An explanation of Fundamentaism: where the RW goes atray.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A new coalition dedicated to converting thousands to Christianity and getting thousands more on voter registration lists got its start Friday with a tightly scripted rally that resembled a revival meeting.
More than 1,000 people gathered outside the Statehouse for the launch of Reformation Ohio. The group, founded by the Rev. Rod Parsley, a television evangelist and pastor of the World Harvest Church in suburban Columbus, vehemently opposes gay rights, and Parsley has written that the teachings of Islam were inspired by demons.

OK Here goes:

As I have now been posting on DU for over four years, I have witnessed a lot of discussion about my dear friends on the right wing of Christianity. Most of the criticism is justified because their tactics are so atrocious. This is yet another instance

Unfortunately, some among us would want to tar all Christians and all fundamentalist with the same broad brush these folks in Columbus deserve

I thought I might introduce what I see as the real theological problem the fundies have as a means of carrying this important debate a bit beyond the daily rants. I recognize that the RW has the only microphone in all of Christendom and it is therefore easy to make some assumptions and generalities.

Let me just stat for the record that I do not feel the least bit persecuted on DU, though I am offended by some of the rhetoric which is nothing short of hate speech: THe tolerance of which is an issue that some of you ought to be equally offended by. Apparently GOP Hate speech should be given no quarter but anti Christan speech is ok?

Nonetheless..

Fundamentalism at the core is about the supremacy of Scripture, There are varying views on the literal interpretation and how far to take it in one's own life. We all make our choices and within the church there is certainly a lot of diversity of thought on the question of inerrancy. AS for me this and issues of devotion and personal faith are to each his own.

The issue of the authority of Scripture is an important issue for fundies, because quite honestly it is sort of difficult to conceive that the God of Scripture would allow anything to be canonized which would be either error or untrue. To believe that He would, is incredibly disturbing even if our minds can't comprehend His reasons?

I readily admit that God certainly in His infinite wisdom created law which to our post modern and pluralistic minds must seem pretty whacked.

Where fundies get all out of whack is when they overreach on the intent of Biblical claims they cite. Mosaic Law which they use to bash everyone who does not believe as they do-- the same law that many on DU public ally scorn-- was never meant for the entire world to adhere to. It was meant for the people that He set apart. It was to teach them how to live in the Land He was giving them and how to live with one another within that community, lest they lose it.

It was never meant for the Assyrians or the Hittites or the Amorites or even the termites. It was meant for the Descendants of Abraham and no one else.

Right Wing Fundies seek to impose that directive on everyone through politics of belligerence and it will not work. In fact...it is heresy of the first rank because it attempts to equate political power and spiritual power as equal means of advancing the Kingdom message.

This is precisely why Jesus railed upon the Pharisees: Why Paul says, some posses a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.It is what James called dead works.


The Kingdom of God is not advanced through the art of politics or the use of political power and if you are chasing it for anything other than preaching Jesus Christ and nothing else it is idolatry.

THis, I believe, it the heart of the problem with some fundy's obsession with seeking to impose a Biblical world view on a a post-modern and pluralistic society.

It is sad and pathetic and arrogant and narrow-minded and it is the adoration of power rather then the adoration of Christ. Idolatry

I have had the opportunity to expose this fallacy to many well meaning but certainly self-righteous Christian and they wilt.

You can't bring people to faith if you are known for railing against them for doing what they have no obligation not to do. How are you going to effectively evangelize Democrats when you tell them their politics are evil?

The point is that the problem is not fundamentalism per se... its the RW's obsession with imposing its moral constraints on those outside the community with a political power that is both heretical and Idolatrous.

I certainly understand the desire to rant against these zealots.... by all means go for it.....just be aware that Fundamentalism should not be so easily equated with hypocritical zealots.

I offer this in this forum as clarifying information and hopefully as a dialog starter between Christians on the site and others who are tired of the daily rants

RW Christians.

the Kingdom is advance through the use of politics.

One thing the RWs do when it comes to fundie zealots is they agree with every stupid, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, war-mongering, corporate profiteering statement that comes out of their mouths.

thanks... but I am confused about one sentence. Can you elaborate?

