Have I become a “Fundamentalist” bigot?
In the tag line of my personal blog, I talk about my “insane ramblings.” Maybe I should just expose some of them so I’m not guilty of false advertising.
Just like the word “Liberal,” the word “Fundamentalist” seems to have taken on a new meaning.
Why is that?
Fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan are beating women on the street just for showing any part of their hair or even an ankle. Does this sound reasonable?
Why is it that the words “Jewish”, “Muslim”, “Christian”, and ”Islamic” seem to always precede the word “Fundamentalist,” and a description of an act of extreme hatred or prejudice follows it? Fundamentalism is the reason that in the Middle East right now, children are being taught from birth that their only reason for existing is to kill Jews, and in order to get into heaven, they must suicidally blow themselves up, taking as many souls with them as they can!
Remember when Afghan Fundamentalists dynamited giant Buddhist statues, all centuries old and irreplaceable monuments to a culture, just because they didn’t agree with their religion?
Could we be heading towards having Christian Fundamentalist groups cruising the streets and fining public buildings for not having Christmas decorations up or crucifixes over their door? Could a bill hit Congress banning the word “holiday,” replacing it with “Christian” or “Christmas”? Happy holidays! As if pretty lights, Santa Claus, and chopped-down pine trees have anything to do with the birth of Christ or why we still revere him over 2000 years later.
Could a bill be heading to Congress this minute to destroy any faces on Mt. Rushmore that even vaguely represented the Democratic Party’s point of view because the Congress is Republican? Don’t laugh; there are bills that have been introduced repeatedly encouraging replacing Democrats on our currency with Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill and/or the dime. Even our national airport was renamed after him. Will a huge battle result in Congress, after the Democrats take it back, over whether to have Reagan’s name taken back off the building again?
Could someone actually take Kennedy’s name off of the airport? Don’t laugh; Cape Canaveral the city in Florica with all the launch pads, used to be known as Cape Kennedy, but the name was changed because of a twist in the opposite political direction!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
I think a lot of this got started in 2000 (as far as elections are concerned), when almost half the country, rightly or wrongly, perceived that the election had been stolen & their voting rights nullified by a partisan supreme court which IMO should never have gotten involved, no matter how long the recount took or who it shook up. The nastiness with fundies of all stripes - especially Christians - has been developing at about the same time, when the far Right/GOP made it their business to ally themselves with the fundies & be driven by them & their extreme agendas, at about the same time the Muslim fundies were coming out of their holes to do their most spectacular crimes to date.
2 - Steve
Nancy, of course, most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century. The notion that somehow, all this stuff came from nowhere is simply not the case. Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don't want them to react, don't give them anything to react to. Simple really.
Re. the 2000 election, I must say, I do agree with you, a recount should have been allowed, even if it had turned out to be redundant. In politics, even the appearance of right being done, is better than nothing at all.
3 - NR Davis
"If you don't want them to react"... follow their rules (even if you don't agree with them or believe in funadmentalist religious notions), don't criticize the fundies, and bow to them as the entity in charge. Do all this and there are no worries about fundies. Right.
4 - SteveS
most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century.
I suppose it would have been nice for many, if we still lived in an Amos N Andy atmosphere, where gay people were closeted out of fear, where African Americans had separate drinking fountains, where Christian holidays were celebrated by everybody with no regard for those of different faiths, where women were not equal and did not have a voice over their own bodies, however progress does cause society to accept a lot of change and it's unfortunate that the sleeping giant has awoken, unhappy that it's one-sided limited narrow view is being trampled upon by Lady Liberty.
Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don't want them to react, don't give them anything to react to. Simple really.
I actually agree with that, and that's why the ideological right and conservatives are constantly portraying Christianity as being under attack. It's the only way to get them to react. That is why people like ex-Judge Roy Moore portrayed the obstacles to him putting the 10 commandments in a federal building as an assault on all Christians when nothing is further from the truth. That's why removing mandated prayer and references to a Christian God from public school is perceived as an attack on one's faith, when actually it is trying to be inclusive to all faiths including the faith of atheism. That is why conservatives say that store chains saying Happy Holidays is an attack on Christianity when realistically we know that's absurd. Christians can still buy their christmas gifts and trees at the store.
The liberal way is to follow Jesus and to try to include all. The right wingers have done an excellent job of convincing mainstream Christians that this is exclusionary and an attack on their faith. It's either their faith or the highway. This is what is pushing Christians to react and that is too bad, for it shows they have abdicated thinking to those with nefarious motives.
5 - Nancy
Politicians never seem to understand - or refuse to try to understand - the old dictum about Ceasar's wife being above reproach. As for the SC, they have no excuse for not knowing any better. Since the start of the USSC, SC jurists have gone out of their way to avoid even the vaguest appearance of partisanship, because that's what gave the USSC its credibility - a credibility that has since evaporated. Alas, reputations are very, very fragile, easily lost, and almost impossible to regain intact.
