It is rather odd when you see people who are in a Republic/Democracy and yet subscribe to an authoritarian, monarchical religion based on an ultimate King and a heirachy of subservience.

Even when you consider the conceptual demarcation of separation of church and state, the cognitive dissonance implied might play more deeply into the political results than believers an non- believers realize.

The people that fell into the "born-again" camp are too lazy to apply critical thinking and lead a fight against the religious idiots.

-Laelth

it's everybody else's. Can anyone tell me how that attitude is any different than the one exhibited by the fundies being condemned?

Well at least the author isn't anti-religious. LOL

I don't see why we can't have both.

This is America.

We have lots of things.

Which can be read here among other places.

One thing it says is

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices -- racism, for example -- quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

Fundamentalism is wrong because they don't follow our equally unsupported view of God and the Bible.
How dare they interpret the Bible themselves when we have been doing it for people for centuries.
Our voodoo is correct, not theirs.

However, I suggest that the last paragraph

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

But that does not in any way prove that it is a less correct interpretation of scripture, or less in line with what "god" really wants or intends, than any other, including those touted by you, the Catholic Church, or the "liberal" and "progressive" apologists who inhabit this board.

That's what you don't, and won't, understand or acknowledge.

However, you are steadfast in ignoring the last paragraph of the paper, which I quoted twice. Apparently, your intent is merely to sneer.

That is what YOU don't, and won't, acknowledge.

as any intelligent person reading this could see. Sorry if you're stumped for a response that passes the laugh test.

though i think scott also makes a valid point.

what aspects of official Catholic doctrine are expressed with doubts, reservations or qualifications? And which aspects are expressed with certitude? Does official Catholic doctrine acknowledge that the church might just as easily be wrong as right in its declaration that women cannot be priests? Or is that a fundamental belief, unchangeable in the face of any evidence or argument?

The differing levels of acceptance called for by the Catholic magisterium and so on

Anyway, judging by what I have read by you, you really don't want to know. Your mind is already made up.

You know I'm right. And so does every intelligent person reading this.

But keep dodging. I'd be disappointed if you did anything else.

Trying to explain the actuality of religion to you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.

I am not dodging anything. I could explain it, and would do so if I thought you had even the slightest interest in the subject. But since I'm sure you don't, I won't waste the effort.

I've been both a religious believer AND an atheist, so I'm wagering that I know far more about the "actuality of religion" than you know about the other side. And the same will be true for most atheists you'll meet.

And I'm interested in showing that your and the Catholic church's take on "fundamentalism" is horseshit. Which every attempt of yours to dodge simple and direct questions about it proves even more conclusively. Thanks!