.just be aware that Fundamentalism should not be so easily equated with hypocritical zealots.


I really appreciate it because this is a good essay and I want to understand all your points.

Fundamentalism is pretty basa principle... You believe what you believe because the Bible says it and you take it as an article of faith.. THE RWs overreach when they seek to impose that frameworkj on everyone.. THe stautes are effectively for the nation of Israel..not for Unites States.


Its not that the statute are wrong, it is just that they are not meant for everyone.

Perhaps we need another word to delineate between your garden-variety fundamentalist who is just following the Bible and the zealot who drags his beliefs into the politcal arena.

But then again, "zealot" is pretty good.

to worship or believe in. I want them to keep it within their private lives and out of our public government. Those religions want to impose their moral code on everyone, and really I think all Christian religions are guilty of this if they can get away with it. If people want to worship a stuffed pig, or have sex only when they want to procreate, it's their business, but don't expect everyone to do that.

We do have some norms that we all agree on. Most Americans don't believe in public nudity and there are laws about it as there should be because it's what is normal for our society, but to impose narrow moral codes to society at large is really not acceptable.

Even Jesus rendered to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's. Jesus had a very clear idea of separation of Church and State. Whenever he was accused of being a revolutionary, he very clearly stated that his kingdom was of heaven, not of earth. I think his followers should respect the teachings of their master.

you would have no problem with them?

I think people should be free to believe in what they think is spiritual. Now I know that there are abuses by cults of people's need for religion, but I think these abuses would be considered against the law and prosecutable as such. However, if people want to dress funny and follow restrictions of sorts that most of us would consider silly, like taking vows of chastity and such, it really is none of our business as long as they don't get into power enough to try to make us follow their system of morality.

The Terri Schiavo affair was what happened when church and state merged and interfered with what should have been a private family matter. This was very bad and shows how freedom of religious practice can cross the line into the public arena where it doesn't belong. I think Jeb Bush should have been recalled or impeached for this egregious abuse of his power.

You mentioned that you think all Christian religions are guilty of wanting to impose their moral code on everyone.

I belong to the Episcopal Church, which has taken a lot of heat lately for some rather progressive stances.

The Anglican Church in England is the mother church of my denomination and recently all the Anglican Bishops wrote a letter condemning the Iraq war as being illegal and immoral.

Is that imposing their moral code on everyone? It just so happens that it is a moral code I believe in. But what about when the Catholics come out politically against abortion? I agree with one, not with the other...but are either of them right? Or wrong?

I am not asking you in order to argue. I really am conflicted about this and am interested in your take on it.

would impose their moral standards if they could. In high school, we students were forced to call a local movie theater threatening to boycott them if they went ahead with plans to show a movie the Church didn't approve of. There was a list of books you couldn't read or movies you couldn't see.

Of course if you chose to be a Catholic, you would probably do what the priest said. It's just that the priest didn't tell the Prostestants or Jews what books they could read or movies they could see. I never heard any politicians being promoted back then or political philosphy. There was a certain amount of pride in John Kennedy running for President, but there were also plenty of those, including nuns, who backed Richard Nixon. No one got up on the pulpit and said you have to vote for John Kennedy.

So if Moonies want to Moon and Episcopalians want to do good works and if fundies want to wait for the Apocalypse, it has nothing to do with us unless they try to make us do it. This is what is happening and I think any Church that pokes its nose in politics needs to lose it's taxfree privilege, if not outright fined for being in violation of the Constitution. Other than that let them be.

On edit: I have nothing against a church taking a stance against war or other abuses of our government as long as they don't interfere with the government. I have a religious objection to the cruel practices we use to raise and kill the animals we eat, but I don't think most people agree with me. If I work for change in this part of our culture it won't be through religion but through secular organizations.

First of all its not against the Consitution for anyone to assembee under any banner for redress of grievances. Everyone has that right in a group or not.

Let me aske the question another way>

If a Group of fundies maced on Washington as said this is our point of view... We can't make you abide by it...but this is our vies....Would you still have a problem?