6 - Steve
Well, NR, it seemed like you are arguing that they should be bowing to your views, I was just saying you were being naive. Of course, when I showed you what it's like with the shoe on the other foot, I guess you realised that.
Well, Steve S, certainly, I would not agree with the notion that change is ALWAYS bad for society, and some good things have been accomplished. However, change is not ALWAYS good for society either. Which is why some changes have been accepted and some haven't.
I guess the concern for fundies is, that liberals don't seem to know the difference between liberty and license. A society built on the basis of licence is never going to survive in the long term. That's what kills most societies in the end.
Re. politics and religion, in almost every issue you mention, I can easily think of compromises between the two extreme positions that are taken on those issues (re. the judge, et al), but as long as you have a two party system set up like it is, compromise is very hard to achieve. Of course, to change the system, everyone who is unhappy need to be creating new parties in the hope they supercede the current paradigm. Alas, the only folks I see active politically right now, support one of the two major parties. I wish you folks who complain so much about politics would start thinking outside the 'party' box.
7 - SteveS
I guess the concern for fundies is, that liberals don't seem to know the difference between liberty and license. A society built on the basis of licence is never going to survive in the long term. That's what kills most societies in the end.
Most societies are killed by outside forces, i.e. war, rather than freedoms used irresponsibly, which I assume you mean by 'license'. Can you give one example of a society that was destroyed by using freedoms irresponsibly? Perferably actual scientifically proven demises, not fire and brimstone destruction from a punishing father figure ala the Bible. Something concrete.
in almost every issue you mention, I can easily think of compromises between the two extreme positions that are taken on those issues
yes, they are resolved, but the Christian still feels the personal faith is under attack, so the damage is done.
I wish you folks who complain so much about politics would start thinking outside the 'party' box.
I'm not inside one of the two boxes.
8 - NR Davis
No, Mr. Steve (the other one, *not* SteveS), I don't want you or anyone to bow to my wishes. I just want EVERYONE treated equally under law. There is a HUGE difference between what I am trying to do and what the fundies are doing quite successfully.
The anti-GLBT religious fundies want their views codified legally in such a way that it inhibits the way in which nonbelievers, etc., live their lives. I don't wish to force my views on how fundies live their lives except to keep them from having power over me and mine via the law. Changes to law acknowledging everyone's legal equality won't affect their churches and what they preach to their congregations and what they choose to view on TV and at the cinema. However, many religious fundies insist upon impacting the lives of other people. Their aim is plainly spoken: They want to reclaim America for Christ - through the laws, through the media, through so many avenues. Does having the right to discriminate under law mean so much to them? Obviously - they believe they have the right to supremacy, to deny equality to others and the law, as of now, agrees. That's criminal. That you and others don't or can't see it doesn't surprise me, but I can't think of much that is more sad, depressing and disgusting.
But it must be said: Not all Christian fundamentalists are on this team to form a covert US theocracy. There are fundies with hearts and brains out there who believe what they believe and feel no need or compulsion to force their beliefs on others through force of law. Goddess bless them.
9 - Jet in Columbus
Hmmm, I seem to be getting better at this writing blogs stuff. It's kinda like hitting a nest with a stick and seeing how many bees swarm out of it.
I wrote this post from my heart and mean every word of it.
Thanks Nancy, Steve NR, and SteveS
10 - Steve
NR, I don't see anyone suggesting that only religious leaders (ministers, reverends etc.) should be allowed to be politicians!! THAT would be a theocracy. Please tone down the rhetoric here, you're sounding way over the top.
NR, no matter who wins the debate, the results will affect society as a whole. This is not only about one group's rights. That would be a narrow viewpoint indeed.
11 - Jet in Columbus
You haven't spoken to Arch Conservative lately have you?
12 - SteveS
This is not only about one group's rights.
Since you are referring to the gay rights topic that NR brought up, it most certainly is about one group's rights. The Christian still has the right to discriminate, but there is no right to have society propagate prejudice.
There can be no discrimination against gays and lesbians in the school system, that does not infringe upon the right of the Christian to disapprove personally. The right to marriage for all, does not force a church to have to perform the ceremony against their will. The right to have all families receive social security benefits for loved ones, since all families pay into it, does not infringe upon the right of the religious to maintain bigotry.
Since NR spoke specifically of anti-GLBT groups, I respond in kind. The Christian has a right to their belief of prejudice and condemnation, on their own personal level. There is no right to have oppression and ostracization put into societal wide practice.
13 - Steve
I've seen his postings Jet, but haven't really connected much, from what I recall anyway.
Though I am socially conservative for the most part, I am probably more centrist on economics. So I wouldn't be totally comfortable with a moniker like his.
