The Problem with a Fundamentalist World View
by Monte Sahlin
I know this problem well and I will confess right at the beginning that I own it. I was raised by parents who loved me deeply, gave me every advantage and were steeped in a Christian Fundamentalist world view. The Adventist movement has never been entirely Fundamentalist—it is probably more correctly understood as primarily in the Anabaptist frame—but there have always been some Fundamentalists among Adventists.
In a way my heart goes out to the Muslim Fundamentalists in Egypt today. They played by the rules of democracy in many ways. They elected one of their own as president of the country, and a year into his term the rest of the country rose up against him. The military who deposed him announced that they would respect the rights of public protest, and then the authorities fired on those protesting the ouster of the duly elected president.
What the Muslim Brotherhood fails to understand is that democracy is more than winning a free election. Democracy cannot survive in today’s world simply on the basis of winners and losers. Winning an important election, being democratically elected to authority, does not give a mandate to impose anything on those who believe differently.
Once upon a time a more authoritarian approach to society was possible because the cultures of the world were largely cut off from each other. Each nation was a unitary culture and every child grew up being taught a particular world view and way of life. Although some Muslim nations want to continue that Medieval pattern, it is really no longer possible. People travel, immigrate and connect through high-speed media in a way that makes every nation (sooner or later) a pluralistic society where attempts at an overly structured way of life will result in the worst kind of warfare; tooth and nail civil wars fought in communities on top of families and children.
In the Midwest suburb where I live, the school board is embattled because it is attempting to introduce courses that teach American history from a certain ideological viewpoint, include creation alongside evolution in the curriculum and get rid of the teachers union that it perceives as too liberal. This is a conservative town, but the predictable reaction has now bubbled over, causing people who never used to be politically active to go to meetings and circulate petitions and hire lawyers. In today’s paper the school board announced that it was cancelling the contract with the organization that was hired to teach the courses on the constitution. Another story says that the state labor regulatory body is investigating the board’s approach to the teacher’s union because the board broke the law on those matters.
I am not addressing the topic of whether the libertarian values and Evangelical theology of the these neighbors of mine is right or wrong. (Commenters, if you get off on that line of argument, you are off the reservation!) I suspect there is more among their beliefs that I would agree with than disagree with.
My observation is that there are civic limits to using democracy to enforce a particular pattern of faith and values. Somehow the Fundamentalist world view does not understand that you can only push your neighbor so far. You can vote a constitutional amendment outlawing the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, but that will not make your neighbors become teetotalers. It only creates an unanticipated outcome; the invention of modern organized crime to serve the illegal market created for alcohol.
The true believers in the pro-life movement—who I largely agree with on moral grounds, despite their widespread hypocrisy on capital punishment and feeding babies once they are born—believe that if Roe v Wade is rescinded or restrictive laws such as recently voted in Texas are adopted that it will impose moral order on a society where traditional ideas about sexuality have been discarded by most Americans. They simply don’t get the fact that it will change nothing about the sexual behavior of most people and it will create unanticipated outcomes, possibly more terrible than the present situation.
Fundamentalists believe that they can control society’s sinfulness. Jesus knows otherwise. He says, Peter put away your sword. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Go the second mile.
The genuinely Christian response to the evil in the world is a commitment to live a life of compassion. We can work for justice, but we cannot impose righteousness. Attempts to impose righteousness inevitably become unjust, dictatorial and a cure worse than the sickness. This is, at least in part, why the Muslim Brotherhood has failed in Egypt.
Unfortunately, Fundamentalists never seem to be able to learn the lesson or even see the problem. They are somehow blind to the way their efforts are counterproductive and that they become the very evil monsters they set out to get rid of. A great many heartsick members of the Muslim Brotherhood are in deep despair and others are boiling angry. I can understand their feelings, but it is a dangerous instinct. Even if you are an American and not angry, it is still a dangerous instinct.
What Christ asks us to do is live our faith, share our hope, find creative ways to witness in the pluralistic context without seeking to impose anything on others; to live in peace with all people. When Fundamentalists seek to use political processes to impose their ideas of right on others, they leave the path of Jesus no matter how righteous they think they are.
Any form of force, coercion, or imposed beliefs is not of God. Force is one of the devil's tools – the opposite of the total respect for free choice Jesus demonstrated and taught. Whether the Muslim Brotherhood, right-wing Christianity, or fundamentalist Adventism, attempting to use the devil's tools to advance God's cause is doomed to failure and the cause of great division and strife.
Dare I make the inference, Monte, that you are calling for those within the Seventh-day Adventist religion to be mindful that majority vote does not bring with it an expectation to unify by imposition beliefs common to the majority?
Is there a parallel between Egyptians not being defined by majority vote with regard to personal beliefs and Seventh-day Adventists not bieng defined by majority vote with regard to personal beliefs?
Are not both Egyptians and Seventh-day Adventists a people defined by common historial experiences with other Egyptians and other Seventh-day Adventists? Put another way, while it is possible to take an Egyptian out of Egypt, but it is not possible to take Egypt out of an Egyptian. The same is true of Seventh-day Adventism, is it not?
Wow Monte! You really packed several volumes worth of political philosophy into a few paragraphs. My head is spinning. No doubt I'll have much to say.
Bill, I don't sense that Monte is talking at all about the religious covenants that bind us together in voluntary communities of faith. Communities of faith generally exist for the express purpose of modeling and teaching Kingdom values. What righteousness means may differ within a faith community, across generations, ideological, and political boundaries. But righteousness, it seems to me, is very much the business of religion. How a faith community or denomination enforces and maintains its standards and values belongs to a different discussion. It seems to me that Monte is arguing against the idea of injecting righteousness concerns into the political realm where "righteousness" looks coercive and divisive.
Let's stick with the topic, and not allow our passions for Church politics take us off on a tangent so quickly.
The parallels are well noted, Monte. When hierarchy dogmatically imposes unpopular rule, changes the terms, and has little or no tolerance for opposing interpretations, there will be persecution. i couldn't believe the Egyptian masses would vote in the Brotherhood. Can a leopard change it's spots? no.
'The Adventist movement has never been entirely Fundamentalist—it is probably more correctly understood as primarily in the Anabaptist frame—but there have always been some Fundamentalists among Adventists.'
What's a fundamentalist? After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure what one is exactly! What is the difference between fundamenalist and non-fundamentalist Adventists?
Well Said Monte! Thank you for this.
It is also fascinating to witness the dynamic in which many fundamentalist Christians support/welcome secularist Arab entities but oppose American secularism. It resembles the paradoxical parental philosophy “do as I say, not as I do.”
I'm afraid your grasp of Egyptian politics is a bit tenuous, Stephen. The fact that Egyptians, the overwhelming majority of whom are faithful Muslims, are having buyer's remorse about having "elected" a gang of theocratic terrorists (the Freedom and Justice Party!), who were more interested in consolidating power and eliminating opposition than in improving economic conditions, hardly means that Egyptians are ready for a government run by secularists. It is concern over economic conditions and freedom that is driving the "secularist" parties in Egypt, not a desire to purge the political system of family values. Perhaps you would find the position of fundamentalist Christians vis a vis events in Egypt less paradoxical if you would reconsider your iron-clad conviction (I know it's a stretch) that religious conservatives in America do not really believe in liberty or support democratic institutions.
That you would clumsily turn the intense persecution that Egyptian Christians endured under the dictatorial reign of Morsi into an opportunity to try and score points against your political enemies in America is really sad. For you Stephen, all ideological paths seem to lead to the paranoid slander that American conservative Christians are out to destroy religious liberty and enact national Sunday laws. In your tireless, tiresome quest to eradicate the stain of religious piety from American political life, you exhibit the very fundamentalist mindset that Monte identifies in this blog.
Bravo!
One thing on which I make neither bets or predictions is the politics of the Middle East, with the exception of strife and turmoil being certainties. Neither do I claim to understand what is happening there. A few days ago I thought I was starting to understand. Then I read an article in Foreign Policy Magazine and was surprised to discover dimensions to the conflict about which I was unaware. The author was highlighting how there are multiple ultra-orthodox Muslim groups whose views and advocations make the Muslim Brotherhood look like good neighbors. But the military has thrown them out because of their managerial incompetence and the ultra-orthodox groups are now making plays to capture power. The irony is that some of those ultra-orthodox groups accuse the others of not being sufficiently orthodox. While they feud in their pursuit of power they appear to be united in their efforts to violently eradicate all Christianity from the country and their followers are behind many of the violent attacks on and murders of Christians. As a result we may be witnessing the extermination of Christianity from Egypt.
Awesome thoughts so well expressed.
Nathan,
Indeed, Monte is not talking about 'religious covenants that bind us together in voluntary communities of faith.' It is the involuntary nature of membership for people born into a religion or citizenship for people born into a nation that interests me.
Is it somehow less acceptable for leadership of a country to attempt to rid itself of multi-culturalism than it is for leaders of a Christian religion to expel members in an attempt to achieve the same goal? Is it too bold to take note that Jesus did not expel Judas?
This is not a call for religion to embrace pluralism as equivalencies, but a suggestion that there is more to God than a single religious culture can possibly reveal, whether voluntary or not. Indeed, just as in Egypt, fundamentalism always distorts rather than clarifies.
As Garrison Keillor so aptly noted in describing the history of the Sanctified Brethern in his classic, Lake Wobegon Days, "Once having tasted the pleasure of being Correct and defending True Doctrine, they kept right on and broke up at every opportunity, until, by the time I came along, there were dozens of tiny Brethern groups, none of which were speakign to any of the others." For more than a taste, several pages are reproduced here for your reading pleasure http://bit.ly/16XIvkm .
When your done smiling after being warmed by a new sense of self awarness, perhaps the voluntary nature of collective exclusion will be seen as fundamentally involuntary to those remaining. The voluntary side, if there is one, is in the accepting rather than the excluding, is it not?
Whew! Talk about tiresome and paranoid Nathan; how one can predictably turn two sentences, which are congruent with Monte’s blog’s theme, into the predictable liberal versus conservative theme is a study in determination and single-mindedness.
I didn’t happen to write this blog; but I certainly wish that I had. Do you deny “many fundamentalist Christians support/welcome secularist Arab entities but oppose American secularism”?
You are absolutely amazing, Stephen! You have no shame! How can you be so blind to the reality that it was you, not I, who introduced politics into this discussion by denigrating the support of religious conservatives for liberal reforms in Egypt as hypocrisy. The sad thing is that I don't even think you realize that is what you did. Had you recognized that reality, you would not have embarrassed yourself by accusing me of doing what you initiated.
I thought my point was pretty clear. Which Egyptian "secularist party would you say has a platform supporting gay marriage, abortion on demand, environmental worship, and banning of religion from the public square? Comparing secularists in America with secularists in Egypt makes about as much sense as comparing American conservatives with Egyptian conservatives.
Surely you know this, Stephen. Why do you make yourself such an easy target with foolish arguments? You're too smart for that. Even if Egyptian secularism/liberalism was very much like American secularism/liberalism, it should come as no surprise to any halfway intelligent person that conservative Christians would far prefer to see secularists who believe in democratic insitutions running Egypt than terrorists. Given the choice, would you prefer a communist dictatorship running a country over a pluralistic Christian republican form of government, simply because the communist dictator shares some of your leftist political views?
My initial comments made general reference to “secular Arab entities,” that many fundamentalist Christians favor over fundamentalist Arab entities across the board. Paradoxically, many of these same fundamentalist Christians criticize, decry, and oppose American secularism.
I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian Nathan. As it happens, I did not mention any political ideological persuasions in my comments.
There are various secular Arab entities in existence all across the region, of course. The fundamentalists in the region are Islamists.
At this point it is appropriate to quote what Monte said in his blog. “I am not addressing the topic of whether the libertarian values and Evangelical theology of these neighbors of mine is right or wrong… I suspect there is more among their beliefs that I would agree with than disagree with.
“My observation is that there are civic limits to using democracy to enforce a particular pattern of faith and values. Somehow the Fundamentalist world view does not understand that you can only push your neighbor so far….
“Fundamentalists believe that they can control society’s sinfulness.”
This goes for many Islamic fundamentalists as it does for many Christian fundamentalists Nathan. Your problem is actually with Monte’s blog. As I said I didn’t write it; but I certainly wish that I had.
