Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 02:32 PM - Edit history (2)
The term "Fundamentalist" by my understanding presumes that religion is the principal motivating factor in their lives.
Along with the misplaced belief that what's written in scripture is "Irrefutable and without errors", written by the hand of god like the purported tablets from Mount Sinai. So what's contained in that scripture cannot be compromised or questioned, and must be enforced by adherents.
Compromise?
Hence those not worshiping at the "Fundamentalist Altar" as defined by the term Political Manipulators are not driven by the same goals in terms of priorities, they've simply replaced religion with personal ambition as the foremost guiding principal.
Doesn't mean they're not religious, but their priorities have changed to accommodate other ambitions while operating under the same banner of church "Doctrine" and approval. Those manipulative opportunists are often quite destructive, as defined by the history of organized religion (Crusades, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, purges, etc.)
When applied to Colonialism, those constitute the combined elements of Empire by definition, Militant Religion driven by Political/Economic influence.
Which is not to say that Militant Fundamentalists can't be quite destructive in their own right, in pursuit of entirely religious goals.
Leadership?
Likewise, by appearance, many church "Leaders" may be simply following the pretense of Militant Fundamentalism for pursuit of other ideals. Which doesn't disqualify ownership of that belief system, it just makes them sanctimonious hypocrites, not adhering to the same set of values as "Hard Core" followers but providing rules of behavior for them.
Rules that include "Intolerance" of outsiders and other religions in support of their own church continuity, for instance.
Summation
While I don't disqualify the possibility that some of these "manipulators" may have no belief in god whatsoever, you're correct in stating I'm not in any position to identify them as such.
Thanks again.