My point is that the battle is no merely so much about meassge as it is about tactics.

Do I wish Rws would not orgaize to try and snuff out abortion and Harry Potter books? Of course. Not because their view or wrong but because their tactics do not work and they do not care if it offends.

FOr them it is not about Jesus it is about relevance and power. WHen they trade in the real for the counterfiet, they should know...if they are fundamentaist that is doomed to failure and have more negative results than postive.

"FOr them it is not about Jesus it is about relevance and power."

It's mostly about the power and that is the difference between genuine religion and cultish behavior.

I would have no problem with fundies marching on Washington to express their views. I think you would see what dissent is about. It doesn't mean that everyone is going to see it their way. It's when a group of fundies takes over our government, like what is happening now that is giving me the problem.

This business of the Supreme Court judge appointees has brought this into the spotlight. We can't have justices that make rulings just because of what they believe Jesus has said to them. Incidentally, there is no reference to abortions in the New Testament.

So you can see how distorted beliefs about a woman's right to what happens to her body, can be forced by a few on the many. Now if a fundie woman truly believes that it's wrong to abort an unwanted pregnancy, that's her choice. That is what it is about.

with the RW tactics is not that they are illegal or even wrong, but that they DO it so damned well.

Which hits the ball back into our court. We have to answer.

That epole with a religious life have no role in our national political life?

our national political life. What if a religion came along that condoned human sacrifice? What if they got a substantial following and because murder is against our laws, what if they tried to change those laws to allow human sacrifice, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else? I don't think you would care for it.

I feel the same way about Ten Commandments in my court of laws. There are many other religious moral tracts that are just as moral as the Ten Commandments but no one wants to put them in our courthouses. Yet, Bush has stated that the reason Harri Meiers is a good Supreme Court Justice choice is because she is a religious Christian. PooBah on that!

Wsa larger? Say 15 memeber rahter than nine. I ask because it seems to me that the larger the court the easier it would be to guard against against the passiond of factions,

I think the concern about Meiers is not incorrect. but ultimately I think it goes more to the impact to the Court being closely divided than her individual beliefs.

I am not suggesting that Roe be overturned. It just seems to me that we all look at the Constitution and the Founding Father's intent and today;s social and legal milies through our own experience.

Should the fact that someone is religious disqualify them from public service? Is that not discriminatory?

The real problem with our system is that we need a parlaimentary system where all factions get a voice. This way religious ideas would have a voice too, but they would be restrained from trying to take over. The idea behind a parlaimentary system is that in order to pass legislation, parties have to form coalitions with other groups to get through legislation that represents the majority.

Our system has lead to a one party system it seems that smacks of totalitarianism and dictatorship no different from the Soviet Union. The big difference was that the Marxists persecuted religion. In our new system religion is dangerously close to persecuting atheists and all other religions that don't agree with their narrow interpretation of the Bible.

Put aside the abortion issue, I am more upset about the creationism or intelligent design making it into our children's science classes. Where are we going to get our next generation of doctors, chemists, physicists etc., if they are not schooled in the basic sciences when it counts? When a kid reaches university age, who has been taught this nonsense, they have a lot of catching up to do.

on the head of a pin. I know the court question is serious however, there ain't nothin you can do about it right now. My only hope is that when we send all these PNAC-o-cons to prison, that a new Congress can maybe find a way to nullify these appointments and get some qualified judges in there. What their religious beliefs or non-beliefs are shouldn't even enter into the appointments.

The only reason the PNAC-o-cons are tooting Meiers religion is that without it she has nothing to offer as a judge. So they must bellow about this to their choir or start them asking questions too.

you see nothing wrong with, say, an "advisory" kind of stance like the Bishops letter, but if they were at the polling place that would be another issue all together.

or telling them they would be excommunicated if they didn't vote the way the church thought they should vote. However, explaining the Church's position on issues is a freedom of thought and speech issue for the churches as much as it is for anyone else. However, interfering with elections and pouring campaign money into certain candidates war chests to me is a violation of the division of church and state. I don't think corporations should do so either and we do need an ammendment to separate business and corporate interests from the state as well.

