Opinion of "Liberal Triumphalism"

[DC Al Fine]

Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?

What definition of "fundamentalism" are you using?

It sounds more like you are using fundamentalist, the way various leftists/rightists use fascist/communist, not the historic definition from the days of Machen and Fosdick, nor the more recent "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestant" of more recent years.

[DC Al Fine]

Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?

What definition of "fundamentalism" are you using?

It sounds more like you are using fundamentalist, the way various leftists/rightists use fascist/communist, not the historic definition from the days of Machen and Fosdick, nor the more recent "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestant" of more recent years.

Why is there an argument over semantics? I think the point I was trying to make was pretty clear.

The entire debate between you and BRTD hinges on the definition of fundamentalism. If "fundamentalism" means "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestantism", then by definition, BRTD's view is not fundamentalist. You dispute that with him, so I assume you define it differently.

So I ask again: what is your definition of fundamentalist?

[DC Al Fine]

Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?

What definition of "fundamentalism" are you using?

It sounds more like you are using fundamentalist, the way various leftists/rightists use fascist/communist, not the historic definition from the days of Machen and Fosdick, nor the more recent "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestant" of more recent years.

Why is there an argument over semantics? I think the point I was trying to make was pretty clear.

The entire debate between you and BRTD hinges on the definition of fundamentalism. If "fundamentalism" means "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestantism", then by definition, BRTD's view is not fundamentalist. You dispute that with him, so I assume you define it differently.

So I ask again: what is your definition of fundamentalist?

I genuinely have no idea what on earth you are talking about. Is this an American thing? 'Fundamentalist' is usually used at least in day to day language 'here' to pejoratively refer to philosophies (not just religions) perceived carrying a self pretence of being the sole objective truth. I just stated that it is an ideologically fundamentalist position, or as Antonio perhaps better put it 'totalitarian' position to want all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished in favour of your own.

Ok fair enough. Fundamentalist in North America can also mean a particular sort of conservative Protestant, that tries to cut themselves out of the culture at large, which is presumably caused the confusion.