Religion vs. Fundamentalism

[Plaid Adder]

I can certainly understand why people here are defensive on both sides of the religion issue, especially since we are now in the middle of a political and media circus that is covering Christianity with something very much other than glory. But there really is no reason why there couldn't be room for religion in the Democratic Party or why there shouldn't be room on DU for both people of faith and people of skepticism. I know y'all can get along. Here's what I have to offer:

It seems to me like the thing that really *is* in opposition to the Democratic/liberal/progressive philosophy is not religion, but fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is what happens when you pick one particular set of beliefs and decide that a) they are the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything and b) anyone who doesn't share buy into this belief system is the adversary and must be either converted or destroyed. Fundamentalism is a problem in a heterogeneous community because it's intolerant of difference, and it's a problem in general because it discourages independent thought, enforces ideological rigidity, and leaves its adherents not only unwilling to compromise in the face of necessity but unable to learn and adapt to new information if it contradicts part of their world view.

OK, nothing earthshattering there. Now. Here is the thing.

*Fundamentalism does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.*

You can be a fundamentalist about anything. My brother is a capitalist fundamentalist. He's got no use whatsoever for God, but imply that the ideal of free market competition is a myth that is never realized because capitalists always try to rig the game to their own advantage, and watch the missionary zeal emerge. White supremacists are fundamentalist when it comes to their theories about racial superiority. Not only will they refuse to be swayed by anything other people would consider evidence or logic, but--and this is true for other fundamentalists too--they use their pet theory to explain EVERYTHING. Global warming, Celine Dion, doesn't matter, it's all somehow the fault of people who don't recognize the natural superiority of the white man. Same thing with people who are America supremacists. America is always better than everyone else. No, I don't care how many poor people we have or how bad our economy sucks or how corrupt our political system is or that we're torturing people and everyone's OK with that. America is supreme, it deserves to be supreme, and if you try to tell me otherwise, you must be a traitor, which means that all that shit you were talking about is your fault anyway.

And, and this is my main point, there are fundamentalists on the left too. And folks, you don't want to become fundamentalists, because it will make it impossible for you to know when you're wrong about something or to figure out new strategies for new problems. It's one thing to stick by your principles, and it's another thing to refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other point of view.

One of the big problems with the way things are right now is that because the right wing has been taken over by fundamentalists of all kinds, their extremism is pushing us into a kind of mirror fundamentalism, where we feel we have to be extra-rigid about our own beliefs because they're constantly under attack. While I absolutely believe that it is crucial to present a united front in public, and I also believe that our party leadership has screwed itself and us by NOT being willing to stand up when attacked, I also think it's a mistake to refuse to change just because you don't want to look weak. Cause we know where "stay the course" ends up, don't we. A giant fucking quagmire that's on fire, that's where.

Most of the people I'm close to who take spirituality seriously accept the fact that doubt is part of faith. Your relationship to whatever you think is out there is not always close, it's not always immediately present, and sometimes you wonder whether it's there at all. That doesn't mean you don't believe; but it does mean that you retain the ability to question and to search for answers. As long as people retain that ability, I don't see why believing in something beyond the material world should be at all incompatible with being a progressive, or why the left shouldn't be able to accommodate people of all faiths.

It seems to me like what sets most people off in this debate is arrogance. Yeah, it's intensely annoying to be told by someone that you're benighted and insufficiently evolved because you haven't accepted what's clearly the one true way. But you know what, that is JUST as annoying when the One True Way is atheism as it is when it's Christianity. And if you don't think the left has an arrogance problem, whooo doggie, you need to get out more. There is a fairly sizeable chunk of the population for whom politics is really just about trying to feel morally superior to everyone else, and they are not all clumped up on the right side of the spectrum. It's just that the ones on the right side of the spectrum are in power at the moment, and are going on a gigantic spree during which they will do *far* more damage to this country than the left ever will.

Nobody has to tolerate intolerance. You can't negotiate with someone who denies your right to exist. But that's exactly why we have to try to protect what common ground there is--because the more people are stranded at the extremes, the harder it is for everyone to live together. And no matter what horrors take place over the next few years of the Bush revolution, remember, after it's all over, we DO all have to live together.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[coloradodem2005]

1. Great post.

I agree with everything you say.

Though, I also believe that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. :P

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Fundamentalism does not necessarily have anything to do with religion

It has nothing to do with religion. Christian Fundies don't follow the Beautitudes nor the 10 Commandments. They lie, cheat and manipulate. They covet power. They exclude the rest of society.

Where did Jesus act like that anywhere in the Bible?

Hold your fire. I'm a Catholic who is terribly embarressed by those pretending to be Christians. They do not represent me.

[Amy6627]

4. I'm with ya! Here is a great website

http://liberalslikechrist.org/churchstate/index.htm

Here is something I got from their website:

Why Smart Liberals and True Christians should be Allies:

Are you Jewish, Mosley, Hindu? God bless you! You may even be an atheist or an agnostic. That's fine, too; it matters not to "Liberals Like Christ". You don't have to be a "Christian" to relate to this website. If you are a Liberal who, like us, believes that every little girl or boy born into this world is entitled to a fair shake until the day they die, and especially if you despise what the so-called Christian "Religious Right" represents, then sister, or brother, you are about to learn how vulnerable this phony front of the Republican Party really is and how their undoing -- and that of the "Greedy Old Party" as well -- may come from a very surprising source!
Sadly, many non-Christian Liberals make the same mistake that Hitler's troops made in their Russian campaign. As those troops invaded Russia, they burned and pillaged every village they came upon on their way to Moscow, thereby making mortal enemies of millions of peasants and common laborers. If only they had only talked a little with these people, they would have learned that far from identifying with their communist dictators, most of these people hated Stalin and his Communist dictatorship, and would have welcomed and supported the German invaders as "liberators" and allies, if only this invading army had acted the part.
And so, our liberal friends, don't assume that all Christians are the enemy! Many of us detest the "Religious Right" even more than you do, because these fanatics are not only threatening our country, but our religion as well. Liberals need to recognize that there are Progressive Christians, and that such Christians can and should be among your most effective allies!