Re. your article, Jet, though I have respect for your political institutions (White House, Congress, Senate) I really wish you'd scrap that two party system you've got, it really sucks. Reality is way too complicated to be fitted into a two party paradigm. I prefer Canada, it's political landscape is a little more nuanced, maybe not as much as I would like, but anyway...
14 - Jet in Columbus
I've been out a physical therapy, so I'll take these one at a time, instead of in bulk
Nancy
"I think a lot of this got started in 2000" To be truthful I'd love to agree, but I see it as far back as the Nixon/Kennedy election of 1960 that was for all intents and purposes tied. At the time I was on the right-wing's side and watched my father foaming at the mouth, of course I was only 5 at the time. Jack was asassinated before any organized opposition came to fruition, (though some claim that's why he was killed) and after his death, even opposing Lyndon Johnson was looked at as disrespecting Kennedy's memory. Back then it had to do with race, not religion. So it stayed bottled despite Bobby's death, and of course Martin Luther King's. Then Nixon and Watergate, boiled over, and Ford turned the heat off the pan by pardoning him, but stirred the left up in the process.
I'd say this current batch of partison trouble happened when Reagan sold the Rupublicans to the Religous right, and the NRA in order to get elected. It's been simmering and came to a boil when the republicans took over congress under Clinton and it's been brutal and polorizing ever since.
...of course that' only my opinion.
15 - Jet in Columbus
Nancy:
"The nastiness with fundies of all stripes - especially Christians - has been developing at about the same time, when the far Right/GOP made it their business to ally themselves with the fundies & be driven by them & their extreme agendas"
I agree, but it was more the Policital right conning the religous right into joining them to gain power, one feeding off eachother. The Republican party would be completely dead right now if they didn't have their far right fringe and the right wing religous freaks.
In other words, the republicans gained power by allowing themselves to be bought in the late 70s
...but that's only my opinion
16 - Jet in Columbus
Steve:
"Most Christians just want to live in peace, but if you push them, they will push back, just like most ordinary folks. If you don't want them to react, don't give them anything to react to. Simple really...
Yeah, don't poke the sleeping bear. But what if the damned thing is sleeping in the middle of your driveway?
The trouble with your premise is that the Christian right won't keep their noses in their own horsetough, so to speak, and seem determined to be in our way at all times, just to assert their moral power over the rest of us. We're not allowed to back our car out of our own driveway so to speak unless we have their permission, and that's just wrong.
Now that's a metaphor kids before I hear a bunch of BS about Bear's rights.
Now that they've "saved" everyone in their little churches, they need more power, so they start peeking their noses into other people's private lives and trying to legislate morality.
God would be better served if they'd study their bibles instead of picking and choosing phrases to make their point.
thank you for your opinion, my friend
and this was mine.
17 - Jet in Columbus
Steve:
"...most of the Christian fundamentalism in the US has been stirred up by the social changes forced upon the country in the last century."
Yes, like the religous right bringing on prohibition, and causing a constitutional crisis?
Like using bible passages to rationalize segregation?
Like putting "In God we trust" on all our currency and acting like it's been there since the country was founded?
Hmmmm
That coin has two sides my friend!
18 - Dave Nalle
Fundamentalism is by its nature absolutist. Absolutism is characterized by its incompatibility with any points of view other than its own. What's more, most fundamentalism is also expansionistic in nature. They are intense about their beliefs and also think that because those beliefs are the absolute only correct ones, they must be imposed on everyone else, whether they are willing or not.
That kind of attitude is basically incompatible with the essential rights of everyone else in the world. The question we all have to ask is whether it's better for the world to change or for the fundamentalists to change. And the answer, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with being bigoted against fundamentalists, because they're bigoted against your freedom.
Dave
19 - Steve
Steve S, since Canada adopted same sex marriage last year, there are now already cases pending in Canada against ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin, even though the bill had provisions for religious freedom. And the government then had to scramble to find legal arguments against polygamy. If you think this is only about one group's rights, that's a mighty big sand dune your head is stuck in. You're just opening a pandora's box here, I'm afraid.
I don't expect those within the one group to notice these things but it is important for the rest of us to point these things out.
By the way, I'm not arguing about benefits or the school system here. Not sure what GLBT stands for...Gay & Lesbian... ?... ?...
Re. same sex marriage, if the government steps into this to 'approve' them, then over time, those folks' rights who oppose them will inevitably be undermined. And I'm sorry, Steve S, if you think this is about hate, then you truly are brainwashed. Of course, I suppose it's easy for you to think that when folks with my position get angry with you for your extreme naivete. We just want you to wake up, that's all.
20 - Jet in Columbus
NR Davis
"Do all this and there are no worries about fundies."
You hit it right on the head of the nail, that's exactly what they want.