I have an orthodox Jewish friend (those set aside for whom the rules were written, in the terminology of this thread) who says Israel is an abomination and should not exist, as it is an attempt to compel the will of YHWH.

Please understand that I hold in equal scorn those who believe that man is mortal because a nekkid woman had a chat (a chat, she actually TALKED?, with a gossipy water moccasin and those who believe the earth rests upon the back of an elephant standing on the back of a turtle of a turtle of a turtle, etc. and those who believe in the literal creation myths of the ancient Assyrians, Egyptians, Maya, Mexica, and Khmer. They're lovely stories. That's it. Period.

We've moved on, and only the extremely soft-skulled could take any of it literally.

Islamic fundamentalism was described by T.E. Lawrence in his "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" as a "Muslim heresy." So, too, Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism (if there is such a thing) are equally heretical in the face of greater knowledge and understanding.

The one thing that all these fundamentalisms have in common is their deadly bigotry, for each one seeks to explain why one small group is favored over others by an arbitrary establishment of criteria for determining that superiority and, concomitantly, why, under certain circumstances, it's OK to kill other, lesser peoples.

Selah.

I don't know how it's specifically worded. But you seem to be saying that Christianity should stay with the business of practicing and teaching the words of Christ--not an easy life, if taken literally or even figuratively. And stay the hell out of politics, am I reading you right? And the extreme fundamentalist attempting to impose Mosaic law (wasn't that supposed to end with the birth of the messiah, anyway?)Are not only wrong, but way out of line according to the tenets of their own faith?
I'm agnostic and admit those in power or even those who preach what I consider hate from the pulpit get me upset and angry.
But I read a lot. My general, uneducated impression is that Jesus would be pissed at these folks. (Kind of like that bumper sticker--Jesus is coming and boy is he pissed)
Edit 'cause tenant and tenet have completely different meanings :-(

it in the same vein.

First, your comments on Fundie-bashing are measured and probably accurate. As you say, when non-believers become outraged because a fundamentalist may be attacking their core beliefs, the natural inclination is to respond in kind. Imposition of creationist textbooks in public school systems, homosexuality being attacked as "sin", or Planned Parenthood being pilloried as a Satanic organization tend to inflame those not subscribing to those viewpoints.

That said, I think sometimes that we on the left, despite our paying lipservice to "multiculturalism" are sometimes more tolerant of Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Wicca Paganism than we are of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists aren't going to go quietly back to their churches if they see those churches as under attack.

The problem I see with fundamentalism (and I'd include militant Catholicism here too) is the issue of abortion. It's something that adherents of certain fundamentalist religions simply can't countenance or tolerate. I can understand that viewpoint and maybe even respect it as a deeply held and genuine moral belief. The problem is -- how can you square that with the equally sincere and deeply held beliefs of those who do not view a fertilized embryo in its initial stages of existence and unviable outside the mother's womb as worthy of protection when the mother incubating it does not want to bring it to term?

My point is that abortion is the driving force making for the present gap between the Christian right and the Democratic left. It never goes away. Until science and human behavior finds a better way of curbing unwanted pregnancies, I guess I just don't see any answers to the present impasse between Christian evangelicals and Pro-Choice adherents.

On the one hand, If my position that Right wing political involvement is born out of an idolatry to power, then they have little business seeking to impose their views on the unchurched. (Imposing thier views on the churched is an entirely different matter).

ON the other handm their is a strain within the Sermon on the Nount and certainly thePoetry and Prophets that speaks to righting injustice. If it is benedifical for fundamentalist christians to see a Biblical and moral imperative to be abolotionists or Freedom Riders in the Sixties how could it be inherently wrong to seek the moral absolutism on the issue of abortion as well?

Again I think it comes down to an issue of tactics. OPeration Resuc no doubtpushed more people away froma life of faith then babies who were saved. I do not think that is what Jesus had in mind

I think it is fine to be anti-abortion, but your motivation has to be Christ-Centered and not fetus0centered. Ultimately my faith tells me that if these folks would spens as much time alone and on their knees praying for a spiritual awakening rather then in from of abortion clinc screaming "baby killers baby killers" every third saturday of the month. they would be far more effective witneses in the Kingdom of God.

