In what way? . . . . .
Same research for purity, same will to read and apply the text in a literal way, same denial of the use of a literary and historical readings, same fanaticism etc.
> Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also biblical inerrancy
> Islamic fundamentalists are of the view that Muslim-majority countries should return to the fundamentals of an Islamic state that truly shows the essence of the system of Islam, in terms of its socio-politico-economic system. Islamic fundamentalists favor “a literal and originalist interpretation” of the primary sources of Islam (the Quran, Hadith, and Sunnah),seek to eliminate (what they perceive to be) “corrupting” non-Islamic influences from every part of their lives
And so on !
Integrism is an antiquated form of Catholic chauvinism, an echo of Constantine. I’ve never seen fundamentalism applied to Catholicism.
Pope Francis did it : "there’s a traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism; this is not good. Fidelity on the other hand implies growth. In transmitting the deposit of faith from one epoch to another, tradition grows and consolidates itself with the passing of time, as St Vincent of Lérins said […] 'The dogma of the Christian religion too must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidates itself with the years, developing itself with time, deepening itself with age’.”
[Traditionalist Catholicism - Wikipedia]
“Some scholars describe certain Catholics as fundamentalists. Such Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of doctrines and Vatican declarations, particularly those which are pronounced by the Pope, and they also believe that individuals who do not agree with the magisterium are condemned by God. This is considered a pejorative designation. The Society of St. Pius X, a product of Marcel Lefebvre, is cited as a stronghold of Catholic fundamentalism.”
You will find references :
[Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia]
[Catholic Fundamentalism – Catholic Outlook]
Type " catholic fundamentalism" in your search engine, you will find dozens of references.
By that, do you mean a “republic”?
Do you refer to the ; " But, when people coexist in same society, they need a common frame of laws and references."
To illustrate that let’s use Lebanon as example : there is very little common rules for civil laws. One is born in a religion and is
He is subject to the rules and courts as provided by his religious community.
For instance, one the results was that if one wanted to marry some one belonging to another group, it was impossible without converting. Young Lebanese people went to marry on Cyprus or other tricks.
And what about criminal justice? If someone steals, it is tackled by the religious rules of the community in which the theft happened?
I asked about “By that, do you mean a “republic”?” because recently I am reflecting about republicanism. I didn’t know if we could equal “common law” with “republic”.
The Lebanese legal system is copied on the French one.
Religious codes and courts only judge the cases relative to personal status, and familial status.
Interesting question.
I will answer negatively.
Incidentally, in the Anglo-saxon judicial system, common law is a very specific term, when i used it at first degree. common law is the the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.
What you call “personal status” is “marriage, divorce, child custody and alimony”?
If I understood correctly, crimes and offences are judged by the “repressive tribunals”, and not by the “religious tribunals”.
So normally, people, apart from matters concerning "“marriage, divorce, child custody and alimony”, are subjected to rules enhacted by common judiciary tribunals.
But I feel there is some confusion in your posts, as exemplied below:
This passage sounds as if each matter (including offences and crimes) were tackled by religious rules, but this is not the case.
@morgankane01 Would you agree to say that GB, as basically other European constitutional monarchies, are monarchies just by name, while in practice they are republic ?
No to say that the monarchs and the Church have no influence whatsoever in these countries politics, but not so much as to justify they are called “monarchies” rather than “republics”.
OK i clarify
As far as I understand, in Lebanon, only cases related to marriage, divorce, child custody and alimony and related questions, as filiation or inheritance, are judged by religious courts .
A monarchy being a system of government implying a king or a queen, they are monarchies and not republics?
But they are democracies.
So but do people in Lebanon are now “asking for a common civil law.”?
But the monarchs do not have actual power in these countries… It is just a role of representation.
At least in terms of proportion of which entities (the government or the monarch) actually has power, on the rule of thumb, I would say 95% the (modern) government, 5% the King. So what justifies we call these states “monarchies” over “republic”?
About Lebanon, the judicial system is not the only and main example of how religion influence politics in this society.
Even the executive and the legislative powers are under religious groups.
Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy that includes confessionalism,[191] in which high-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Eastern Orthodox.[192][193] This system is intended to deter sectarian conflict and to represent fairly the demographic distribution of the 18 recognized religious groups in government.[194][195]
→ From Wikipedia’s Lebanon Government and politics
The Lebanese Parliament (Arabic: مجلس النواب, romanized: Majlis an-Nuwwab)[12] is the national parliament of the Republic of Lebanon. There are 128 members elected to a four-year term in multi-member constituencies, apportioned among Lebanon’s diverse Christian and Muslim denominations but with half of the seats reserved for Christians and half reserved to Muslims per Constitutional Article 24[13][circular reference]
→ From Wikipedia’s Parliament of Lebanon
But Lebanon is still called a Republic.
The fact that there is a king.
It is the basic definition of monarchy.
You mix at least 2 concepts, monarchy/republic and democracy.
a monarchy may be a democracy and a republic may be a dictatorship.
You have 2 axes.
But in these contemporary constitutional monarchies (e.g. UK) the monarchs don’t rule anything!
And in many republics, the President is mostly a figurehead with a moral magister.
Among Western democracies, France and USA are conditional exceptions.
1 Like
You mean Germany for instance?
But this doesn’t influence that they are republics any way, a president or not, there is no monarch but a parliament, so…
We live in a world in which almost all states purport to be republican; even those few states such as Britain or Sweden that remain monarchies are more republican in fact than some others that claim to be in theory.
Wood, G. S. (1990). Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 66, 13.