Thank you
They're acting like a big schoolyard bully, but sooner or later they're going to discover there aren't as many gang members standing behind them on the playground as they think there are.
...but of course that's only my opinion
21 - Jet in Columbus
Steve #4
I can't find a damned thing to argue with on that count.
Now what fun is that?
Thanks
Jet
22 - NR Davis
Mr. Steve (*not* the redoubtable SteveS): "I don't see anyone suggesting that only religious leaders (ministers, reverends etc.) should be allowed to be politicians!! THAT would be a theocracy. Please tone down the rhetoric here, you're sounding way over the top."
Why? Because you say so? LOL... How like one of your ilk - you don't like what I'm saying so you intimate that I am over the top. Nice try.
Fact is, many are on to the truth: The fundies involved and their faithful sheep won't call it theocracy, but that is what they are attempting to achieve. And they are well on their way. Check out the political activities of an organization called Reclaiming America (that's how it is listed on google and it's what the group is called in news items, but the full name is the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ; it was founded by D. James Kennedy, the Focus on the Family guy who has Dubya's ear and was privy to the deep skinny on Harriet Miers). Investigate the role of the Religious Wrong in Republican Party politricks. Explore horrid groups with frightening acronyms: AFA, FRC, CWA, FOTF. Probe the so-called ex-gay movement, which is increasingly vocal, nasty, medacious and POLITICAL. Then tell me a covert theocracy isn't under way. Sure, they won't have the actual clerics in elected-offhosicial roles (although those fundie pastors and "family" group leaders do seem to find their way onto ballors from time to time, don't they? and god knows we've seen the pols bow to fundies time and again - hell, the "prez" is honorary chair of a discriminatory private organization that is a fave of fundies *because* it violates the claimed american ethos that all are equal), we know who is running the show. We know. An American "president" in the year 2006 speaks publicly about adapting the constitution to enshrine discrimination against a particular group of citizens? Absolutely that is the work of theocracy-minded, control-freak Christian fundies who want to reclaim America for their deity and who have Shrubbies' nuts within their holy grasp. Even dumbass Dems are falling prey to it - recall Slick Willie after the anti-american DoMA was enacted a decade ago. Those sorts of things - DoMA, the proposed FMA - are all about enshrining religion into law and forcing the rest of us to obey. You call it whatever you like. I call it moving toward covert theocracy. It's a dangerous and disgusting thing that many of us will oppose tooth and nail. Will the anti-equality fundies get their way? Probably. But those of us opposed to their vile reclamation quest will never surrender. We will not go along with the smokescreen. And we certainly will not take seriously those who don't have the guts to admit the true goal behind their movement. It's theocracy they're working toward, no matter what they call it.
23 - SteveS
Steve S, since Canada adopted same sex marriage last year, there are now already cases pending in Canada against ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin, even though the bill had provisions for religious freedom.
Canada has hate crimes speech laws which stem from Nazism. Unless you can link to sources that show otherwise, these preachers are not being prosecuted under marriage laws for not performing marriages but for hate speech. Perhaps hate speech isn't exempt from the pulpit in Canada, I don't know. I'm not labeling it hate speech and I'm not saying it isn't, I make no claim of my own but am pointing out that being charged with hate speech would still be in place whether or not the marriage laws were in place.
And the government then had to scramble to find legal arguments against polygamy.
The government needs to get out of the business of defining our relationships anyway. We are grown consenting adults.
If you think this is only about one group's rights, that's a mighty big sand dune your head is stuck in.
You want to deny millions of gay and lesbian families basic protections so that the majority who already enjoy them can have their rights protected and my head is stuck in the sand dune?
And I'm sorry, Steve S, if you think this is about hate, then you truly are brainwashed.
I said bigotry and prejudice. I ask you to point out which comment I said hate. Please quit putting false words in my mouth.
We just want you to wake up, that's all.
What do you want me to wake up to? To second class citizenship and denial of basic rights, liberties and privileges for my family so you can continue your prejudice? You want me to say 'oh, okay, my family will continue to be unfairly taxed and my family will continue to pay into governmental programs like SS but get less back in return for your family so you can maintain your belief of superiority? Is that what you want me to wake up to?
24 - Joey
I've noticed that a very huge issue dividing voters is abortion. Absolutely. We base our elections on Abortion. It comes up in every election, it's a key to establishing whether a politician is fit to run, or an appointee (Supreme Court) is fit for selection.
Abortion. The United States bases its political goals, agenda, strategy on whether or not officials believe in abortion or not.
Abortion is running this country, it may even be effecting world events. There is something wrong with that.
25 - NR Davis
That's how it appears from here. And when I look at my life, that's what I see - the effects of second-class citizenship and betrayal by "fellow citizens" who wouldn't understand the real meaning of "equality under law" and "equal protection" and "separation of church from state" if those terms bit them in the gonads.