I believe there is, or should be, a difference between fundamentalist and conservative. At the start of our movement, as I understand it, we were not fundamentalists, yet some time after the 30s (?) we ignorantly took that detour.
Someone better qualified than I can explain the difference.
I might add, or clarify, that I realize that Monte’s reference to “these neighbors of mine” were about his suburban Midwestern American Christian fundamentalist neighbors (needless to say).
Monte, your blog is a bit difficult to follow, though I think it makes many fine points. For example, the point that the Christian response to evil is compassion cannot be overemphasized. Conversely, I would say that the human response – not just the fundamentalist response – to evil is anger.
You don't define fundamentalism, but you seem to conflate it with conservativism, an understandable assumption in today's political environment. Just how you find an enlightening parallel between Muslim terrorists running Egypt and Christians in your home town, who want to break the monopoly that Darwinian/secularist presuppositions have on public education, baffles me. You implicitly disparage the political values of your neighbors, and then say "King's X, don't you dare refute my implicit judgment, because its off-topic." That, my friend, is known as drive-by opinionating. And your preemptive warning displays consciousness of guilt.
Nevertheless, the debate about the appropriate limits, if any, to advocacy of civic moral values in a free society is vitally important. Your implicit suggestion – perhaps I am reading you wrongly – that Christian citizens of earthly kingdoms should engage in self-censorship when it comes to the moral policies and legal framework of their societies is rather alarming to me. It also seems highly inconsistent with what I have perceived as a strong commitment to social justice on your part, which, nearly four years ago, on the passing of Ted Kennedy, inspired you to write a panegyric to the Kennedy legacy of trying to impose "righteousness" on America. I will explain below why I believe that vigorous advocacy of civic values by Christians is not only appropriate to our faith calling, but should be quite compatible with living at peace with our neighbors.
Nathan,
While a term like "conservatism" may be functionally accurate the political meanings attached to the term only confuse understanding of the spiritual application of "Fundamentalism." Spiritual fundamentalism has a historic meaning: staunch adherence to and defense of a doctrine or cluster of doctrines believed to be "fundamental" to faith and denominational identity. Some notable examples of this fundamentalism and its results include the Episcopal Church in America as contrasted with the parent Anglican Church (Church of England), or the different branches of the Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Churches of Christ that have formed following acrimony over different viewpoints on particular topics.
In the Adventist setting, I am understanding Monte's posting as illustrating how various groups within the church giving primacy to pet doctrines creates divisions, leads to misunderstandings about the Gospel and prevents us from fulfilling Christ's command to minister His redeeming love in a dying world. I fully agree with his point that the followers of Christ should not be using political means to impose their will on others. However, the political pendulum has swung so far away from the defense of religious freedom toward the legalized acceptance and forced approval of immorality that religious liberty is in danger of becoming extinct in America. Perhaps most tragic in this transition is how many Christians have allied themselves with the anti-religious by adopting the false belief that perservation of current law or proposal of any new law defending religious freedom is an imposition of specific religious practices on the anti-religious.
The past 20 centuries have accumulated a list of religious groups that have become "spiritual roadkill" on the Highway to Heaven as a result of fundamentalism. Typically this has happened when doctrinal differences caused some within their ranks became so focused on defending what they saw as "the fundamentals" of their faith that their attacks on others splintered the church and rendered it spiritually impotent, if not destroying it. That is what I see happening in the SDA Church. A current discussion string on this site starting with a piece by Andrew Hanson about the book of Daniel has prompted a very detailed discussion about prophetic minutia. Scanning the various comments leaves me wondering how many years or decades have passed since the people posting those remarks last helped create a new believer or experienced the power of God in their own life. But what scares me is how fundamentalism, whether it is those arguing over the details of Daniel or those who have swallowed a distorted view of religious liberty and is threatening to turn the SDA Church into the next spiritual roadkill on the Highway to Heaven.
Your points are well considered, William. I'm certainly not going to defend fundamentalism – particularly religious fundamentalism – as a political creed or methodology. But I think fundamentalism has more to do with the way we process and defend our values than it does with the substance of our values. And I vigorously resist the progressive penchant for defining as fundamentalists those who promote the preservation of traditional civic values and policies.
Monte can certainly speak for himself. If his point is to define as fundamentalists those who use the political process to preserve and promote societal infrastructures and rules that they believe are morally superior, then everyone is a fundamentalist. We will only cure the problem by decreeing an end to politics or, at a minimum, eliminating the First Amendment. If Monte's point is, as I suspect, to single out "fundamentalists" for exclusion from full participation in the political process, I first of all want to know how Monte defines a fundamentalist. Second, I want to know why fundamentalists, as opposed to non-fundamentalists, should be second class citizens, abjuring the political process as a means to honor those who have gone before; to be a present witness to what is good, lasting, true and beautiful; and to bequeath to the next generation an earthly kingdom that is at least no worse than the present.
Nathan,
I completely agree. It has been my observation that Adventists typically become fundamentalist as an attempt to hide failures in their faith experience. The people defending particular doctrinal views with the greatest energy and intolerance for divergence from their viewpoint are the ones most in need of experiencing God's love.
Nathan,
I'm wondering if you have hit a key point with this:
"If his point is to define as fundamentalists those who use the political process to preserve and promote societal infrastructures and rules that they believe are morally superior, then everyone is a fundamentalist. "
I'm looking forward to Monte clarifying a few points you and Stephen have tossed about, but in the mean time I note this from his blog:
"I am not addressing the topic of whether the libertarian values and Evangelical theology of the these neighbors of mine is right or wrong."
You say above, "...that they believe are morally superior, then everyone is a fundamentalist".
Well, no, not everyone is a fundametalist! Please excuse me from "everyone". I have no right to consider my values and rules as morally superior to anyone else's! And, might I add nor do you.
And, yes, I suspect every such person who does believe they have a right to consider their values and rules morally superior is, at heart a fundamentalist. Is not that the very problem Monte is talking about? People who have that deep seated, self righteous, arrogant attitude, and seek to use political dynamics to push their agenda are ultimately destructive?
I then note in the blog Monte made this point shortly after the piece I pasted above:
"My observation is that there are civic limits to using democracy to enforce a particular pattern of faith and values. [even if they believe them to be morally superior!!] Somehow the Fundamentalist world view does not understand that you can only push your neighbor so far." .
I think the way he sums up says it all:
The genuinely Christian response to the evil in the world is a commitment to live a life of compassion. We can work for justice, but we cannot impose righteousness."
So, Nathan, by your definition, everyone who believes their values and rules are morally superior and that they can and should use political processes to push them, is seeking to impose "righteousness" are they not? Is that the genuine Christian response?
Why should a Christian do so any more or less than a Muslim? True democracy will be pluralistic. True Christianity will be non-judgmental and never holding the moral superiority attitude.
Amen Chris.
I second that.
Not sure I follow you here, Chris. Though I think we are now getting to the heart of the issues raised by Monte's blog. First of all, I misspoke. I meant to say that if folks who believe their opinions are morally superior (right) are fundamentalists, then everyone is a fundamentalist. I am assuming that you believe your political beliefs are morally superior to opposing beliefs, at least in the sense that they will lead to the improvement of the society which holds to and implements those ideas, no? Please clarify.
I am assuming that "righteousness" is not being used by Monte in a theological sense, but in the more generic context of rightness or correctness. So yes, in that sense it does seem to me that anyone who exercises the rights of citizenship, to influence policy in a liberal democracy, is seeking to impose "righteousness." That seems perfectly reasonable to me. And therefore, I'm not understanding just who the "fundamentalists" are whose voices Monte seems to want to silence in the body politic.
I'm concerned that it is easy to use the word fundamentalist as pejorative reference to anyone who holds more conservative views or is more rigid about their beliefs than the person using the word. You see, unlike Monte, I don't know any fundamentalists who think they can control society's sinfulness, though I hear a lot of liberals talk that way. Most politically active religious fundamentalists whom I know are well aware that the only definitive answer to evil is a Redeemer. In the meantime, they seek, through the political process, to ameliorate the effects of evil in the earthly kingdom through just laws and processes that preserve and protect the moral influence and power of subsidiary institutions like family, church, and local organizations.
I completely agree with you that a Muslim has just as much right as a Christian to influence the civic debate. But embracing a pluralistic society is a far cry from non-judgmentalism, and it certainly does not mean that we do not hold some ideas to be morally superior to others.
I do not know what you mean, Chris, by "a genuine Christian response." Jesus was the Messiah. He did not give us a road map for being good citizens of earthly kingdoms when the kingdom is "we the people." He said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and He said to Pilate, "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." He did not condemn earthly kingdoms per se. But His Kingdom was not of this world. It was His entire mission on this earth to be our Redeemer and to show us how to live Kingdom lives in the earthly kingdom.
I think most of us live with a sense of dual citizenship. We are citizens of both earthly kingdoms and a Heavenly Kingdom. If we accept that, then isn't it quite reasonable for Christian citizens of earthly kingdoms to actively atempt to influence political policy? Is speaking out and voting on earthly justice issues consistent with "a genuine Christian response?" Well no, not if the only genuine Christian response is a Heavenly Kingdom response. But if the only genuine Christian response is a Heavenly Kingdom response, then I couldn't be a lawyer; I couldn't vote; I probably wouldn't get married and have kids; I couldn't support border security or any other police action to maintain order; I wouldn't own a home or other property; I wouldn't have a retirement account. Are you suggesting that Christians are constrained to behave only as radical clones of Christ, being quite indifferent to the laws and political processes by which Caesar's kingdom operates? I'm not sure Monte had that in mind. I think he only wants the political border fence to keep out a species of citizens that he calls "fundamentalists," and I'm still not clear as to what that means.
I am.using the standard definition of "Fundamentalist." A dictionary will refer first to a movement within American Protestants from the early 20th century and secondly to "strict adherence to any ideology." Fundamentalists (in any religion or ideology, including atheism) are those who allow zero tolerance for individual interpretation, personal growth in understanding or change over time. They want to require of everyone a very precise definition of how believers should think and behave.
I am not focusing here on the content of any particular Fundamentalism, in part, because I agree with the validty of much of Christian Fundamentalism. The problem that I (evidently not very clearly) tried to focus on is that when believers try to push their very precise idea of a particular faith onto everyone in a society or community (whether by democracy or dictatorship) there are limits to their ability to do this. They can only push other people so far and if they are not sensitive to when to back off—the limits of how far to push—then the situation blows up in their face. This has nothing to do with any objective or biblical analysis of the particular ideas being promoted, or whether I believe in them or not. If you don't like my examples from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Tea Party in my suburban town, let me suggest a different example you may like better: People in Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe at a certain point had been pushed too far by Communist Fundamentalists, so they began to push back.
Laws can draw lines and punish people for certain things that they do to hurt other people, but laws cannot force people to be righteous. The law can say "no," but it cannot make people say "yes." Getting people to agree to righteous behavior requires evangelism—personal dialog that leads to real conversion.
A social justice law (minimum wage, for example) can say, "If you exploit your employees by paying them less than X, you will be punished." Or a criminal law can say, "If you kill the neighbor who plays loud music at 3 a.m., you will go to prison." But, it cannot make a person believe in fairness nor respect the sacredness of life.
My observation (you can judge if it is accurate or not) is that Fundamentalists have a blind spot on this reality. They somehow believe that they can use the legal mechanism of government to force righteousness on the population and find an end run around the long, slow work of conversion. My hunch is that when a person is deeply convinced of a more precise, black-and-white definition of truth and right, less able to live with ambiguity, they also tend to think that this precise, strict definition can easily be communicated to and required of other people. They simply don't understanding the role of the "gray areas" in the minds of most people. They assume that because it is clear and compelling to them, it must be clear and compelling to others.
In fact, after 40-plus years of pastoral ministry, I have learned that most people live most of their lives in a fog on many key theological, ethical and political issues. They simply do not see what is so clear to others, especially Fundamentalists of all kinds. This applies to "strict construction" of the U.S. Constitution, "literal" readings of Scriptures, etc.
