Susan Maneck wrote: > > This continues my review of articles from Reason and Revelation. Moojan's > article can be found online here: > http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/Articles/2_Momen_Fundamentalism.htm > The site has been re-organized and this paper is now at http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/bsr02/22_momen_fundamentalism.htm
The problem I have with this paper and most others on the subject is the assumption that fundamentalism is a pole with liberalism at the other end. As a result I see fundamentalism defined to a large extent not by what it is, but as the opposite of liberalism. While this has some value, in my opinion, the real opposite of liberal is conservative, and fundamentalism is on a different plane that intersects the liberal/conservative plane. If we limit the definition of fundamentalism to being a system of tho't in which certain fundamentals are so basic as to be beyond discussion, then the other end of the axis is relativism. At the relativistic pole, there are no absolute standards; rather they are determined for a particular time and place by logic or experience. While I do not see a progression of ideas from fundamentalist to liberal, there is, in my opinion a natural progression from fundamentalist to relativist. Within this framework, liberal fundamentalism is alive and well. That is there is a faction of the liberal wing that finds certain liberal assumptions so basic that the validity of any argument is determined by its congruence with these assumptions. Within this context, fundamentalism is an essential part of Baha'i teaching. That is, there are certain fundamentals which are so basic that to deny them is to deny Baha'u'llah Himself. These are embodied in Scripture as principles. A problem arises when interpretations of these principles are accepted as fundamentals and not the principles themselves. To go back to a previous post of mine, this is what I believe occurred during the situation with the dissident Baha'is a while back. Too many of the arguments were being posed by individuals who took their own interpretations of Scripture as embodying Baha'i fundamentals. Not only would neither side compromise on what they claimed were the inviolate fundamentals involved, as 'discussion' ensued it devolved into an argument over the few issues where there was the most disagreement. Petty soon, both sides had painted themselves into corners from which they could not escape. To tie this to another thread (spiritual winter), I believe this is what will happen at the end of this dispensation, why a new Manifestation will be required. There will arise a set of generally accepted interpretations of Scripture which will, in fact, be in violation of the principles enunciated by the Central Figures of the Faith. When the next Manifestation arises, He (or perhaps She) will be denounced for corrupting the obvious meaning of the Scriptures. In one possible scenario, while the majority of the House of Justice accept His claim, some will not and either be evicted or resign. Because of the importance of the House of Justice in human affairs at that time, this will bring about an unprecedented break down in human society which will only be resolved by the general acceptance of the new Manifestation. Don C -- He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not. ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
