Presence

It's possible one might say the same for Torah U'Madda philosophy - at times extreme and fanatical. All doctrine is hard and inflexible.

I'm not quite sure what is "fundamentalist" about te NK, because other than anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism they have no fundamentals.

Fundamental in their belief in the truth of the metaphysical effects of physical phenomenon.

"Until haredim begin to act more reasonably and tone down the fundamentalism, the association will continue..."

And the whole story of Chanukah would never have happened, and the family of Ultra Orthodox Right wing Fanatical Chashmonaim would never have raised the banner against the rising tide of gymnasiums and paganism, and the Beis Hamikdash would have been completely ruined, and we'd never be getting any presents at all during December. And oh yeah- they probably never would've existed at all because Pinchas would have had to discuss the issue with Zimri over a cup of tea, and never would have enjoyed the status of Kahuna, and oh yeah, Moshe Rabbeinu would have entered into negotiations with those involved with Cheit Haegel, because it really was their parents' fault, and there's no reason to go around killing people just because their hashkafic beliefs were slightly off...

It's not the dedication to fundamentalism that is the problem, Greg. Having your roots firmly planted in your roots has been quite a positive development throughout the ages.
The issue at hand that needs to be focused on is when "Charedi" individuals claim to be defending their fundamental positions, when really they are defending their own taiva, kavod, or mishugas.
I wish you could have had the experiences that I did, having met, spoken to, and learned by Gedolei Yisroel.
There would be no parallels drawn between the NK and the Ultra Orthodox sector if the picture of the UO was one of Rav Elyashiv, Rav Sheinberg, Rav Shlomo Zalman Zt"L, Rav Shach Zt"L, Rav Moshe Aaron Stern Zt"L, etc...
They were/are all quite fundamentalist in their approaches, but nonetheless exude/d the utmost in respect for all creatures, the utmost dignity in their personal lives, and their utmost glory in their relationship with our Creator.
Fundamentalism isn't the problem. The problem lies with those who hide behind Fundamentalism, or any other dogma for that matter, when really, in fact, 'their bellies are their gods' [to paraphrase Rav Dessler (who is another good example)].

The case of Hannukah is relevant here. Note the halacha that if an individual comes to us and states he is from Hasmonean family, we consider him to be a slave; despite their valiant efforts, we are left with no fruits from their labors. All they did was delay the inevitable, and by doing so perhaps created a situation that was even worse than previously. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from that. The Aigel and Pinchas are different issues. I'm not saying we need to act civil vs. acting out in a demonstrative fashion.

Those whose bellies are their gods are indeed an issue, no question. Probably that's a root cause of much of what I'm decrying. But when decisions, positions, etc. are made simply by following some fundamental doctrine (or interpretation of said doctrine based on some percentage of source material), rather than actually thinking about and considering what might be the best course of action to take. Results of the former approach more often than not end as the Hasmoneans did; without having any real effect on history.

I wish I could have met and learned from the Gedolim that you have been privileged to have met and/or learn from, I'm certain I would be better for it. I also wish you could have learned from the Gedolim that I met and/or learned from as well.

My Gedolim are bigger than your Gedolim
;)

--
I think that statement might be the source of much of Klal Yisroel's difficulty in this issue.

It's amazing how almost everyone is the same - if they see someone who they feel is less "religious" than they are, they consider them apikorsim.
Those who they view as being more religious are "fanatics".

And then, there are those of us who aren't terribly religious at all.

---
And then I'm reminded of a friend of mine who spent his first Shabbos in Eretz Yisroel at this kollel family. The fellow explained to my buddy all about loshon nekia, and how they same ketanim and gedolim instead of #1 and #2, etc...
Any way, his 7 year old kid comes bounding, tigger -like, up to my friend with a deck of cards and says with a big smile "you wanna see my gedolim pictures?"
As for the Chashmonaim - it was only the later ones that became corrupt. The first ones were considered tzaddikim who followed the Chachamim. While they "delayed the inevitable" regarding the fall of the Beis Hamikdash, they certainly did infuse Klal Yisroel with the "seeds" needed to have the strength to stand up to Yavan in the ruchni sense.

I'm going to take minor issue with Mike, not because he's not a swell guy, but because he's confusing ends and means.

The evidence that stridence was appropriate during the Chanukah story was that it succeeded. Same for the kazbi-kebab. Because there was a goal, and violence (not the right word, but neither is fundamentalism) was an effective means of attaining it.

All that neturei karta has succeeded in doing is giving the current generation of Amaleikim some political cover. There is no end to which their means lead - and THAT, not the Borat-esque inappropriateness, is why it's wrong.

So ends justify the means only when they succeed? That sounds like a quick way to lose your soul.

NK certainly has an end is mind, and they are using means to get there. Agreed that the worst part of what they are doing is giving Ahmadinejad the ability to say, "Look, I don't hate all Jews...," but if they and NK succeed, does that mean it was right?

I suppose it depends on the end, and it depends on the means. Assuming that this costs one his or her soul is just substituting a different goal (namely the preservation of the neo-modern pacifist soul) regardless of the cost. Essentially you are asserting that this particular end justifies whatever theologico-suicidal ramifications (the means, if you will) ensue.

So, yes, I guess I'm saying the ends justify the means. But so are you.

I skipped the most important part of your question - obviously evil means undertaken for an evil end are not acceptable. But if evil means are the 'best' way of attaining a necessary and good end, then, again, yes.