Have you seen the BBC drama, "Doc Martin"? He is a Fundamentalist when it comes to medicine and health. Probably a lot like Dr. J. H. Kellogg in many ways. Have you seen "Sheldon" on "Big Bang," the American TV comedy? He is a Fundamentalist in science. Both of them are very bright, sincere people who do not have a clue why the human beings around them think they are nuts.
The projects of the Fundamentalists or "true believers" run aground because of their lack of sensitivity to the limits of the people around them. I confess to being a true believer in many ways, and my friends who are real Liberals see me as a Fundamentalist or near-Fundamentalist …. and I have to keep reminding myself to be sensitive to the limits or I do nothing but fight with people and waste time and energy. Disagree all you wish, but that is simply my point.
Perhaps your point was clearly made the first time, and some who claimed to have been unclear about it simply disagreed. (That would be a fundamentalist interpretation anyway.)
Seriously, I don’t understand how your references to fundamentalists could not have been understood; or could actually have been misunderstood.
Perhaps your point was clearly made the first time, and some who claimed to have been unclear about it simply disagreed. (That would be a fundamentalist interpretation anyway.)
Seriously, I don’t understand how your references to fundamentalists could not have been understood; or could actually have been misunderstood.
Interesting, Monte, and helpful. So how should a Christian position himself vis a vis political policies about which he has strong beliefs and deeply held civic values? How can a person exhibit "sensitivity" to the convictions of others, and still argue vigorously for his point of view, so as to avoid the Scarlet "F" with which the enlightened classes seek to demonize those who take a dim view of political correctness, and have deeply held conservative political values?
I could make a very persuasive case, using your definition of fundamentalist, that for the past 50 years, liberal fundamentalists have been insensitively using elitist courts and intellectuals to push American culture, morality, and law past the limits of what a large percentage of the country finds acceptable. Why are those who have resisted such pushing demonized as the fundamentalists? Rather than allowing individual states and communities to decide issues for themselves, an ideologically driven federal moral dictatorship has supplanted individual freedom for local communities and states to decide questions like classroom curriculum, abortion, employment relationships, moral behavior, industry safety standards, health care – you name it. Pointing out that the Constitution grants no such powers to the Federal government apparently strikes you as fundamentalism, because…well…because you have apparently concluded that strict construction of a contract (the Constitution) is fundamentalistic. And I think it is fundamentalism to superimpose a secularist ideological morality on the Constitution, because a few men in black robes, aided and abetted by elitists with PhDs, are impatient about the pace of moral enlightment and progress among the bourgeoisie. So how does "The Problem With a Fundamentalist World View" move us to a higher level of understanding?
Isn't fundamentalism really in the eye of the beholder? Who is to say that my strongly held beliefs about marriage demonstrate insenstivity to homosexuals? And who is to say that homosexuals strongly held beliefs about their relationships demonstrate insensitivity toward those who believe in traditional marriage? And why should the moral limits of either result in a blow-up if these decisions are made democratically from state to state rather than being forced on the entire nation by authoritarian moral elitists? It is the attempt to vest dictatorial moral authority in powers that are immune from, or unresponsive to, democratic checks and balances which generally leads to destructive schism and political upheaval, not the strength of one's commitment to his most deeply held and cherished values..
I do agree with you Monte, that fundamentalists exhibit a desire to control the behavior of others through laws and regulations that they want to have enacted and enforced at the highest possible level of authority. I am therefore surprised that you would identify the Tea Party or Constitutional Originalists as in any way fundamentalist. Both believe in a very limited federal government. Both believe that the Constitution is a document that constrains the federal government from imposing its moral will on citizens of sovereign states. And neither is particularly concerned with a religiously based moral agenda. Perhaps you are confusing Tea Party conservatives like Rand Paul with big government religious conservatives like Rick Santorum. There is obviously crossover, but they are really quite different.
Your neighbors, who argue at a local level over whether their schools should expose their children to alternatives to scientistic materialism, may be fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. But aren't they really arguing for a more pluralistic curriculum? Who are the real fundamentalists there – those who want local control, or those who want federal and state police authorities dictating moral policy? If fundamentalists should not "seek to use political processes to impose their ideas of right on others" (your words), then why should folks like you and me (who thank God that we are not as those brutish fundamentalists) use political processes to impose our ideas of right in our communities, states and nation?
@ Monte Sahlin,
Yes, exactly.
I would just add the hymn thoughts, "this world is not my home…"
Yes, teresaq, in the late 1950's & 1960's i thought the USA was a paradise. i loved it. Making that statement, i understand that others, like black Americans would disagree, and i understand why they would disagree, as they were struggling for equality, for which i was sympathetic to since i was a small child, and recognized the racial hatred in society, through ignorance and ego, that will always be with us. The freedoms for many were obvious, as it seemed that America had the best Constitution in the world, and belatedly was starting to work, to provide opportunities that had been delayed by the 1930's depression, followed by WWII & Korean wars. There was a short period before the Asian wars, when peace and prosperity seemed to flower. But America has been poorly served by its Federal Govts, and Caesar has slowly but surely been withdrawing Liberty and pursuit of happiness for all. Does rendering unto Caesar include turning the other cheek, and docilely and apathetically giving up those qualities of FREEDOM, that we thought were guaranteed by our Constitution, when it is transgressed by the very Govt that was supposed to guarantee it? i think not. If the US Constitution, while even pathetically, slow to action, it was a work in motion, it was a fundamental happening, then i am a fundamentalist. If the saving grace of Jesus Christ is fundamental (it is), then i'm a fundamentalist. If religious unscriptural tradition is paramount for membership, i am a progressive.
i'm a stranger here. HEAVEN IS MY HOME.
“Your neighbors, who argue at a local level over whether their schools should expose their children to alternatives to scientistic materialism, may be fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. But aren't they really arguing for a more pluralistic curriculum?
“Their religious beliefs” is the point wherein fundamentalism becomes particularly problematic in the ever-shrinking 21st century pluralistic world.
Quoting Monte again, “the problem that I (evidently not very clearly) tried to focus on is that when believers try to push their very precise idea of a particular faith onto everyone in a society or community (whether by democracy or dictatorship) there are limits to their ability to do this.” Is an ideology a “faith”?
The answer to that, as regards fundamentalism, is ‘yes’ per the secondary dictionary definition; but that, of course, blunts Monte’s point.
In the interest of greater ‘understanding’ Monte graciously allowed this blunting of his point, but the blog as written and explained had unmistakable emphasis on religious beliefs. “…laws cannot force people to be righteous…Getting people to agree to righteous behavior requires evangelism—personal dialog that leads to real conversion."
Stephen,
Once again, your comments about the defense of faith and particular religious belief have shown how deeply you have drunk the wine of modern liberal-socialism and strayed from valuing the religious freedoms you claim to defend. There is a significant difference between fundamentalism and the real defense of faith. Evidence of your misunderstanding this is painted in neon in your words "…the point wherein fundamentalism becomes particularly problematic is the ever-shrinking 21st century pluralistic world." Those words completely dismiss that "21st century pluralism" is a euphemism for the naked attacks of liberal-socialism that are vigorously destroying religious freedom in America. Apparently you believe that choosing to believe in creation and asking that it be given equal presentation in public schools instead of evolution alone is fundamentalism when it is merely asking for equal standing instead of being prohibited.
In contrast, fundamentalism is religious extremism, the nature of which is rarely seen in America. Modern liberal-socialism as we have now in America is secular fundamentalism on steroids. If you want to see religious fundamentalism, contrast the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has called for the destruction of Israel while the Salafists have called for the the destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood because they are not sufficiently devoted to Islam! The Muslim Brotherhood is terribly intolerant of Christianity, but it is the Salafists who have been murdering Christians, destroying their churches and have declared their intent to exterminate Christianity from Egypt.
Thank you Stephen, for a hearty Sabbath morning chuckle. Yesterday you mocked me as being disingenuous for asking Monte to clarify in what sense he was using the word "fundamentalist." Then, when he provided a definition that was not to your liking, emphatically stating his belief that fundamentalist thinking and behavior can be found in any religion or ideology, including atheism, you jumped in to say, "Oh no, he didn't really mean that, Nathan. He simply was simply graciously allowing you to "blunt his point."
You are truly a hoot, Stephen! You know that when I say I'm not sure what Monte means, I really know perfectly well what he means; and when Monte says what he means, you also know that he really doesn't mean what he says he means. It's so good to have an omniscient voice here on this website to tell us what we all mean!
"In contrast, fundamentalism is religious extremism, the nature of which is rarely seen in America."
I have seen it all too often when, on those rare occasions, I watch the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson. etc., and some SDAs. "Modern liberal-socialism" is the backlash to such fanaticism.
We can either be steeped in the fallen churches idealogy and the real loss of our religious freedom, aka Sunday law, or we can be Christians. Can't have it both ways. "Modern liberal-socialism" couldn't care less about who, what or how one worships. Fundamentalists would dictate all of the above. In a heartbeat. And do to the best of their abiblity. Solely by the grace of God we have not seen them succeed.
As for moral values, including creationism, that is the job of the home and church, not the state. The state is not to support any religious group over any other.
Teresaq,
Please be careful to differentiate between what a person actually says and what their critics say to villify them. Those who advocate for pluralism call for us to be tolerant of different points of view, yet are utterly intolerant of anything even remotely connected to God. They ask us to approve of every sexual deviance and moral depravity known to man while unleashing their bitterest on those who call us to obey the morals taught in scripture. Pluralists would have you think people like Falwell and Robertson are incarnations of Satan. While you may not agree with their particular theologies, if you're adopting the viewpoint of their critics, who are you really listening to?
No, the state is not to support any religious group or show favoritism to any over another. Neither is it to interfere with, limit or prohibit the free exercise of religion in public, which is exactly what we see happening in America.
"Teresaq, Please be careful to differentiate between what a person actually says and what their critics say to villify them."
Excuse me!! If that was not the height of pomposity and belittlement to accuse me of repeating something I supposedly heard as opposed to having my own thoughts and observations! Exactly who do you think you are?!
Oh, that's right! You are projecting onto me your own characteristics, that of buying into what YOU regurgitate como si fuera from the mouth of God!
You have shown yourself to be a good example of a fundamentalist run rabid!
Chalk it up! I have to agree with much of what Stephen Foster has said! 🙂
He says, "Quoting Monte again, the problem that I … tried to focus on is that when believers try to push their very precise idea of a particular faith onto everyone in a society or community (whether by democracy or dictatorship) there are limits to their ability to do this.”
What is so hard about that to get? Nathan, I have failed to directly respond to a couple of questions above. I hardly know where to start or end there is so much.
I think what Stephen is saying by re quoting Monte says it all. The probem is, you are indeed a fundamentatlist, because deep down inside you believe you are right, and that you have a God given right and responsibility to do your damndest to see that this world gets it right. I think ultimately you have to choose one of two hats: Fundamentalist, as you currently wear by self confession, or personal faith participated within an honestly democratic process.
William, do you have any idea what you ask?
"Neither is it to interfere with, limit or prohibit the free exercise of religion in public, which is exactly what we see happening in America." I say, thank GOD YOU DO!
You really want a state that does not limit or prohibit free exercise of religion in public?
So of course, you are going to be fine with your new, fundamentalist, (radical) Muslim neighbor stoning his wife, or daughter in the town square for adultery or fornication?
You are going to be fine with your child being shot getting off the bus because she promoted freedom and rights for women?
You are going to be fine when your community has its schools blown up because they are teaching "western education"?
I could go on and on. My point is, and please, you and Nathan read it again and again. If you want religious freedom for your beliefs and values you have absolutely no right to refuse them for another. NONE.
You guys think you are right and so do they.
It seems to me the only solution to this is an absolute and honest demoncratic system where one human being affords to the other the exact same respect and value they would seek for themselves. I would actually submit that a government should act or work as though it were agnostic. Only when coming from this perspective will it not feel the "need" to import moral and value agenda's that are religiously loaded from one persuasion or another.
Nathan and William, let me just give one example of a loaded perspective. Homosexuality. I notice again and again you guys bring this and similar things in within the context of a moral judgment. It is NOT a moral issue. And it is not an issue about which you have any right to judge another. Nobody has the right to make you gay if you are not. Nobody has the right to make you heterosexual if you are not. If you think I am wrong on this: Please, without using the Bible or Koran, or some other "sacred to somebody" writing, show me why.
