[this post is a digression from the post Secular satire and Muslim rage]
danutz
hmmm….
When I used the word "fundamentalist" I do not mean it to be a put down…
Yet your original post stated, unequivocably:
Fundamentalism and foundationalism kills in all religions
Being lumped in with killers, at a time when 9/11 and 7/7 is still fresh in our collective memories, seems like a very significant put-down of Christian fundamentalism. Whilst I originally wondered whether it might have been a title that was attached to the lunatic fringe of the "US Christian right", who, so the smear campaign goes, are only ever a whisker away from shooting an abortionist with their morning coffee, instead, to my amazement, you explain that…
When I say “fundamentalist Christian” I’m referring to those that adhere to strict fundamentals that were created early in the past century as a backlash to the development of modern science (particularly in the area of evolutionary science). Mostly what I mean is that these people adhere to strict literal interpretation of the bible in those areas that seem extremely bizarre to most of the industrialized world (6-day creation, virgin-birth, literal afterlife, etc)
I’m unaware that this grouping - which you demark with doctrines that remain dear to massive elements of the Christian community, many of whom have no idea what evangelicalism is, let alone fundamentalism - has a particularly strong track record with respect to "killing." This is a typical ‘straw-man’ argument that subtly posits people of certain faith positions as being a defensive, unthinking, reactionary minority, which is objectionable to the wider society. Whilst such individuals may exist in the virtual world of sound-bites and cyberspace websites, to use the term readily and carelessly invites offence and constitutes the kind of inaccurate broad-brush-stroking that I find to be an incredible element of your post, danutz.
(Moreover, if these fundamentals were a response to the modernism and scientism of the last century, then fundamentalism ought not to be lumped into the equation when considering the more frequently quoted sins of Christianity: the Crusades, Inquisition, Colonialism etc. Would you agree with this distinction?)
Where Christians have been caught up in widespread killing during the past century (Rwanda, Bosnia et al) the underlying agenda certainly hasn’t been fundamentalist doctrine. In such situations, as was the case in Northern Ireland, religious identification is frequently little more than the label by which tribalism smears itself with false righteousness. Faith and Truth will always struggle to find the oxygen to breath in such times and places; we ought not to add to their struggle to survive by attempting to impose false restrictions upon them in quite different times, places and situations where such imposition is an unwarranted and unjustified condemnation of their "right to life and free expression."
By and large, Christian affinity with killing for faith’s sake, passed away with the Crusades, the Dark Ages and the final acceptance of the Papacy that Protestantism wasn’t going away (at least not by strong arming.) Whilst we may well wish to highlight the role that secularism, democracy and even liberalism have played in this process of de-militarising Christianity, it in no way justifies belittling those Christians who choose to hold to traditional faith positions, such as the ones you highlight, which have no link to "killing." With the dreadful backdrop of Marxism, murderous anti-Semetic Nazism, brutal Communism and global capitalism - all philosophical systems devoid of faith - actually dominating the last century, I suggest your fondness for lumping all "fundamentalist religion" together in the font of murderous intentions needs careful re-examining - or at least, a more balanced presentation — will you, therefore, withdraw the unfortunate link which you so readily made?
By contrast, whilst I’m apparently defending "fundamentalism" - as you define it - for all of us who value free and open discussion, many - including within the scientific community - are consistently taken back by the neo-totalitarian embrace of evolutionary theory and its use as a heavy-handed tool to put down anyone who questions its application. It surely cannot have escaped your attention that this is rapidly drawing us into a new form of scientific fundamentalism, with an assumed right to have the final say on all issues. This demonstrates what I was trying to highlight with my original comment: if the underlying spirit of an agenda is still demonstrating an intention to dominate others, then not only is it not post-modern, it is also post-charity, post-love, post-Jesus.
shalom! - john
Re: labels, fables and straw men
John, while I am encouraged by your strong rebuttal and am in agreement with most of what you have to say (it is a MUCH needed critique!), I want to comment on the following:
There are two points in here that I have questions on.
1. Regarding the "devoid of faith" in the systems you quote, I would suggest, rather, that they are devoid of God (Marxism, Nazism, Leninist Communism) and one of them is not even devoid of God: global capitalism (remember Adam Smith’s "the invisible hand" that guides the market system?). There are plenty of articles on the "faith" of Westerners (especially Americans!) in the "market." I will simply refer you to Max Weber’s seminal work (and the nearly 100 years of follow-up, critiquing and nuancing that follows. Liah Greenfeld, for instance, says Weber was wrong: nationalism is the real thrust of capitalism. My own work is on the nationalistic tendencies of American Protestants, and I feel pretty strongly that Americanism is a religion/faith as well.)
