True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders » True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders

True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders

Page: 1 2

True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/29/09 - 03:09 AM: Subject: True/False? The staunchest fundamentalists are a group's leaders	#1
True or False? Why or why not? An organization's staunchest fundamentalists are typically it's authority figures enforcing 'right doctrine'. These will usually defend the fundamentals of their organization's 'right doctrine' no matter what casualties it may inflict upon outsiders. Conversely, those who are not strictly aligned with the fundamentals of an organization's 'right doctrine' merely reside on the organization's peripheral outskirts. If you're an organizational authority figure, then you're probably a fundamentalist strictly enforcing 'right doctrine'. If you're not an organizational authority figure, then you're probably not a fundamentalist enforcing 'right doctrine'. True or False? Why or why not?
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

zjerome
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2009
Location: New Hampshire (US)

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/05/09 - 06:59 AM:	#2
I would say true and false. Sometimes the leaders are more extreme than the followers. But, I feel like the followers of an organization often become more extreme in their views than the leaders do. Just look at Democrat and Republican conventions. And sometimes I think the leaders put on an extreme front but really don't care that much about the issue, they just take up this side or that side of the issue because there is already a big following on that side of the issue. Edited by zjerome on 07/05/09 - 07:04 AM

coriolis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:42 AM:	#3
True for some organizations and false for others. I don't think that a general rule applies here. Each group has its own dynamics and personalities, and it can change over time. As I think about this, I think that there's a strong tendency for the strictest fundamentalists to be those who aspire to become promoted within the organization, not necessarily those who have made it to the top. Is your question really about churches?
I have a love affair with Socrates but I only know him in a Platonic way.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:52 AM:	#4
I agree with the other posters. I also think that you can't equate "fundamentalist" with "radical," although I'm not sure you were. If one is a leader of an organization of any sort, there will be some "fundamental" belief that caused the group to form. It could be as innocuous as promoting the game of chess if one were the president of a chess organization. Once one accepts the role as leader, to some extent he becomes duty bound to promote the fundamentals of the organization. Again, I don't think this requires any irrational fervor, just an acceptance of the responsibilities of the position. I would think that if you can't promote the fundamentals of the organization due to time, ideological differences, or whatever, you should probably decline a leadership role. I do think you make a good point, though, that those who happen to be passionate about the fundamentals of the organization are more likely to rise to the top just by sheer will. On the other hand, though, I can say that I have headed up committees simply because I was the only one who wasn't there to refuse to do it.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 07/08/09 - 12:57 PM:	#5
I'm reminded of something that occurred in the Southern Baptist church in US. It seems many of their followers abandoned the church during the 90s because they were tired of all the "hellfire-and-brimstone". The church adjusted its practices accordingly and won back many parishoners. Therefore I think it is pretty safe to say that even the most fundamentalist of organizations must accomodate the needs of the majority to a certain extent if it is to survive in the long run. There might be a few particularly robust organizations that are somewhat exceptions to this rule, just as in nature there are a few species that have not evolved significantly for hundreds of millions of years.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 240

Posted 07/08/09 - 03:10 PM:	#6
wuliheron wrote: I'm reminded of something that occurred in the Southern Baptist church in US. It seems many of their followers abandoned the church during the 90s because they were tired of all the "hellfire-and-brimstone". The church adjusted its practices accordingly and won back many parishoners. Therefore I think it is pretty safe to say that even the most fundamentalist of organizations must accomodate the needs of the majority to a certain extent if it is to survive in the long run. There might be a few particularly robust organizations that are somewhat exceptions to this rule, just as in nature there are a few species that have not evolved significantly for hundreds of millions of years. History seems to suggest rather a contrary perspective. Your example of a group surviving "in the long run" is a rather odd one given that the Baptist Church in the United States is, relative to many other Christian denominations, rather a young religious institution. Institutions that attempt to accomodate changing times end up collapsing and being replaced by still more flexible institutions, while institutions that instead enforce relatively unchanging principles endure. Islam, Judaism and Orthodox Christianity have survived for thousands of years without making much in the way of essential changes to the dogmas by which they are defined. By contrast, look at various forms of government: monarchies were always changing to attempt to accomodate changing times and shifting demographies within the areas they ruled and yet, in spite of this, most monarchies were replaced by a still more plastic form of government: that by elected officials and popular referendum. Indeed, Eric Hoffer observes that revolutions tend to overthrow governments precisely when the governments in question are conducting the most radical reforms ("if you give a mouse a cookie", and all that).

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 07/08/09 - 06:00 PM:	#7
False. I guess you are getting into an exercise in psychology, not really philosophy. A leader tends to create an optimistic image of his beliefs for the benefit of others. The followers tend to build up this image, internally, and reinforce it on the behalf of the leader. Look at an ancient cult, the leader will be built up to being pure, perfect, infallible. But looking at modern-day, failed cults, the leader falls, is found to be more human than what their congregation came to believe. Many leave, but others justify their beliefs despite their leader's actions. Look at the number of fundamentalist leaders who get caught with prostitutes, drugs, or stealing or misusing money. It is all part of the "alpha male" psychology. People will dispense with reason or skepticism to share the benefit of having an idealized central leader.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.