I note again Monte suggestion:
".live a life of compassion… ..live [y]our faith, share [y]our hope, find creative ways to witness in the pluralistic context without seeking to impose anything on others; to live in peace with all people. When Fundamentalists seek to use political processes to impose their ideas of right on others, they leave the path of Jesus no matter how righteous they think they are."
If you really want to live the Jesus life, live that quote! That is the only bit of the heavenly kingdom you have a right to bring to earth. Beyond that, you are a "fellow human being" first and foremost.
You are equall to any other, but not above any other.
Deep within every normal human being is the abiity and desire to show respect to, value for the other. Sadly, there are many powerfull forces that can also tug other elements of human beings into a mode of "otherization", "intollerance", and "judgmentalism". Religion, when held with a fundamental attitude stands head and shoulders above the crowd of contenders!
I want to invite you to read "The Secret Confessions of an Unlikely Convert" by Rosaria Butterfield. She was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University, head of Women's Studies, a supporter of every Liberal cause she could find an a practicing lesbian. Then she met Jesus and everything changed. If you wish to claim that homosexuality is not a moral issue, then I will let her personal account of dealing with it contrast with your claim. She discusses it from personal experience and scripture far better than I could.
I downloaded the book from Amazon to my Kindle. Just a few pages in I found it one of those uncommon books that was hard to put down.
If you really believe homosexuality is not a moral issue, then how do you get around Paul's plain declarations in Romans, Chapter 1? Either it is a moral issue to God, or you aren't allowing God to play the authoritative role in your life that He demands of all who claim to be His followers.
William,
How do I get around, who? Paul? Oh, that guy in the Bible!
Yes, on that. To drag up an un answered challenge I put to most of you guys: Show me why I should take the Bible as opposed to the Koran, and why I should take Paul, Daniel or Moses over Zeus or Baal, and when done, ask me your question again.
Point being: Without you being arbiter of YOUR OWN truth by attributing to the BIBLE that authority you do, you have no basis on which to declare the existence of sin. You have even less right to declare someones sexual orientation a sin. NONE.
William, how on earth do you think throwing up a statement from the Bible does anything to "prove" my assertion that homosexuality is not a sin is wrong??
Someone's conversion story is also just as absurd for evidence, especially when a brief read about the author demonstrates she faces an ongoing battle to be what she is not! What right does any Pastor really have to inflict the burden of guilt, shame and struggle on a person by convincing them to allow the homophobic writings of a male chauvenist bigot (Paul) to control their life? …
…No more right than a radical Muslim has to convince you as to the "truth" of any Koranic nonsense…
.
You stated above that homosexuality was not a moral issue. It is an issue for God because it is contrary to His will. You accuse me of being an authority for others when I simply have chosen to be subject to the authority and power of God as described in scripture. Because of what God has done for me I have become an advocate for Him. Obviously you have a different opinion and your statements raise serious doubts about whether you are allowing God to be the supreme authority in your life.
What is it about words and/or phrases like “believers,” or “a particular faith,” or “righteous behavior,” or “evangelism,” or “real conversion”—words and phrases used in Monte’s elaboration of his point—that imply that his emphasis was somehow not on religious beliefs/fundamentalism?
William,
Would “21st century pluralism” be in the interests of the people in the Arab world and the global community; or would religious fundamentalism better serve those interests?
Is it my imagination, or are American political conservatives a bit on edge nowadays?
Stephen Foster:
"Is it my imagination, or are American political conservatives a bit on edge nowadays?" No, and yes. I am angry so I will stop there.
Chris, i agree that as far as true equality is concerned, your statements are spot on.
However,i interjet one condition,which i feel should be universal,"DO NO HARM". "DO NOT MAIM". "DO NOT KILL". LOVE YOUR SPOUSE, LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Chris,
So you think that you actually agreeing with much of what I had to say is somehow noteworthy, do you? Well I can top that! I agree with something William Noel has said, when he advised “Please be careful to differentiate between what a person actually says and what their critics say to vilify them.”
That is truly some great advice folks!
Stephen,
?? Are you saying I have miss understood you and confused what others say as being what you said? I hope not…
As for noteworthy….well, yes, I think it is good to acknowledge when we find common ground with one another, whoever that may be… It is not a common event is it? It was meant in a positive sense.
Chris,
I took your remarks as positive. My response was also meant to be a positive, albeit tongue-in-cheek, comment about how very seldom I agree with William Noel.
You are right; “it really is good to acknowledge when we find common ground with one another, whoever that may be.”
Actually, to hopefully avoid being further misinterpreted, I should hasten to add that I am in basic agreement with teresaq’s observations.
It seems that some on this thread want to choose up sides for a fundamentalist tug-o'-war over whether convictions with religious roots should be permitted to inform public policy. And they want to claim Monte for their side. I prefer to just take Monte at his word and calmly discuss the "problem" he posits: Whether it is appropriate for people, whose convictions are rooted in ideology or faith, to use the political process to impose their most deeply held moral convictions on others.
Let me make two initial observations: 1) If the anser is no, then who will be left to actively participate in the political process – the undecideds, as long as they remain undecided? 2) let me wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God is not advanced through the political process. Those who carry the banner of Christ into the arena of politics, with few and notable exceptions, obscure and distort Kingdom realities and priorities. And let me go one step further to affirm my fundamental belief that peace, prosperity, and security in the earthly kingdom are impeded when political power is wielded to either trample individual liberty or to run roughshed over the moral convictions of the majority. So Query: Does my desire to impose that fundamental sense of right on others mean that I have left the path of Christ?
It is easy to lose our moral memory and forget that the U.S. was founded with these tensions firmly in mind. A fundamentalist world view is not a new issue requiring new principles to mitigate its effects. At the nation's founding, mechanisms were established to mitigate the dangers of anarchy, concentrated power, and majoritarian tyranny. Our founders could see across the Atlantic to what was happening in France. The founders knew that their own Revolution had arisen out of fundamentalist attempts by England to impose its most deeply held convictions (non-religious by the way) as policy on the colonies without the colonies having a meaningful voice in those policies. But they also knew that government could not exist without coercion – i.e., people using the political process to enact their sense of right as the law, and to legally prohibit or regulate that which their moral sense told them was wrong or needed to be controlled. James Madison, in Federalist 10, exhibited deep understanding of human nature and the dangers of fundamentalism when he spoke of factionalism. The primary Constitutional check on the ability of people to impose their moral will on others was the First Amendment, prohibiting the government from either establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It never occurred to the founders, for example, that abortion could not be banned by the states (the federal government was given no Constitutional authority in that regard) because destroying human life in utero was not part of any recognized religious belief or practice. Ditto for sodomy. So when we evaluate whether it is okay for citizens to use the political process to impose their will on others, we need to ask – "In relationship to what, and at what level of government?" Neither the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights limits the ability of citizens, regardless of religion or ideology to seek, through the political process to impose their moral standards on others. In fact, that is precisely what the political process was designed to facilitate in an orderly and peaceful manner.
The U.S. Constitution does not provide that our personal needs, wants, or feelings will be met. It does not assure us that there will be no political interference with our attempts to have our needs, desires, and feelings satisfied. Nor does it protect us from being offended. It does carve out certain individual liberties for protection from governmental interference. Those freedoms are contained in the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution also seeks to assure Americans that each citizen will be entitled to equal protection of the law and due process in the application of those laws.
States and local governments do not have the same constraints as those imposed on the federal government. If New York wants to ban 32 ounce sodas and trans fats in restaurants, it can do so, as long as it is consistent with New York's constitution. If San Franscisco wants to permit its citizens to walk buck naked through its streets, that is its prerogative. If Californians want to vote in same sex marriage, they can do so. The fact that these policies impose the will of a bare majority, or perhaps even a minority, on others, whose political values and principles are deeply offended by them, may be unwise. But that's the way it is in a Constitutional democracy. Unless the Constitution deprives "we the people" of the power to impose our moral values on others, we are free to impose stupid or immoral policies on our neighbors at the state and local level – not at the federal level. Sometimes we find out the hard way, as Monte pointed out with the example of prohibition, that even with the support of an overwhelming majority, which is required to amend the Constitution, a well intentioned idea is bad. But we can't always know those things in advance.
Throughout our nation's history, fundamentalists have fought, using their most deeply held convictions, to impose their moral will on one another. As long as freedom of religion and state autonomy was respected, this worked fairly well, despite a terrible civil war, ironically made necessary and inevitable by the very same Constitution which bound us together as a nation. Local and state elections were actually more impactful for most people than federal politics. People could move from one state to another to avoid living by moral values which they found odious.
But for reasons that can only be explained by a fundamentalist world view, powerful elites in America have, as I pointed out above, decided that they have the moral wisdom and insight to impose their most deeply held fundamental beliefs on the entire country. They have used the Constitution, executive orders, and federal agencies to impose their moral beliefs as national policy on the entire nation, so that individuals in theoretically sovereign states have increasingly constricted spheres of freedom and liberty. As Monte points out, this kind of fundamentalist thinking doesn't seem to understand that you can only push your neighbor so far.
The solution, however, is not to naively think we can or should abandon the fundamental moral principles and world views through which we find and express convictions about the standards by which our earthly kingdoms should be governed. Rather, the solution is to return to political structures that check and balance power, and give more freedom to states and local communities to be laboratories where individuals can, through democratic processes, decide moral questions, while safeguarding Constitutionally protected individual liberties. So tell me, Monte, when I use the political process to advance this fundamental belief in what I propose is best for my earthly government, are you prepared to say that I have left the path of Christ?
What do you get out of corrupt government? Corruption. The wealthiest bidding
lobbys are given the booty. The highest bidder formulates government policies. Its
all about money. Follow money to see where the powers lie. Our Constitution's
relevency to religious freedom and "expression" served us well thru most of the 20th century.In grammar school we had school prayer (i heard no complaints or oppositions). It was a general prayer, not favoring one Christian church by name,
we never heard of an atheistic outcry, and the Catholic's had their parochial system
but there were many Catholic kids in the public school system.
What has torn asunder the traditional Constitutional values of the majority of Americans, has been the high militant immigration from without the USA, which have demanded their Rights and wishes be recognized, both civil & personal. Their desire to have other nations traditions, religions, and laws, usurp traditional
American ways and values. And the "turning the other cheek", acquiescense, and
"political correctness", has turned the USA upside down.
Australian Politicians have stated it right. "If you want to come to Aussi Land, assimilate, and accept Aussi values, WELCOME. If not, we'll help you pack your bags and escort you to the plane.
Earl,
I don't think that bit about Australia's approach to the issue is as you say. Assimilation is not doing so well here either.
Reading comprehension is indispensible in this forum.
But I’ll take responsibility for my end by repeating my question William, and doing so in a manner that may make it somewhat easier to understand.
Ideally, would ’21st century pluralism’ be in the interests of the people in the Arab world and the global community; or would currently dominant religious fundamentalism better serve those interests?
Stephen,
Follow Alice into Wonderland if you wish. I have more realistic things to do, like spending my furlough days doing ministry that draws people closer to God. We could have put you to work yesterday and today doing real work like trimming trees and cleaning carpet to improve a family's living situation.
Of course, realistically, I didn’t write the blog about fundamentalism and I didn’t use the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as examples. Like you, I just commented on it.
Call it Wonderland if you wish, but I will take your ‘response’ as a “yes;" ideally 21st century pluralism would be in the interests of the people in the Arab world and the global community, as opposed the currently dominant religious fundamentalism.
I understand (fully) why you wouldn’t want to actually admit this however; believe me.
If you take my non-response as an affirmative then you are putting words in my mouth that I did not speak. By doing that you have given us a clear demonstration of fundamentalism. The Fundamentalist typically believes that their world view is the only legitimate point of view possible, that those who disagree are to be argued into submission and any other answer is agreement. Add that Pluralism claims to advocate for acceptance and tolerance of all points of view while reserving its most vigorous and venemous attacks for anything realting to Christian beliefs and practices. You are arguing for pluralism as a contrast to fundamentalism, yet you are acting like a fundamentalist. At a minimum this is evidence that you are either seriously confused about what you really believe. At worse, your words are a careful deception designed to lure others into believing the same confusion you have embraced. Either makes you a deceived soul and not someone I want to follow.
