Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00373)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "redrosarian" <redrosarian@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., Kenneth Johnson <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> > Having pondered over this question a good deal, I think it has to
> > do with the nature of fundamentalist rage.
> 
> Nyah. 

I know you're disagreeing with something, but it is really my answer 
to Steve's question, which is why Theosophical outrage about books on 
HPB has tended to fall disproportionately onto a single author?

One can be fanatical in his or her fundamentalism or 
> liberalism. 

Absolutely. But that is more a factor with political liberalism than 
religious. Have you ever met a religiously fanatical UU person, for 
example? I haven't, although plenty are political fanatics.

I have met fanatical liberals and fanatical 
> fundamentalists of all kinds. 

So you've met fanatically liberal Theosophists, who ferociously 
denounce anyone who doesn't look at HPB the same way they do? In 25 
years of observation I've met lots of very nice laid back live-and-
let-live Theosophists and a handful of fanatical Theosophists. A 
great majority of the former were theologically liberal and every one 
of the latter was a fundamentalist. But that's just one person's 
sample; if you have a different experience to recount, I'd be 
fascinated to learn about it. 

I think it has more to do with mental 
> crystallizations that one has which can occur in a fundamentalist 
or liberal thinker

It? This business of being infuriated by books because they take a 
different view than one's own of a spiritual leader appears to be a 
specialty of fundamentalists. 

> but it can never occur in an independent thinker who 
> has achieved mental freedom in his thought patterns and is detached 
> from what others think of him or her. 

And thus is unconcerned with conforming to collective thought 
patterns? But since fundamentalism insists on there being one right 
interpretation that must be recognized and enforced, no 
fundamentalist can attain such mental freedom. "We true believers" 
must always reach the same conclusions.

This is what makes a true 
> Theosophist, regardless of his predilection toward fundamentalism 
or liberalism.
> 
> Thinking outside the box,
> MNS
Appreciating your commentary, I still think it's a bit off the mark. 
Political liberalism can be groupthink or coercive in certain 
contexts. But in religious context the liberals are always 
*struggling for the right to their own individual opinions and 
interpretations* and fundamentalists are always *struggling to 
invalidate the opinions and interpretations of everyone who doesn't 
share their dogmas.* A huge difference, and the latter kind of 
fanaticism is a far more dangerous thing.

To bring it down to cases: yes, you could use the word "fanaticism" 
to describe either a Taliban fundamentalist or a liberal Unitarian 
activist. But what is the relative danger each poses to other 
people's rights and freedoms?

Cheers,

PJ