Who wants to be (able to identify) a fundamentalist?

While I could probably keep making new posts listing the various myths about fundamentalists, it would probably be easier just to get them all out of the way.  So I've decided to fast forward this a bit:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK] [CA-CHUNK}
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲
Sorry about that, I'm currently experiencing some technical difficulties.  Let me try that again:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK] [WHIRR]
Ah, that's better.  I should be able to turn it off just about here:
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲ [CLICK]
│◄◄ ■ ► ►►│ ▼ (Vol) ▲
Welcome, one and all, to today's edition of "Who Wants To Be (Able To Identify) A Fundamentalist?", the game show with potentially millions of participants playing from the comfort of wherever they are at the moment (assuming that they're comfortable wherever they are at the moment).  Skipping to the final round, the question will be: Which of the following is defining characteristic of fundamentalists:
A) holier-than-thou
B) politically and socially conservative
C) anti-intellectual
D) seek to protect the essential, or "fundamental", doctrines of the Christian faith such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, His deity, His substitutionary atonement and second coming, and the authority of the Bible (usually expressed in such terms as "infallibility" or "inerrancy").?
And now to lock... um, contestant #2593 (you don't really believe with this many potential contestants, I'm really going to be able to remember all of their names, do you?), you have a question?  No, sorry, there are no lifelines here, you must be mistaking this for some other game show.  But to make it easier for anyone who really needs it, here's a short list of other "ists" and "-isms" that have appeared in Christian history that maybe perhaps might display some sort of trend that a discerning mind could very well use to identify fundamentalists:

• Anglicanism- "the faith and doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church"
• Catholicism- "the beliefs and practices of a Catholic Church"
• Methodist- "a member of any branch of a Protestant Christian denomination that developed from the evangelistic teachings and work of John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, and others in the early 18th cent.: so called from the methodical study and worship practiced by the founders in their 'Holy Club' at Oxford University "
• Protestantism- "The quality or state of being protestant, especially against the Roman Catholic Church; the principles or religion of the Protestants", "Protestants are so called after the declaration (protestatio) of Martin Luther and his supporters dissenting from the decision of the Diet of Spires (1529)...."

The above list should also explain why the typical dictionary definitions discussed a few posts ago are so patently ridiculous.  One would think that any group of people whose common belief was to read every word of the Bible literally would have chosen to designate themselves by something that included the word "literal" (such as, I don't know, literalists, maybe?[/sarcasm])

Unreliable definitions of fundamentalism

I know it's only my third post, but I'm already handing out a pop quiz.  Don't worry, it should be fairly easy.  Simply try to find the common theme in the following definitions for "fundamentalism":

Vocabulary.com:  "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth"  (although Vocabulary.com is far from being alone in offering this faulty definition)

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: "A system of beliefs based on the interpretation of every word in the Bible, both old and new testaments, as literal truth"

Hutchinson's Dictionary of Difficult Words: "belief in the literal truth of all Biblical statements, miracles, etc."

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.: "religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals"

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching".

Ok, put down your pencils, time's up.  If you answered something like "fundamentalism = literalism", you get a gold star (only a figurative one, sorry), with bonus points if you also recognized how easy it would be to show that only the fourth (depending on how broadly one interpreted "based on") and fifth examples are the only two that come anywhere close to being correct.  How easy?  Well, that brings me to my second pop quiz: read Genesis 2:24 and then calculate your chances of finding even a single fundamentalist that believes that a man and his wife literally become one flesh.

I suppose one could attempt a defense of their definition by pointing out that many fundamentalists identify themselves as literalists.   Even that is somewhat misleading, though, since many (if not most) fundamentalists don't use the word, well, literally.  For example, Article XV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states that "WE AFFIRM  the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text",   Thus, not all "fundamentalists" would call themselves "literalist", and even fewer who would call themselves "strict literalists", i.e., those who interpret every word of the bible as literal truth.

Maybe it would be better to let fundamentalists define themselves?