If I have misunderstood your avoiding the question (as a reluctance to agree with my answer to this question), then simply answer the question to correct my misunderstanding.
Ideally, would ‘21st century pluralism’ better serve the interests of the people of the Arab world and the global community, or are those interests best served by the existing, dominant religious fundamentalism in that region?
Spoken like a true Fundamentalist: Answer my question or I will persist in my claim you said something you didn't say!
Never mind me; this isn’t about me. Besides, I have already stipulated to regarding myself as somewhat of a fundamentalist anyway.
The blog we are commenting on is about fundamentalists’ approach to public policy; and, as you know, the Muslim Brotherhood was used by the author as an example.
So, would ‘21 century pluralism’ better serve the interests of the people of the Arab world and the global community, or would the existing, dominant religious fundamentalism better serve the people of that particular region?
Since the only certainties in the Middle East are more strife and bloodshed, I see no value in answering such a speculative question.
OK, if you see “more strife and bloodshed” in the Middle East as a certainty; indeed, as “the only certainties in the Middle East,” why is that William?
Is that because of your religious views, or is that because of the religious fundamentalism in the region; particularly among Islamists?
If perhaps it is actually some of both, ideally would ‘21st century pluralism’ better serve the interests of the people of the Middle East generally, and the Arab world particularly (and thus the global community); or would continuing the currently dominant influences of religious fundamentalism in the region best serve the people of the Middle East?
"Speculative question"?!
The answer William is obvious to blind freddy… But it is also self incriminating, so you are safer to do as you have done…avoid answering!
This is priceless entertainment to see the lengths of self deception and twisting someone will go to to avoid a point!
… and that is not to suggest that "they" do get escorted to the plan either!
Of course, there should be no "theys". We should all be equall. Unfortunately, religion, followed by cutural traditions stands head and shoulders above other causes as reasons assimilation too often goes badly.
Chris, a couple of weeks ago, one of your leaders stated the above. Maybe that's why they quoted it, because of the problems of non-assimilation?
Earl,
We hear a few tough words every so often in political spin, especially on the eve of an election, but it seems to me it is not so clear in reality.
Nathan,
You have made it clear that you:
"…think it is fundamentalism to superimpose a secularist ideological morality on the Constitution,.." bold added
You have also offered a few examples of this alleged "secularist" imposition:
"…questions like classroom curriculum, abortion, employment relationships, moral behavior, industry safety standards, health care – you name it." (not sure how employment, safety, and health care are "secularist", but I guess it makes sense to you)
Now, in your last comment, you have engaged in some verbal gymnastics to declare that fundementalist elites have imposed their "fundamental beliefs" on the whole country. You then suggest this has removed or reduced the rights of the individual in theoretically soverein States. To cap this off you then offer your solution:
"…return to political structures that check and balance power, and give more freedom to states and local communities to be laboratories where individuals can, through democratic processes, decide moral questions, while safeguarding Constitutionally protected individual liberties. "
In reading this bit, I am reminded that earlier you suggested that if people in one state did not like the rules, they could move away. Great idea. Not!
Now here are my points about this.
First, not being an American, I find it very hard to see justification for your accusation that "fundamentalist elites" have imposed any such agenda. Rather, it makes me suspect you are simply a disenfranchised fundamentalist trying to do exactly what William suggested we not do, but replacing the word "say" with "do":
“Please be careful to differentiate between what a person actually says (does) and what their critics say (they do) to vilify them.”
Secondly, perhaps we can best sharpen the issues your "solution" faces with an illustative question:
Tell me, if a State in your country underwent a major influx of radical Muslims and reached a point where that state's people could use their theoretical sovereignty to introduce sharia law with all its trappings, how would you "safeguard the Constitutionally protected individual liberties"?
Now, when answering that question, please also deal with the very likely fact that, if you limit their "religious freedoms", the said State is probably going to feel like disenfranchised fundamentalists and accuse you, or the powers you invoke, (probably from a Federal level), of imposing a secularist agenda or position. They may even accuse you and yours of being "Secularist, fundamentalist elites"!!
So, in short, how would you stop your neighbor state from stoning for adultery, fornication and blasphemy without "imposing a secular agenda"!!??
Nathan,
Please see link below: Is this an example of a fundamentalist state mentality trying to free themselves of a Federal (Supreme Court) secularist ideological "morality", as you call it? Perhaps, more precisely, is it a city exhibiting the very fundamentalist world view Monte was describing?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/gay-men-arrested-under-invalid-8216crimes-against-nature8217-law-in-baton-rouge/story-fnet0gt3-1226687336268
I seem to recall making this point earlier:
"Homosexuality…. is NOT a moral issue. And it is not an issue about which you have any right to judge another. … If you think I am wrong on this: Please, without using the Bible or Koran, or some other "sacred to somebody" writing, show me why."
Looks like the Sheriff's officers don't agree with me, and even have an ancient "anti-sodomy" law to bolster their case!
This kind of thing really does seem to me to illustrate that what you try to vilify as "secularist ideology" is really nothing more than "removal", "suppression" or "prohibition" of this kind of fundamentalist tripe and human arrogance masquerading as morality.
I'm wondering if you confuse "secularist" with "amoral"?
Nathan,
Please see link below: Is this an example of a fundamentalist state mentality trying to free themselves of a Federal (Supreme Court) secularist ideological "morality", as you call it? Perhaps, more precisely, is it a city exhibiting the very fundamentalist world view Monte was describing?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/gay-men-arrested-under-invalid-8216crimes-against-nature8217-law-in-baton-rouge/story-fnet0gt3-1226687336268
I seem to recall making this point earlier:
"Homosexuality…. is NOT a moral issue. And it is not an issue about which you have any right to judge another. … If you think I am wrong on this: Please, without using the Bible or Koran, or some other "sacred to somebody" writing, show me why."
Looks like the Sheriff's officers don't agree with me, and even have an ancient "anti-sodomy" law to bolster their case!
This kind of thing really does seem to me to illustrate that what you try to vilify as "secularist ideology" is really nothing more than "removal", "suppression" or "prohibition" of this kind of fundamentalist tripe and human arrogance masquerading as morality.
I'm wondering if you confuse "secularist" with "amoral"?
Nathan,
Please see link below: Is this an example of a fundamentalist state mentality trying to free themselves of a Federal (Supreme Court) secularist ideological "morality", as you call it? Perhaps, more precisely, is it a city exhibiting the very fundamentalist world view Monte was describing?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/gay-men-arrested-under-invalid-8216crimes-against-nature8217-law-in-baton-rouge/story-fnet0gt3-1226687336268
I seem to recall making this point earlier:
"Homosexuality…. is NOT a moral issue. And it is not an issue about which you have any right to judge another. … If you think I am wrong on this: Please, without using the Bible or Koran, or some other "sacred to somebody" writing, show me why."
Looks like the Sheriff's officers don't agree with me, and even have an ancient "anti-sodomy" law to bolster their case!
This kind of thing really does seem to me to illustrate that what you try to vilify as "secularist ideology" is really nothing more than "removal", "suppression" or "prohibition" of this kind of fundamentalist tripe and human arrogance masquerading as morality.
I'm wondering if you confuse "secularist" with "amoral"?
Please see link below: Is this an example of a fundamentalist state mentality trying to free themselves of a Federal (Supreme Court) secularist ideological "morality", as you call it? Perhaps, more precisely, is it a city exhibiting the very fundamentalist world view Monte was describing?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/gay-men-arrested-under-invalid-8216crimes-against-nature8217-law-in-baton-rouge/story-fnet0gt3-1226687336268
I seem to recall making this point earlier:
"Homosexuality…. is NOT a moral issue. And it is not an issue about which you have any right to judge another. … If you think I am wrong on this: Please, without using the Bible or Koran, or some other "sacred to somebody" writing, show me why."
Looks like the Sheriff's officers don't agree with me, and even have an ancient "anti-sodomy" law to bolster their case!
This kind of thing really does seem to me to illustrate that what you try to vilify as "secularist ideology" is really nothing more than "removal", "suppression" or "prohibition" of this kind of fundamentalist tripe and human arrogance masquerading as morality.
I'm wondering if you confuse "secularist" with "amoral"?
Nathan, very excellent commentary early up. Very helpful. I would like to use it if I may; giving you credit as author of course!
I admit to not reading much past the original blog, but what interested me was that the term "fundamentalist" was not defined. It may have been narrowly defined/inferred to include fanatical religion influencing government.
I would rather interpret the word as including any philosophy/agenda that attempts to influence policies in a nation according to its own belief system to the point of coercion. This could include aethestic beliefs, socialism, communism, Darwinism, and a host of isms. Example: teaching only the evolutionary belief could be considered cohersion just as it would if a public institution taught only creationism.
Whenever we try to fit the whole population into the same intellectual mold and tell them what to believe, we will have problems. Fundamentalism to me means pushing the fundamentals of any belief system on those who don't share it.
I think you pretty well summed it up, Ella M….Oh yeah, that's right! I am incapable of actually thinking or coming to my own conclusions according to William Noel. Well whoever injected their thoughts into me agrees with you.
btw, I'm not sure if it is just me or not, but I cannot use the "Reply" function. Only this main box at the end of the thread seems to be functional…is that just me or is there an issue to check out?
Ok, please help Mod's. Submitted, and got nothing. went back to edit, checked again, submitted again…then found them all going up higher….
Sorry for mess, but system seems to be up the creek…
Nathan,
We should at the very least agree that the mentality of fundamentalism and its problems with regard to insisting on its way with regard to civil legislation is larger than just the United States.
However, with regard to the U.S., the ‘Incorporation Doctrine,’ that is specifically the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, does not permit the states to enact laws in violation of the First Amendment’s religious protections.
So, Darrel before you go using Nathan’s commentary too much, you may want to confirm the accuracy of some of this.
Darrel – Thank you. Of course you may use it. Believe me, none of it is original with me. You don't even have to give me credit.
Chris – No, I don't think I am confusing secular with amoral. There are most definitely moral precepts that arise out of secularist assumptions and beliefs. I don't even want to vilify secularist morality – at least not here. My criticism was merely offered to demonstrate a qualitative equivalency among the various factions that utilize the political process to impose their ideas of right on others. My pitch has been that everyone – except maybe the so-called undecideds – uses their most deeply held fundamental civic values and beliefs to try and influence political policy. I don't think that's a problem as long as the rules are followed, and as long as there is dispersion of political power, checks and balances throughout the system. Monte seems to think it is.
Political policy, by definition, consists of imposing one group's ideas of right on others. And the big guns which are always brought out to justify the impostition of progressive ideas of right on others are ideological – social justice, human rights, equality, as understood and developed by progressive thought leaders. Similarly, the big guns that are brought out by conservatives are also ideological – family values, personal responsibility, individual freedom, limited government, national security, as understood and developed by conservative thought leaders. That's the way it has always been in America.
The reality of pluralism should not lead to the silencing of certain voices in the political process or the disenfranchisement of large groups of citizens through Constitutional legerdemain. It should not lead people to abandon, for the sake of pluralism, their most deeply held values, or the soil in which those values took root and grew. Rather, it should lead to increased efforts to make sure that political power resides with "we the people" within the limits imposed by the Constitutional contract that was designed to limit – not facilitate – the ability of Americans to use the political process to federally impose their ideas of right on others. When it comes to state authority, that's a different matter. It's sort of like the church. If your fundamental values are offended by the policies implemented by the majority, and you are unwilling to adapt, move to another state – or church.
“When it comes to state authority, that's a different matter. It's sort of like the church. If your fundamental values are offended by the policies implemented by the majority, and you are unwilling to adapt, move to another state – or church.”
How dangerous and how wrong this is!
This is rather astonishing coming from someone who practices law in the United States. The states do not have the Constitutional authority to enact laws that abridge Constitutionally protected freedoms to citizens of the U.S. The operative textual language of course being “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”
I'm not sure, Stephen, why you resist using common sense to read what I say in context instead of assuming I meant something really dumb. Do you really think I don't know about the 14th Amendment? Where did I say that the states have the right to ignore Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms? What I said was that state authority is not circumscribed and limited by the Constitution in the same way that the authority of the federal government is circumscribed. But when you comment on what I say, neither the context or what I say seems to matter much. What matters is the spin and straw men you can construct from what I have written.
