator.<<

True, also.

But freedom - as in freedom of choice, in this case - is certainly a significant factor in the determination of legislation, at least in the more civilized countries.

"Reductio ad absurdum" is an entertaining piece of intellectual gymnastics.

But not at all convincing as an argument in itself.

Thanks, Liz,

According to your definition, the word fundamentalist can be ascribed to those who have ‘radical’ (whatever that means) views, those who adopt the Opus Dei dialogue, those who hold women in low (or no) esteem, those who are violent or who hold violent intentions towards Julian Assange, and those on the right wing.

In summary we can say that your definition of the word fits anyone who is particularly unpleasant, or anyone Liz45 finds particularly distasteful, but it’s not a particularly tight definition. Continue along these lines and we may find that words will stop meaning anything at all.

All I ask is that we try and to use words a bit more precisely.

And I’d prefer if you didn’t call me mate.

Thanks, Pericles, for trying to clear things up.

By your definition, Fundamentalists don’t even exist. For the details of your point 5 definition don’t fit any category of people that I know or have heard of. They’re possibly a fictitious collection of straw men.

I agree that much of what you find on Wikipedia can be wishy-washy, or namby-pamby. That’s comes with the nature of the beast, and is not unexpected for most encyclopaedia, which are not bad for a quick reference on something but are hardly authoritative.

The word ‘freedom’ is less technical, but still quite vague. It means quite different things to different people in different contexts.

But the word is there, found among the three word motto of the French republic: “fraternité, égalité, liberté”. It is supposedly according to these principles of the French Republic that the French have passed laws against the wearing of the burqa

We're discussing the banning of the burqa in Australia. If you don't or can't follow the general meaning of fundamentalists, then you need to read more, or read books or articles by ordinary people, such as Malalai Joya.

If you weren't brought up catholic, then you won't even know about Opus Dei, unless of course you're part of that group, which would explain a lot. I'm not engaging in an intellectual type debate to win a prize, I'm engaging in a conversation about this topic.

"I agree that much of what you find on Wikipedia can be wishy-washy, or namby-pamby." I didn't even mention Wikipedia? If you want to challenge me, stick to what I said. READ it!

I take it sir, that I won't even get a pass mark! Oh dear!
do you always carry on like this, or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

The main point is, that I don't believe that anyone in this country has the right to ban an item of clothing that is worn by perhaps .01% of the female Muslim population! It's dumb, stupid and un-democratic!Racist too!

That's odd, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For the details of your point 5 definition don’t fit any category of people that I know or have heard of. They’re possibly a fictitious collection of straw men.<<

For some strange reason, I thought the definition fitted your defence of Creationism to a "T"

Must be getting forgetful in my old age... (exits, muttering)

Liz,
You are right to assume that I don't know much about Opus Dei. I'm not a Catholic, and I don't take much notice of Dan Brown novels. 

But you are wrong to assume that I don't read sufficiently. I've read enough to know that the word Fundamentalist is used (and misused) in so many different contexts that it has become next to meaningless. 

For example, Christians who believe in certain historic miracles, such as the virgin birth, have been known as fundamentalists. Muslims who want to deny girls' education are known so likewise. Yet the two share precious little in common. Yet, as I mentioned above, fundamentalist is not a category of Muslim theology, so how does it make any sense to call them that?

The wearing of the burqa has little or nothing to do with Muslim theology. It's a cultural thing. Therefore the word fundamentalist is misplaced here.

Muslims who like the burqa are labelled 'fundamentalists'. Fred Nile, who wants to ban it, is also labelled a 'fundamentalist'. Are all the members of the French parliament who voted to ban it also fundamentalists? 

You say no one has the right to make a law banning certain clothing. I believe that the legislature has the right to pass any law that is wished by the majority and is in line with the Constitution.

Pericles,
It's a little off topic, but since you mention creationists with such indulgence, creationists are not as you've described. They are those who have adopted a position following the reading of the scriptures in their proper grammatical and historical contexts, consistent and favourable with the entire gamut of empirical evidence.    
    

That must be where I went wrong, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...creationists are not as you've described. They are those who have adopted a position following the reading of the scriptures in their proper grammatical and historical contexts, consistent and favourable with the entire gamut of empirical evidence.<<

And there was me, thinking that those scriptures were "recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents", as described in that piece of satire.