Again, you don't restore righteousness by protesting, or packing the High Court or imposing your moral code on the rest of us. It is only done God's way.

Much of what motivates the RW is a quest for relevance through poliitcal power, It ought to be a search for transparency and through prayer and humility and charity.

I think it is fine to be pro-like but if your tactics push people away from Christ what have you accomplished?

In other words:
Lord Lord did we not protest at the clinic in your name, and the Lord said get away from me I do not know you.

(And I think the love of power is absolutely behind this -- as it has been throughout history, to be honest about it)

The fundamentalist (of the sort you describe) love of Leviticus is fairly selective -- it's a hammer used to bash those they disagree with, anything else they can give or take.

And I think another failure on their part is their idolization of Paul over Christ's teachings. So much of the core of their theology is Pauline. And again, that's because their reading of Paul fits nicely with their biases.

I do agree with your assessment. I think their theology is wrong, but if that's how they wish to live, fine. I draw a pretty wide and sharp line however, when they wish to force me to live that way.

You seem to suggest that the Pauline text are somehow inferior ornot as relevant as the Gospels.

I would not disagree that certain groups get pretty darn selective in ther renderings.

But central to fundamentalis theorology is that the whole of the text is inspired and without error. After all how could a a God full of wisdom and grace allow the canonisation of incorrect dogma? If the text is wrong then we are all pretty much off the hook. That a pretty steep slippery slope into exisitentialism.


the problem is in the misapplication anf misterpretation of the text..but the larger problem is that they would rather ascend to power throgh a political fight then be humbe servant of the Lord through constant prayer and utter dependence.

as I most certainly don't think the bible is without error. I think it's human work, and therefore full of error, but still inspired by God and worth the read, if you will, for what it can teach us.

I'm trying, but Paul's many faults make him a less than sympathetic character to me. Add the misinterpretation and misapplication you mention and you start to come up with something very judgmental and not very loving.

But I'm pretty damned liberal in my Christianity, and even for my fairly liberal-minded church, something of a happy heretic!

have begun their Taliban-tastic Crusade against Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.

I want to help stop them.

For the sake of our country.

Your post is well written. This point I am bringing up goes across all relgions/philsophies around the world. When you sweep aside all the rethoric and demonizing in whatever language using whatever holy (or non-holy) book, it comes down to the person at the top.

Many in the middle are at the top of their abilities and can rule over their own little mountain.

Often the underlining reasons for these are almost all economic related.

God only wrote rules for a tiny segment of humanity, and the rules were abused by people trying to apply them to everyone.

What? More of the God has certain chosen people bullshit?

Arrrgggh!!! I'm on point with Thomas Paine when he said that if God wanted to communicate his laws to people the worst way is to write them down. Words can be changed, manipulated, translated, interpreted, etc. Now why would he/she/it do that?

Now that man has taken the trouble to invent worldwide television, why don't he/she/it just get on the damn television and tell us what the fuck he/she/it wants instead of communicating through hurricanes, earthquakes and distasters, which by the way, seem to disproportionately affect the poor and dispossessed?

I appologize for all you people who need to feel persecuted for your religion. But I am soooo sick to death of it. And this is coming from a guy who was practically raised in the church. When you finally wakeup, it's pretty bad.

Actually I take back my appology.I realize that you all really need someone to persecute you for your beliefs. That's an important part of the whole smorgasbourd isn't it? Wouldn't be worth a damn if someone didn't tell you to let go of stupid superstitions.

The poster never speaks of God communicating through natural disasters. He never claims to feel persecuted, infact, he straight out claims that he does not. He claims understanding of why theist/nontheist flamewars start. He also puts together a case for why the fundies act the way they do, based on their love of power, rather than love of God. While I disagree with the original poster on some theological issues (the inerrancy of the Bible, for example), I think he's put together an article that's a cut above the usual flamewar screeds we see here.

Easter Bunny pulled the planet out of his ass...just keep it to yourself and don't impose your views on others by getting in their face and especially not by imposing your faith-based legislation on other people.