Well, I’m shocked…shocked that you would inform us that you are indeed aware of the 14th Amendment Nathan (I’m being facetious).
This being the case, why would you suggest…or say, that in the U.S. pluralism “should lead to increased efforts to make sure that political power resides with ‘we the people’ within the limits imposed by the Constitutional contract that was designed to limit – not facilitate – the ability of Americans to use the political process to federally impose their ideas of right on others.” But then turn right around and say that, “When it comes to state authority, that’s a different matter. It’s sort of like the church. If your fundamental values are offended by the policies implemented by the majority, and you are unwilling to adapt, move to another state…”?
The reason why I ask is because you had also previously said, “The U.S. Constitution also seeks to assure Americans that each citizen will be entitled to equal protection of the law and due process in the application of those laws [but that] "States and local governments do not have the same constraints as those imposed on the federal government…Unless the Constitution deprives 'we the people' of the power to impose our moral values on others, we are free to impose stupid or immoral policies on our neighbors at the state and local level – not at the federal level.”
I understand what you are saying essentially, but your sweeping language is clearly misleading. Some people are not as familiar with the Incorporation Doctrine as you should be. States are equally as restricted from abridging constitutional rights as is the federal government.
Nathan,
You still have not addressed my illustrative question. It is fine to hedge around with weasel words, but how would you deal with this:
"Tell me, if a State in your country underwent a major influx of radical Muslims and reached a point where that state's people could use their theoretical sovereignty to introduce sharia law with all its trappings, how would you "safeguard the Constitutionally protected individual liberties"?
Now, when answering that question, please also deal with the very likely fact that, if you limit their "religious freedoms", the said State is probably going to feel like disenfranchised fundamentalists and accuse you, or the powers you invoke, (probably from a Federal level), of imposing a secularist agenda or position. They may even accuse you and yours of being "Secularist, fundamentalist elites"!!
So, in short, how would you stop your neighbor state from stoning for adultery, fornication and blasphemy without "imposing a secular agenda"!!??
To use some more of your own words: "….the big guns which are always brought out to justify the impostition of progressive ideas of right on others are ideological – social justice, human rights, equality, as understood and developed by progressive thought leaders. .."
Exactly how would you prohibit radical muslim laws in a muslim dominant state WITHOUT being seen by them as a "big gun, progressive, ideological, secularist?
Has it occurred to you that these "progressive thought leaders" just may, in many cases, be the best reflective source of the thinking and values of the democratic position of the nation? I can almost hear conservative SDA's griping about progressive thought leaders who push for Women's ordination! And, on the bigger scale, those who gripe about abortion, GLBT… rights etc.
I do not believe that under any definition I have ever read anywhere my friend Nate is a "fundamentalist" of any stripe. (Even if he wants to claim that label, actually.) I respect his strong commitment to liberty and freedom in government. He has a distinguished career in government and I respect those who work for Christian principles in government. He and I may disagree about things, particularly in terms of some public policies, but not about these basic values!
Actually, my focus was not so much if it is appropriate for Christians to use the political process to impose their beliefs on the large community. My observation is that it is not actually possible. If the governed are forced into values that they do not believe in to a large degree, then ultimately the effort comes to disaster. Remember, I started with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are actually a number of things among their religious beliefs that I share, such as not using alcoholic beverages. But the Prohibition project from the early 20th century in America demonstrates the kind of disaster that results from Christians (in that case) or Muslims or any religion imposing on the general public their values without doing the necessary evangelism to sell those values. Today some of us are no more convinced that alcohol is a good thing than my ancesters were when they voted for Prohibition congressmen in the early decades of the 20th century, but we have learned that there are too many unintended consequences when we use the law of the land to impose that idea instead of using education and counseling to convince people that it is better to be an abstainer. I am afraid that many Catholics and Evangelicals have signed up for a similar shipwreck in the current effort to impose legal mechanisms to get rid of abortion. A much smaller percentage of Americans consume alcohol today than during Prohibition. On a similar issue, education and counseling have reduced the percentage of Americans who smoke tobacco to half what it was when the Adventist Church launched the Five-day Plan to Stop Smoking. (And that is no claim that we did that all alone by any means.)
It is not the ethics or theology of this that I am focused on. It is simply that campaigns like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or Prohibition simply do not work. They are a waste of time, energy and "blood, sweat, toil and tears." I think Fundamentalists are too quick to grab the heavy hammer and not very creative about finding ways to convince people to buy into their values. They lack the strategic creativity that honors our Creator God.
Your thoughts remind me of a certain church and its tactics during the dark ages, eventally leading to the grossest tortures and murders in order to preserve 'morality' which the 'keepers of the faith' had lost looooong before and were now torturing and murdering those who did still have morality.
I see history repeating itself. "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". I think a certain segment of SDAs believe in religious liberty — but only for us Sabbath keepers, and only in regard to keeping the Sabbath. But no one else is entitled to religious liberty, or the lack of religion.
Fear of losing one's lifestyle prevails over everything else.
Monte,
There is a rather relevant and interesting line in Wikepedia:
"…some Christian Fundamentalists (notably in the United States) oppose secularism, often claiming that there is a "radical secularist" ideology being adopted in current days and see secularism as a threat to "Christian rights" and national security."
When I read colorfull descriptions like "..men in black robes, aided and abetted by elitists with PhDs,.." it smells and sounds like fundamentalist rhetoric to me.
I respect your afforts to come to Nathan's aid in extracting him from the Fundamentalist camp, but it actually leaves me suspecting too many of us "religious types' are blind to our own failings.
I am also left feeling very uneasy about some other assertions you make. Granted you are not addressing the appropriateness or ethics of Christians etc using political processes. However, you speak of the "necessary evangelism" to sell those values (Muslim ones), and the concept of finding creative ways to convince people to buy into their (Christian) values.
Excuse me, but do any of us really want the percentage of people who subscribe to Muslim values to increase in this world? Which values? The ones Christians can "agree" with, such as you mention, and not the ones we can readily condemn as evil? Who chooses? Do any of us really want the increase of anti gay sentiment, as fueled by too many Christians to increase? Or anti abortion? Or discrimination against women?
I see a dark side to your suggestions. And, then to imply that creativity honors our Creator God?!
I do not think you can avoid the ethics and appropriateness question. It goes hand in glove with the "problem of fundamentalism" and imho is imperative. I would suggest your idea of "evangelism" and "creativity" are at best dangerous, and at worst, wrong. I do agree with you imposing values will not work, but for a different reason. It will not work because values that spring from religious conviction are as varied as the faiths that fuel them. Values grounded in shared humanity are not varied so, and thus when grown out of secular democratic processes will work for the larger part.
I would put to you that the mulitiplicity of "values", and "beliefs" that spring from religious conviction, if encouraged in this manner will be destructive to democracy. Secular ethics and values should and can incorporate diverse sets of values that people of various beliefs can hold in common, but which do not have to spring from religious conviction. They are essentially human values, and therefore could be described as "above", or "beyond" religion.
Is it not the undergirding secularity of your government and constitution that gives you the religious freedom you enjoy? If you really give every religious voice the invitation to honor their God with creative evangelism, presumeably in the political and social arena, who is to say you will not end up with a state as I asked Nathan about, where stoning is in? Would you not be then duty bound to invoke the Federal force of secular power to undo that which you invited? Why start?
By all means, have free speech; have debate and dialogue about issues, but do it from an agnostic/secularist perspective. Recognise that human values of freedom, respect, and the desire for freedom and happiness can undergird demoncracy without the complicating factor of religiously guided values.
I didn't notice that I ever claimed to be a fundamentalist either, Monte. Apparently Chris considers someone a fundamentalist if they use concepts or rhetoric that offend him. You never know how people will interpret what you say.
I don't think that prohibition failed because it was motivated by Christian passion. Abolition was also motivated by Christian passion, as were state Sunday laws and an awful lot of other legislation during the first 150 years of U.S. history. The Constitutional Amendment process requires very large majorities for passage. Presumably, generally the same "fundamentalist" Christians who lobbied for prohibition also decided, once they tried it, that it wasn't such a good idea.
Legislation and judicial changes in the law always have unintended consequences. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about shipwrecks attending efforts to undo Roe v Wade. What about the shipwrecks when Roe v Wade was decided? I am not in favor of federal legislation protecting human life in the womb. I think those issues should be left to the states. But pray tell, when did it become fundamentalistic to believe that five unaccountable, unelected lawyers should not use Constitutional penumbras to impose their moral will on an entire nation.
I'm sorry, Monte. I know you are a really bright guy. But I am flabbergasted that you would compare the methods and values of the Muslim Brotherhood to peace loving Americans using the Democratic process and the ballot box, working within a Constitution they respect and cherish, to make Prohibition the law of the land. What kind of violent behavior do you see Christians engaging in when they don't get their way? Do you see them rioting, starting Occupy movements, disrupting public services, ransacking and vandalizing (as is done by public employee unions)? Do you see them demanding that social justice be invoked to trump the rule of law? Compare the tactics of the LGBT movement after Prop 8 passed in California to the behavior of Christians when other states approved gay marriage. There is no comparison.
Muslim brotherhood type coercion and violence are found far more frequently on the Left than on the Right. Yet you seem remarkably blind to that reality. When "Piss Christ" was funded by taxpayer money where was the rioting and looting by Christians? The shipwrecks of which you speak seem to be on full display when the Left does not get its way. For the past 50 years, Christians have been meekly protesting, but quietly acquiescing and adapting to, the secular destruction and reshaping of culture. You seem to have no problem with the Left imposing its moral will on the nation. But when Christians work within the law to resist being governed by secular morality, that's a problem? Do you have any problem with a politician getting up and saying, "We are going to radically transform America!" "History will mark this as the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Apparently you don't think anyone should be concerned about that kind of fundamentalism being imposed on America.
I think it sounds really nice to say we need to find more creative ways to get people to buy into our values. What would you suggest? Keep our values in the church and home? Do you see Christians as having the sort of dual citizenship that I suggested above? Or do you think radical disengagment from the political sphere is what followers of Christ should do? I respect a position of radical disengagement. But once you concede the legitimacy of Christians involvement in politics, I don't see how you can say their values are off limits, unless of course they are trying to using the government to establish religion.
“What kind of violent behavior do you see Christians engaging in when they don't get their way?”
I would remind us that there have been abortion clinics bombed and the lives of doctors who perform abortions taken and/or threatened by religious (primarily if not exclusively ‘Christians’) fundamentalists; and that there have been people who have been terrorized and/or killed by Ku Klux Klan who have also claimed to be ‘Christians.’
Of course neither those who violently oppose abortion nor the KKK are left wingers. When we obsess about Left vs. Right we often miss things that are obvious.
In fact, Chris’ observation or suggestion that secular human values should determine public policy is met with rhetorical vitriol by religious fundamentalists in America who decry/demonize secular humanism.
Can we compare the societal and civil and peace-making/keeping efficacies of secular humanism to those of religious fundamentalism; or would this represent some sort of a false choice?
Chris – I wasn't trying to avoid your question about Sharia law. I just thought it was silly hyperbole. I was perhaps being insensitive to the possibility that you do not have a good understanding of America's political system. I suspect there may be values in Sharia law that are not inherently religious, and that may already be a part of our legal framework – laws against stealing, murder, prostitution, etc. But as your question is framed, no state could enact Sharia law because the First Amendment would prohibit that. I would have no problem with Muslims trying to use the political process to amend the Constitution to abolish the First Amendment and permit all or some of Sharia law to be introduced. But I would oppose them. I do not believe that either the federal government or the states have the right to establish religion.
I don't think you and I differ greatly in our basic political values, Chris – liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, private property rights, etc. Where we differ is on the question of when implementation of values as public policy constitutes establishment of religion. We agree, for example that laws against murder and theft do not constitute establishment of religion. We probably do not agree on whether and when laws governing/prohibiting the killing of pre-natal human life constitute establishment of religion. I don't think those differences make one or the other of us a fundamentalist. Nor do I think those differences entitle either of us to a greater voice in the public square. I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong. That doesn't make you a pagan baby killer, and it doesn't make me a misogynistic theocrat. It is that kind of rhetoric and demonization which is divisive and destructive. It is the methods we use to advance our positions that Monte Should be decrying – not our values. Finally, I do not think you, Monte, or anyone else has the right to judge my Christian integrity based upon my legitimate use of the political process to enact laws that I believe will make my community, state and nation a better place for my children and grandchildren, and to oppose laws that will have the opposite effect.
