Susan Maneck wrote: > > > 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. > > Dear Don, > > That's why I proposed Fowlers's Stages of Faith as an alternative paradigm. > In that paradigm *both* liberals and fundamentalist would be at Stage 3 with > fundamentalist more at the beginning of the stage and liberals at the end. > But what I notice is that both groups tend to get stuck there and unable to > move on. >
What I'm saying is that fundamentalism is a form of absolutism and that liberals are just as likely to be absolutists as they are relativists. I paint the abortion clinic bombers and the environmentalists who "spike" trees in order to destroy loggers saws with the same brush. What you seem to be implying is that if fundamentalists would 'grow up', they would become liberals. I think there is a fair amount of research that bears on this issue. As people grow up, mature in their experience and thinking, they tend to become more conservative and relativistic. As Christian fundamentalism has matured over the last 125 years or so it has become more relativistic, but has remained as conservative a ever. My major point is that trying to put fundamentalism and liberalism on the same plane or axis obscures more points than it explains. As to Fowlers Stages of Faith, I'm not real well read on them, but my inclination is to regard them like I do Maslow's hierarchy or the Sever Valleys; they are not as discrete as often described. 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)
