Point 1 (False premise): This assumes all “fundamentalists” are identical across religions. A fundamentalist Quaker emphasising peace and a fundamentalist emphasising different values represent completely different approaches. The term itself just means “takes core texts seriously.”
Point 2 (Composition fallacy): Arguing that some strict adherents prove the religion is flawed is like saying democracy is wrong because some democratic movements produced bad outcomes. You can’t judge an entire system by its worst examples whilst ignoring positive ones.
Point 3 (Cherry-picking evidence): This ignores fundamentalists who dedicate their lives to charity, education, and social justice. Focusing only on negative examples whilst dismissing millions of peaceful adherents creates a distorted picture of religious practice across traditions.
This meme appeals to existing biases rather than encouraging actual analysis. Honest critique would examine specific texts, interpretations, and outcomes rather than making sweeping generalisations about billions of people across dozens of faith traditions.