Nate, I am not sure to what degree the Muslim Brotherhood set aside violence in the election a year ago, but I understand that generally that election was viewed as a valid exercise in democracy. I accepted that as fact in writing my column. I really did not address the problem of violence by that group.
I may be wrong, but I see Abolition as a general success looking back from where we are today, and I see Prohibition as a general failure. Perhaps the difference was that Abolition used the law to stop people from doing something and Prohibition tried to use the law to make them do something, although I suppose that in a technical sense it could be argued that both were intended to stop behavior. At any rate, Prohibition proved to be "too far" for the American people even if a majority voted for Prohibition (and I could not find any definitive data from the time to measure how many Americans actually supported it). That is my point; we can only push people so far into doing what we want them to do. Beyond that point it becomes counterproductive.
Well, yes of course, Monte. That's self-evident. You can only push people so far. But how do you know in advance how far that is? And what happens if you go too far? What happened in Prohibition is that people amended the Constitution again to allow alcohol. Is that so terrible? If we find out that a law has gone too far – if, for example we find out that Roe v Wade has had really bad unintended results, like the killing of 50 million human lives – why do we not say, "maybe the Supreme Court went too far," instead of saying that those who want to let the states decide abortion policy are going too far? What happened in the civil rights era when people "went too far" in demanding changes in Jim Crow policies and laws is that ppolicies and laws changed – for the better.
Do anti-drug laws and anti-prostitution laws go too far, because of their unintended consequences? John Stossel would say yes. Rick Santorum would say no. Those who want their values implemented never think they are pushing too far. So how does dividing the world into fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists get you anywhere? Precisely which deeply held civic values should Christians not use the political process to advance? Who has the right, or the measuring stick to decide what values need to be throttled back in the public square?
Nate, yes, "Those who want their values implemented never think they are pushing too far." That is precisely my point. Those who press far enough to create change, but not too far to create a mess, are the people who affect history. Those who don't know when to back off or how to use a gentle touch, pressing just far enough to make change, but not far enough to make a mess, end up bringing a negative gloss to their cause and accomplishing nothing or worse.
"So how does dividing the world into fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists get you anywhere?" I am not certain; I did not create the categories. I am just saying that it seems to me one of the things I observe about the fundamentalist camp is they lack the balanced approach that pushes far enough, but not too far. They don't when enough is enough.
I think part of it is intruding into private areas of people's lives. Slavery was a public thing; abortion is very private. Drinking alcohol is somewhere in between. How far can I go in imposing my ethical values into the private areas of my neighbor's lives? Jesus clearly did not approve of adultery; he said that if a man looks on a woman with lust, it is adultery–a tougher line than the religious leaders of the time. But when women who committed adultery were brought to him he did not condemn them. Are the politicians in Texas actually convincing anyone to stop having an abortion or just reving up donors? I see no evidence that the recent law voted in Texas has convinced anyone to change their values. Maybe I am blind to something?
Monte
I find your dichotomy between private and public ussues interesting. I live in Africa where we have close knit communities and the issue of abortion you mentioned is very public from where I come from. Today is actually the day my country (zimbabwe) chooses its leader and some of the issues raised here will what will be voted for. For the sole reason that this might be monitored by the powers that be (no joke) I will not delve into specifics.
The distinction between private and public is useful, but only if we accept that it is no more exact than the distinction between 'old' and 'young' or many other dichotomies.
Don't worry about being monitored – it seems the US government is monitoring all of us 🙂
Monte, are laws only valid if it can be empirically demonstrated that they change behavior/values for the better? That's an odd assertion. I think pro-abortion laws would most definitely fail that test. Does such laws pass the privacy test? Not if you view abortion as the willful destruction of a human for the sake of convenience. Is the money I earn a private matter? What about marriage? You can definitionally make anything you want a private matter. Why are the wages that I am willing to work for, and what one who wants my services is willing to pay for them not a private matter between the two of us? I suspect you have little problem waving aside the massive privacy invasions that are necessitated by Obamacare.
It feels to me, Monte, that in an effort to vindicate your political instincts as principles, rather than political correctness instincts, you slip from one argument to another, never really meeting my arguments head on. You made a risibly specious distinction between abolition of slavery and abolition of alcohol on the grounds that one imposes affirmative duties and the other imposes negative duties – I'm still scratching my head over that one – and now, you offer three new arguments: 1) Laws that intrude into people's private lives are bad; 2) Jesus was opposed to stoning the woman caught in adultery (therefore He must have wanted to abolish laws against adultery???); and 3) Restricting abortion in Texas a few short weeks ago hasn't changed anyone's values (therefore, unless a law changes hearts and minds within weeks of passage, it is a bad idea???) Do laws against murder change people's values? Does it matter at all that, at least in Texas, a few more children that God is knitting in the womb may actually be allowed a chance to live?
Jesus said "Go and sin no more" to the woman accused of adultery. Was He wasting His breath? Precisely where in scripture do you find support for your idiosyncratic libertarianism? Besides, surely you are not suggesting that Christians should use the Bible to force libertarian values on others through the political process!
Throughout history, people have recognized that no behavior is truly private. Our thoughts, words, and deeds echo throughout eternity (no, I am not suggesting that words and thoughts should be controlled by the government). Isn't that reality the foundation for public education? What goes into our minds and hearts surely has great consequences for society as a whole. Our founders created a system where certain private actions were beyond the power of the government. In other areas, they left it up to the citizens to decide what activity should be merely private. The consequences to society of cultural repudiation and privatizing morality have been disastrous in my opinion. It is destroying the family, the church, and our schools. It is eating away at the sinews that bind us together in subsidiary local institutions (c.f. Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert Bork, and Culture Counts, by Roger Scruton). I think those institutions are vital for a healthy, free, responsible society. But that's just my opinion. It doesn't make me any more a fundamentalist than are deconstructionists who see family and church as tools of oppression.
I think it is healthy to discuss these issues on their merits. I think it is destructive and divisive to create an ill-defined derogatory container (fundamentalist) for political beliefs and value systems that you don't like, and then to create a kind of moral/intellectual equivalency among disparate beliefs and values by jambing them into that container. What this really seems to boil down to is that you don't like a number of conservative political positions (death penalty, anti-abortion, traditional marriage, pluralism in public education curricula, etc.). And you have decided to wrap your personal political values in the garb of "rightness" by comparing American politically conservative positions to Islamic fundamentalism.
Nathan,
Do you really not perceive a ‘moral’ (and I use that word in this context very loosely—perhaps I should immoral) equivalence, or parallel, between the terroristic fundamentalist Islamists who violently insist on their way locally and internationally; and the terroristic fundamentalist Christians in America who have bombed abortion clinics, and threatened and/or murdered doctors?
Of course these violent terrorists and criminals are not typical of either conservative Muslims or conservative Christians, but they are both cut from the same cloth in terms of operational methodology. That is to say, the violently extreme fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and perhaps some Jews, are all essentially cut from the same cloth.
In point of fact many wars have been fought and much religious persecution has resulted directly from religious fundamentalism run amok.
No, Stephen. Most decidedly, I do not perceive a moral equivalency between criminals who commit violence in violation of the law and fanatical political religions which institutionalize barbaric, criminal, and immoral behavior in furtherance of the law and state policy. If this distinction is not intuitively and rationally obvious to you, there is no point in discussing it.
I do believe there is a moral equivalency between, say, Floyd Corkins II and Eric Rudolph. Was Eric Rudolph a fundamentalist Christian? I don't know. It doesn't really matter. Do you identify Floyd Corkins with extremists like The Southern Poverty Law Center? Do you blame your political beliefs or party for Chris Dorner simply because he seems to have shared that political world view? How ridiculous!
I certainly would not suggest that Christians do not commit crimes, though it is extremely rare that they do so in the name of their religious beliefs. What fundamentalist Christian groups are you aware of that sanction terrorism, abuse, and barbarism, much less use the state to achieve their goals?
There are of course many conservative Muslim organizations that do sanction and practice terrorism – Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, al Qaeda, to name a few. Disturbingly large percentages of Muslims worldwide support these organizations and their methods. What fundamentalist Christian groups can you name who have either sponsored or defended abortion clinic bombers or any other criminal behavior done in the name of Christ? Isn't it interesting that when Muslims commit their heinous acts, they frequently shout "Allahu Akbar!" How many times have you ever heard of a Christian shouting "Praise the Lord!" when commiting violence?
As I recall, Monte drew a parallel between the Muslim Brotherhood and law-abiding Christians in his community, who would like to see their local schools open up the curriculum to critiques of evolutionary dogma, and who prefer that their children not learn about history and the Constitution from radicals like Howard Zinn. To me, these kinds of demagogic comparisons – like Guantanamo to the Holocaust – are so absurd and polemical as to immediately call into question the objectivity of the person making the comparison. Such rhetoric is to my way of thinking more characteristic of a fundamentalist worldview than the issue of where substantive beliefs fit on an ideological spectrum.
Nathan,
I appreciate your thoughful analysis and dissembling of some of the statements made in some of these discussions.
Like you, I have heard that comparison of the treatment of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay with the Holocaust of World War II. While it was incredible hearing the claim from the lips of an otherwise apparently intelligent individual, hearing that and similar statements repeated and believed by other apparently intelligent individuals gives new illustration to stupidity.
I have personally met at least hundreds, if not thousands of survivors of the Nazi death camps. I learned to look at the tattoos on their left arms and recognize which camps they had been in by the first letter: A was for Auschweitz, B was for Buchenwald; D was for Dacchau, etc. The stories they told were the most heart-wrenching things tales of man's inhumanity to man that I have ever heard.
Let's look at some facts and see if the two can be reasonably compared.
The only prisoners who have died at Gitmo were killed by fellow inmates. The Nazis killed millions. The camps were death factories.
Prisoners at Gitmo have regular medical and dental checkups and are generally healthier than they were when they arrived. There was no medical care in the death camps and many died from diseases that were otherwise easily treatable.
Prisoners at Gitmo are served Halal meals prepared by professionally-trained chefs. More money is spent per capita to feed the prisoners than is spent to feed the guards.
Prisoners at Gitmo have their own beds with mattresses, pillows and even a light at the head of the bed for if they want to read library books at night. In the Nazi dormitories up to eight people crowded onto into bunks sized for individuals and slept without mattresses, pillows or blankets.
The cells at Gitmo are air conditioned. In the deepest days of winter at the Nazi camps sometimes the only source of heat to warm the prisoners was what radiated from the cermatoria that burned 24/7.
Prisoners at Gitmo are given unlimited access to their holy book and even told what direction in which to kneel if they are to pray toward Mecca and called to prayer by an Imam five times a day. Just being Jewish got you sent to the death camps and there were no synagogues in any of them.
Yes, a few prisoners at Gitmo have been waterboarded or subjected to other treatments to get them talking. In three of the camps Dr. Josef Mengele supervised torture experiments too terrible to describe here on hundreds, most of which resulted in the death of the prisoner after unspeakabl suffering.
The majority of prisoners at Gitmo have been returned to their homelands. Less than one in ten of the prisoners who went into the Nazi death camps survived.
With so many people believing and repeating anything and everything that comes from the mouths of their ideologic leaders no one should be surprised that we live in troubled times and liberty is in the greatest peril seen in our nation's history.
I am trying to follow you Nathan; because I believe this to be a very important topic, with somewhat relevant implications.
Let me get this straight, you do not see or perceive the (perhaps relatively few) violent fundamentalist Christians the same way that you view the violent fundamentalist Islamists. If that is what you are saying, you have not explained why you don’t.
I get that non-violent entities like The Southern Poverty Law Center have nothing to do with violent groups or individuals Nathan. I am talking about violent extremist terroristic religious fundamentalists of differing religions not being essentially different from each other at all.
I’m not saying that Christians and Muslims are all the same; but that the fundamentalist mentality that ‘justifies’ violence as an expression of, or as a reaction to dissatisfaction with public policy, is the same.
