
I have noticed that newspapers don't even know what a fundamentalist is;
at the least, they confuse new evangelicals and fundamentalists.  In this
news group, the liberals don't even know what a fundamentalist is (crying
out "legalist" at anyone who believes and obeys God's Word). A fundamentalist
would train their children in the way God proscribes, not in the way that
man proscribes.  This would not include life threatening beatings but would
include corporal punishment. 

To the liberals, I cry out infidel at anyone who does not believe God's Word.

Signature follows:
"Your statutes are wonderful: therefore I obey them."  Psalm 119:129
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson
Any opinions expressed are my own!

[As most people here know, I believe fundamentalist is sufficiently
ill-defined that I advise using some more specific term.  I think many
people use it to cover people who believe in inerrancy and a number of
related concepts (e.g. denial of evolution).  While the original
fundamentals movement was somewhat more specific, I would think most
people who accept inerrancy would actually support the whole original
agenda.  (It included a list of key traditional doctrines, e.g.  the
virgin birth.)  The term is now being used by the press to describe
aggressive conservative religions in general, most typically those who
are attempting to legislate religion.

Legalism is yet another ill-defined term.  However there is some
reason for its use in this context.  In fact the common theological
definition is the believe that salvation is through the Law.  I hope
no one here believes that our conservative contributors hold this
view.  However there is a basic difference in approach over what we
expect to get out of the Bible.  The conservative approach expects to
find specific behavioral rules.  Generally the posters advocating this
approach talk about the relevant passages from Paul's letter as God's
Law.  The liberal approach expects to find general principles, but it
regards specific behavioral rules subject to change depending upon the
culture and other things.  It's easy to see why a liberal would regard
the conservative approach as legalism.  It's hard to know quite what
other term to use.  The issue in this case is not inerrancy, because
no one is saying that Paul made a factual error.  Rather, the question
is whether his statements are to be taken as Law.  Calling the
positive answer legalism seems obvious enough terminology.  I haven't
seen any good alternative.