2. This point follows from the first. National leaders cannot act in Western democracies in the long term (we are now in our sixth year of Bush) without the endorsement of a majority of the population. As you well know, the overwhelming majority of American Christians voted for Bush. To what extent does their support of him implicate them in "killing" or, at least, in the dismal abyss that we find ourselves in in the Middle East? And I haven’t even mentioned that a majority of the military self-reports as "Christian" as well.
Re: labels, fables and straw men
I appreciate your thoughts, makaden
On point 1, I would largely agree with you. i was referring to "religious faith" as normally interpreted within our western cultural matrix. Nevertheless, faith means little more than trust and trust can indeed be placed in many philosophies and material perceptions and realities.
i think that discussion of your point 2 has probably been overtaken by peter’s latest post, "the view from here to over there" - the response to which contains an albeit-muted recognition by danutz of his clumsy inclusivity when referring to the favourite straw-man fundamentalist.
I also noticed that I am not alone in wanting to admonish and critique this widening trend towards muddying the waters of the Christian faith.
shalom! - johnRe: labels, fables and straw men
You can use whatever labels you want. I use the word "fundamentalism" but by any other name what I’m refering to are the central elements:
1. A backwards (ancient) belief in how the universe works (6-day creation, virgin birth, afterlife, etc)
2. The idea that only people of your own belief system are "ok" or "accepted by God" and everyone else is "hell bound" or "rejected by God" and that the lives of people outside your own belief system are somehow less valuable.
3. Your own particular understanding of God complete with its particular interpretation of sacred texts, metaphors, and language is the only plausible way to learn how to love and grow and foster the type of community/relationship/kingdom that Jesus called us to.
Pick whatever word you want for the combination of elements, but that is what I mean by it. I think it is deadly and has existed at various times in nearly all the worlds’ religions with tragic results. I thought maybe we had learned from past mistakes
I had pretty much assumed that most people here wanted to move past these elements in OST, but maybe I was wrong. I would rather put those items to bed and work on ideas for an OST beyond those foundations.
deconstructed, undeconstructed... live and let live
danutz…
I think you are missing my point which is basically framed helpfully by your own three categories:
I originally posed you a question - are you aware that the way that you speak (write) about people - like "fundamentalists" - who exists as people outside of "your own ("deconstructed"?) belief system" appears to be highly dismissive? Your anxiety to suggest that I am taking a backward step, ‘against the flow of OST,’ simply by questioning your approach on this very particular semantic issue, suggests that even now you would like to close down my critique - the seeming opposite ideal to what you say with your final (albeit sarcastically presented) paragraph.
I point this out, danutz, because everything else in your posts seems to point towards a desire for "living at peace" with others, in a spirit of open debate, yet, to me, you create a credibility gap with this dicothomy: it is you who actually appear uncomfortable with the tension created by the existence of "others" who have this different belief system by demonstrating a desire to downgrade their beliefs and cajole them towards your own "enlightened" way. Your desire to characterise particular dogma as "backward" is further example. Ditto, re. my taking issue with you lumping together believers who have had no reason (or opportunity) to deconstruct their faith in the way you have, with "killers."
I would ask you this, danutz: Can you live with the reality that people who believe in the "fundamentals" you describe, can contribute, not only to OST, but towards genuine, compassionate Christian community? Can you give up your assumption - no, your insistence - that it is impossible to retain these doctrines without also assuming that it also implies an unthinking, reactionary, academically vunerable, militant, head-in-the-sand faith?
~
I trust you will at least understand the criticism properly now. If you care to follow the links and the arguments I’ve presented to you, you surely will not fail to understand the deliberate form of offence and subtle hectoring that is employed over this issue… to appreciate the intentional muddying of the waters taking place. I would simply ask you whether your own ideals - so ably, clearly and compassionately presented in other places - might, in fact, suggest that it is appropriate to be somewhat bigger-hearted about the dogma and beliefs of those Christians with a faith less-deconstructed than yours.
Finally, if you really are interested in discovering another viewpoint, one that doesn’t fit into your characterisation of rabid fundamentalist, but also doesn’t buy into the level of deconstructionalism I understand you to promote, then let’s talk some more. If nothing else, as an aid to helping you understand where I’m coming from, as someone who hasn’t been exposed to the kind of fundamentalism you appear to be in (somewhat painful?) reaction to.
shalom! - john
Re: deconstructed, undeconstructed... live and let live
I basically agree with John (and wanted to post something similar myself) but I will sum up with this, danutz:
…you can’t build with a sledgehammer.
It doesn’t come across well.
Re: deconstructed, undeconstructed... live and let live
John,
one quick point… I think you need to match ALL 3 to fall into that cateogory. Please don’t think I’m saying everyone in category 1 is a killer of people!!!!!!!!
Let me assure you that I do not fall into categories 2 and 3 above as you suggest. I’ve never claimed to own truth and never asked anyone to stop debating.