How are those who have bombed abortion clinics or murdered physicians any different than Muslim terrorists who have likewise used violence? I don’t think you’re saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. So please clarify what you are saying.
Stephen, I've already explained this. Muslim fanatics subscribe to a theology that ennobles those who commit acts of terrorism, including impersonal murder and mayhem toward innocents. They are supported by millions of other Muslims. I do not know what identifiable Christian group subscribes to violence in order to achieve its goals – especially not violence toward innocents. Let me ask my question again. WHAT CHRISTIAN GROUP HAS ENCOURAGED OR JUSTIFIED THOSE WHO HAVE BOMBED ABORTION CLINICS OR MURDERED ABORTIONISTS?
Can you even tell me that the fanatics who have bombed abortion clinics or murdered abortionists were regular active Christians, as opposed to right wing ideologues?
Monte, re: "i think fundamentalists are too quick to grab the heavy hammer and not very creative to finding ways to convince people to buy into their values". Sorry to disagree with you.
There is a creative plan currently in action in the world, and it is a diabolical plan to gain control of the masses. An old saw is "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". i submit this is a faulty axiom. It is predicated to deceive the masses. Through poverty & propaganda, bringing the masses to their knees, and throwing them a sop, you gain control of the slaves. Through apathy, money & resource control, and the police state, the global elite are doing very well in their planning. They are on schedule.
Have you forgotton the 1930's & 1940's?? As the masses forget the past, they will have to repeat similar global disruptions & annihilation of masses. Remember the League of Nations? Now we have the UNITED NATIONS, with the USA, EUROPE, NATO, being game planned by the elite banking systems. People say "O' there you go again, the old conspiracy plots". YES, YES, and they are a reality, and are working to achieve their goals. In the USA, people who still have jobs are so busy, going to & fro, working. raising families, but ignoring what is happening to their freedoms, while praising those freedom taking organs. Through apathy, acquiesence, ignorance, the masses are deceived and brought under control. It is happening now. Who, with power, can or will oppose it?? Ask Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, France, and all of Southern Europe about it.
Yes, the fundemental plan of the Global Elite is alive and well on Planet Earth.
The "LOVE" of money is the root of all evil. Most issues in the world today are determined by "what's in it for me". Follow the money trail for the answer.
Prohibition was passed by a fundamental Christian majority, perhaps in a low turn out election, but the money issue (taxes & mfg'er revenues) reversed it quickly, but of course the Fitzsimmons & Kennedys, & Mafia sure were offended.
The problem we face as Americans is that the tail is wagging the DOG. Instead of the individual states having power, the Federal Senate and House of Rep. have formed "the OLD BOYS CLUB", and the services and priviledges are sold to the highest bidder. Every long term member of Congress have untold wealth because
of this entrenched fact. FOLLOW THE MONEY. This mitigates against the wishes of individual voters to have any meaningful input, as the States Politicos also are on the gravy train of corruption, on down to the local town politicos getting their share of the graft. Have you wondered why small town City Managers (CM)are paid from $400K to $1 MIL annually? Its the under the table deals with developers & contractors & suppliers & secret budgets that the CM makes. Also how often a CM moves on with a Golden Parachute, to keep his mouth shut. Wake up people, it happens in your town, world wide.
All of this is orchestrated from powers in high places, our ENEMY. If you ignore this, you have been deluded. This has been going on ever since our pre-imminent & CHRIST'S arch enemy, "Lucifer, the DEVIL", arrived on planet Earth.
Steven. i believe the fundamental difference is in comparing the Christian law of "Christ, love your neighbor as yourself", versus the Islamic code of "kill the infidel". There are crazies in every group. Also the loping off of body parts for small crimes under Shariah law, is difinitely a gross fundamentalism.
This doesn’t really answer my question Earl, because I am not comparing Christianity with Islam; I’m talking about a certain mentality wherein religious fundamentalism contributes to a ‘justification’ to injure and/or murder some who disagree.
I am a believer in fundamental Christianity. Without doubt, I know Jesus to have been exactly Who He claimed to Be. I also firmly believe the entire Bible to have been inspired by God, Earl.
What we’re about is when religious beliefs, or fundamental religious beliefs bring about a concomitant delusion that one is speaking for and acting for God in all circumstances; which results in one/some feeling justified in doing anything to bring about ‘God’s’ will.
Correction (typo): What we’re talking about is…
Another thought. Then you are speaking of the voice of the anti-christ. The queen sitting on the scarlet beast, riding (flying) world-wide; the triple crowned vicar; the most popular man in Latin & S. America; the frontman for the serpent, & the cloven hoofed beast; the father of liars; the master of occult powers, selecting since the Eden scene, Earthlings to whom he promised the world if they would worship & obey him. There are and have been many "in high places" in every part of Earthly societies, who have and are drinking a toast of Kool Aid, in honor of the DARK PRINCE of the Earth. This is the ultimate FUNDAMENTAL we must evade.
This is a general comment, but perhaps mostly for Monte and Nathan. It also bounces off what Stephen said just above.
Some time ago I picked up a key point about Islam and demoncracy. It pretty much said that "true" Islamic belief could never "fit" into democracy. Essentially, Muslims who want to work within a democratic system, or "be" democratic, must find "new" ways to use the same "sacred text" as the fundamentalists, to prove different views. Progressive Muslims are Muslims who have reinterpreted their text.
Two things at least need observing about this in relation to the blog.
First, the Muslim Brotherhood is conservative and fundamentalist in their attitude, thinking and theology. They do not subscribe to the progressive thinking of those seeking to reinterpret the sacred text. However, they did in fact give an appearance of fitting within and working by democratic means in the Egypt elections. Monte, may I suggest that they in fact became very creative for their God in evangelizing their values?!
Unfortunately their core values were never democratic, and once the trojan horse was inside it spilled it's unholy contents all over the political system of its country. Millions felt cheated.
Now, when I say their core values were never democratic. They were in fact theocratic. And here is where I will borrow a line from Stephen:
This is "…when religious beliefs, or fundamental religious beliefs bring about a concomitant delusion that one is speaking for and acting for God in all circumstances; which results in one/some feeling justified in doing anything to bring about ‘God’s’ will."
That perfectly describes the Muslim Brotherhood.
But, that is not the end. It also perfectly describes an attitude. It is a theocratic attitude where the holder believes that God's will ultimately spreads over all people. This attitude can exhibit in different ways, and to different degrees. Context, cause, and personality of the holder will dictate the ways and degree. I recall recently an otherwise very sweet lady, at the conclusion of a Sabbath School lesson that was "progressive", walked away saying "I can totally understand terrorists now". I happen to know that person was working behind the scenes in every possible aspect of church to remove and root out "progressive" problems, including people.
I see and read the same attitude here too often. Not suprisingly, it comes strongest from those who refuse to even consider themselves fundamentalist. They try to escape the box by using extreme examples of fundamentalism's results to justify their exclusion. It is an attitude guys…
If you cannot let human values and respect for the absolute equality of your fellow human dictate your attitude to one another, but rather let theocratic concerns shape your interactions….you may well be on the road to fundamentalist attitude. Perhaps even arrived.
I was really interested in a comment by Schahbaz in the blog by Borg Shantz on Islam. He had this to say:
"In the last two decades many in our church have attempted to reach Muslims and in some cases they’ve done it by watering down our message. They have contextualized our message. Muslims are strong in their belief that Christians and Jews have apostatized from Allah, and therefore they will not listen to us whom they consider to be infidels."
Check: Attitude?
Change a leopards spots and he is still a leopard. Have a Muslim Brotherhood creative for their God's values, and you still have a fundamentalist.
Are Progressive Adventists ones that have "reinterpreted" their text? Are 3 ABN crying foul? Just some examples of attitude/s..
mmm…. some may love (take advantage of) the way I spelled democracy:( Sorry for typos….
I commented above, Stephen, to your basic question. Let me hasten to assure you that I am aware of kook fringe groups that combine extremist ideologies with Biblical texts to come up with some pretty strange ideas. None of them have a significant number of adherents. I don't believe that any of them have traditional religious services or churches that they worship in. More importantly, they do not subscribe to random acts of violence against civilian populations. And still more important, unlike Islamists, right wing extremists who do violence in the name of Christiainty enjoy neither state sponsorship nor the implicit endorsement of large percentages of mainstream Christians.
The simple fact, which you assiduously wish to avoid, is that violent Christianity, as an ideological force, is non-existent, and has little practical impact on either America or the rest of the world.
Well one of us is avoiding something; on that much we can certainly agree.
For sake of discussion, let me stipulate that terrorist extreme kooks are much more numerous and much more likely to be found among, and accepted by, Islamists than are found among and accepted by Christians.
Of course, that isn’t the point at all; since I am not comparing or contrasting Islam and Christianity, as you know.
The point I am making is that nuts like the Christian fundamentalists who have bombed abortion clinics, and who have murdered physicians; and the Ku Klux Klan who have historically terrorized others different from themselves (though purportedly Christians) are not at all different than are the terroristic fundamentalist Islamists. Some of these ‘Christians’ actually attend traditional religious services on a very regular basis.
Such individuals are not non-existent; and neither is the twisted and warped religion-based ideological fervor that has motivated their violent actions.
Steven, we will never understand (those of us having not only Christian values, but exhibit the fruits of the Spirit) those kooks of every persuasion, which involve the verbal condemnation & maim & murder of others. They are either not Christian (regardless of their admitting), or not of our God. What difference is there in a descriptive word, FUNDALMENTALISM, or any ISM, or any philosophy or creedal outlook, if they do not display the "fruits of the Spirit of our Christian God. I can not accept equality of groupings that desire to control others, or whose philosophies deal in hurting & killing others.
If you prefer not to assign a label or –ism to those who commit terroristic acts of violence in the name of religion-based ideological fervor, so be it.
The point is they are all alike.
One question to ponder: is part of the difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalism and their reaction to the state based at least partly on the fact that most Christian fundamentalists live where they believe they can influence the state by peaceful means, whereas most Muslim fundamentalists live in states where they beleive that is not possible?
If American Christian fudamentalists came to the conclusion that they could not now or in the forseeable future make a difference peacefully, would that change? And if fundamentalist Christians gained control of government and changed laws to reflect their ideas (no abortion, no homosexuality, no pornography, prayer in school, etc), would they accept the decsion if a large majority voted for a party that had vowed to undo all those laws?
These are indeed interesting questions to ponder. We should not discount the (potential) influence of charismatic leadership on extremist thinking either.
Kevin, there are several specific branches of Muslims of both the Shite & Sunni sects. And each grouping or sect's have variations of "fundamentalism". The sect that Ben Laden followed were the "Wahhabi's" of Southern Saudi Arabia, one of the more strict fundamentalist of Muslims, (never having arrived into the 20th century). Saudi Arabia is largely Sunni, but have concentrated bastions of Shia that cause the Royal Family great trauma of possible assassination. the Sunni's are generally more peaceful, yet have inhuman treatment for minor crimes. Saddam was a Sunni, But also a Bath and lorded it over the Shites in Iraq. Had ongoing wars with Iran (SHIA) for years. The Shah of Iran, was deposed and the Mullahs assumed all power (church & state). Iran under the Mullahs, and Syria are the greatest exported terrorism in the world. Pakistan & Afghanistan are again other types of radical religious groups, and have been battlefields for thousands of years.The Pastuns of Afghanistan (warlord fiefdoms) selling their services to the highest bidder, have never been defeated, and their male dominated (as is all Islam) society is totally fundamental. All Islam is predicated on the Koran. Non-believers are infidels and subjects for head chopping. Fundamental Christians will never, never gain control of the USA. Their influence is failing fast, The "Religious Right are publically ridiculed". The only Christian group with global power, resides on seven hills in Rome.
For some reason my training during 3 years of history classes makes me sceptical of 'never' in application to human history or the future.
I am aware of the various branches of Islam – and believe that Wahhabism is probably the most dangerous, despite the West turning a blind eye because of the influence of Saudi Arabia. Like most fundamentalist groups, the golden age they want people to return to is mostly imaginary.
I am not sure that Sunni are inherently more peaceful than Shiites.
16 years ago these somewhat prophetic words were written:
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
If you think that is Carl Sagan in A Demon Haunted World…you'd be right.
Excellent and dead on, cb25.