My reference to "killers" is meant to say those 3 points I made above are found in all religious wars. If you somehow identify with them then maybe that is a problem with you and not my definition. I didn’t say that you or anyone here falls into that category, I was just attempting to define it for purposes of discussion.
I have no problem using other terminology to describe those beliefs. Let me know what term you prefer. If you don’t fit into those categories, then I’m not describing you. However, given your comments above I think I can assume that you somehow identified with them.
I value your posts and I think if you read anything I’ve written you will see that I’ve not made any personal attacks. I take great care to point any attacks at a straw man (to use your term) rather than at people or "real" groups like denominations or geographical areas. I use the word "fundamentalist" for the very purpose to be sure I am speaking to a group that no one here will identify with. I don’t particularly think you fit that mold and was not particualarly speaking to you.
What makes you think you are a fundamentalist in my definition? You don’t really fit that description do you? You may agree with #1 but not #2 and #3. I don’t think you do and I never said you did. The only insults that I have hurled (by accident) were at this metaphorical straw man called fundamentalism. I felt like that was safe. I apologize if it hit too close to home.
I feel like I’m using a toothpick and you are using a sledgehammer!
I do realize I should not have used the word "backwards". I should have just said ancient. Is that where you felt the insult?
wielding the subtle tools of exclusion
thanks for the clarifications, danutz, effectively amending your prior position which appeared to equate those holding to traditional doctrines with violence and backwardness; that is appreciated.
I’m sorry to discover that feel sledgehammered. We do seem to have something of a communication gap between us. Perhaps it will help if I summarise the intent of my entire posting in a couple of bullet points:
To me this is a semantic issue, which I think has a tendency to creep into public discussions, including here on OST and that is what I am taking to task. I don’t feel insulted by anything you’ve said, danutz, nor entangled by any of the vascillating defintions of "fundamentalism" you’ve posited. In defending the rights of those holding to traditional Christian doctrine, it’s a huge leap to assume that I am either a fundamentalist myself or defending the kind of extreme fundamentalism that you apparently have in mind.
Personally, I’m an ecumenical and that is the motivation for insisting that we should, as a community, recognise our tendency to use the subtle tools of exclusion. It seems obvious to me that if we are so busy demonstrating our sensitivity and inclusivity towards Islam (which is where this discussion began) that we don’t recognise the right of other views at the table, then we’ve failed the ecumenical test. If this was a site full of fundamentalist assumptions, then I would probably be having a similar discussion with the leading denunciator of those with more deconstructed faiths like yourself. It’s by allowing ugly views to be aired that we can all see them clearly for what they are.
I would guess, if you think about it, that by the same token that you argue for the inclusion of Moslems in discussion - "jaw, jaw, not war, war" - and the avoidance of inflammatory terms that deliberately misrepresent them, you could also see the same need exists with respect to those Christians which are considered beyond the pale by your theological framework. I will defend your right to bring your deconstructed faith to the debating table and I’ll find it interesting. But I won’t stand with you if you insist that "fundamentalists" or any other group are to be excluded, particularly when a straw man is presented in such a way that a wider group feels unhelpfully tarred by that brush (to mix a couple of metaphors) and effectively excluded, "shamed by association."
So this is not a personal battle, even if it is a personal struggle, danutz. You have caused me no offence: I have simply taken issue with one of your views - admittedly, with the subtly inserted view that appeared in the midst of a post on a wider issue, which you perhaps couldn’t have expected, but there we are. You put it out there, I took it up.
Hope that seperates a little more of the wood from the trees in where my critique has come from.
On the issue you raise about deliberately addressing straw men: that perhaps has a bearing on this issue. I think it’s too easy to do this and incorrect to assume that people can identity with such straw men, particularly at a time when the waters are regularly being muddied in the way I explained above. It opens a view to misunderstanding. Better to tell it like it is, so we can really see what your seeing, from where you are sitting. This also helps to close the credibility gap because instead of simply observing you taking general aim at caricatures, listeners can see that you’ve real personal experience and exactly what it is that you’re lambasting.
To flesh this out, as Peter has hinted in his post "over here" etc, I’d be quite interested in just what the fundamentalism you’re exposed to are positing with respect to Islam. Are they really interested in starting a religious war? Do you perceive the Iraq war as religious? Or is that simply a helpful way of attempting to shame those who support the war?
Finally, you justify your original comment about "killers" by suggesting that the three points in your list always appear in the context of religious wars. This may or may not be true, but it is a big assumption from saying they exist in such a context, to positing the suggestion that therefore, whenever or wherever these three views exists it will necessarily lead to a religious war, sooner or later. That’s lazy reasoning. Religious wars are a complex phenomena, usually involving a heavy dose of patriotism and political will. Taking aim at the easy targets of religious groups who are not promoting war or violence is no way forward.
shalom! - john