[BrklynLiberal]

20. Great website. I recommend that site to everyone.

[The White Tree]

22. A truer statements never been said then this:

Many of us detest the "Religious Right" even more than you do, because these fanatics are not only threatening our country, but our religion as well.

That is definately a cross that the progressive Christian bears.

[struggle4progress]

33. Comparing non-Christial liberals to Hitler's troops stinks. eom

[Amy6627]

45. I think the point was just to illustrate that ALL Christians are

the enemy (right wing nuts, fanatical fundies), but true Christians are/should be fighting for the same thing that non-Christians Liberals want to achieve.

If you feel it is that offensive, you should send them an email. The guy who started the website is really great person. He will respond personally to you, and I'm sure he would consider re-phrasing that point as not to offend anyone.

[struggle4progress]

56. I understood the point but find the rhetoric lousy.

[AmBlue]

60. And I'm a Christian who is terribly embarassed...

...by those pretending to be Christians. They don't represent me either.

[leftchick]

61. I am Catholic as well and I AM A LIBERAL LIKE JESUS!

excellent post. It is downright embarrassing to see these fundies "praying" publicly and talking about God and Jesus.
Like they would know! Jesus would call them the hypocrites
that they are.

Plaid Adder you have done it again! Keep on writing the words!

:)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Yay, Plaid!

:applause:

[Az]

5. Doubt

It boils down to doubt. If you have room in your mind for doubt then you have room for compassion of other people's views. Doubt makes for a poor champion when trying to storm the barracades of the opposition. But it is critical to compassion.

A diverse society is dependent on doubt. It needs it to allow for people to live side by side with varying beliefs. But the mind tries to resolve doubt. The mind does not rest easy with doubt.

For this reason many try to press answers. Clear and definitive answers. They try to lay down authoratative sources for the things that cause us the most stress. Morality and ethics. Those that adhere to these tenants believe they have clear answers that cannot be questioned. They have no doubt about their sources of morality. And thus they have no doubts about others that do not embrace their views as being less than them and evil.

[RPM]

6. Recommended

Nicely Done.

[Gyre]

7. Great thoughts, well said.

But I don't feel any friendlier towards the chimp. Let me know when you've got a solution to the most spiritually and intelligence-challenged fuck on the planet being in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet. I'm in no mood for "go with the flow".

Gyre

[Plaid Adder]

9. There is no solution to the Chimp except to return him to private life.

Only way we're going to do that is by convincing the 82% of the population that is starting to get scared by the fundamentalists on the right that this is what's going to have to happen if they don't want to be taken over. If I had a foolproof method of doing that I wouldn't be sitting here screwing around with a keyboard, I'd be making millions of dollars as a political consultant.

The Plaid Adder

[joytomme]

25. The Chimp isn't in charge

GWB no more leads this country than the Queen of England leads Great Britain. However, in Great Britain the people at least knowingly opted to have a figurehead and a prime minister. The American people got a President by fraud and he isn't even the President. The USA is lead by committee.

We have a puppet Prez who answers to Karl Rove. And Karl Rove answers to a consortium of political thugs and corporate entitiesl known only to a very few in the GOP.

Plaid Adder is right that GWB must be returned to private life (or sent to prison if we impeach him)...but that won't solve the problem. The GOP has to be purged of the rot that has infected it. And that can only be done by the good Republicans in the USA who have been victimized along with the Democrats.

Ratfuck Diary (http://ratfuckdiary.blogspot.com)

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. So, would you say then, that you're "agnostic"....

... in a generic sense?

[Plaid Adder]

11. I don't know what the hell I am, to tell you the truth.

I don't think the material world is all there is. Beyond that, I can't take ya.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. I'd prefer to define you as "agnostic" then... if ya don't mind....

as you "don't think" the material world is all there is. I have difficulty with people... even liberals... who "know", or " have faith"
that there is more than a material world.

Personally , I have no clue... nor any interest really in the question. I'd think and behave the same way whether or not there's a hereafter. Or at least I THINK I would.

When I say I have "difficulty" with religious liberals, I don't mean I can't be friends, and certainly not that we can't collaborate on political and social goals. I mean only that I find something troubling in that thought process. How can one "know" what is unknowable... and if people can "have faith" in God, why not faith in evil, bad ideas, prejudices, anything else for which there is no objective proof?

[Plaid Adder]

21. Well, you can define me any way you want, but

I don't see why believing in God should necessarily mean that you'll believe any load of crap someone sells you. As for 'objective proof,' look at all the stuff that people believe about the real world without having "objective proof." I mean, you can find plenty of people on DU who believe that the 2004 election was fixed the way they believe water is wet...and they may think they have objective proof, but to someone who disagrees with them about that, it's subjective proof. I believe, for instance, that Dick Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of the country and is only out for his own gain. Do I have objective proof of that? Well, I can tell people to look at what he's said and what he's done but I can never *prove* whether he gives a rat's ass or doesn't.

People form beliefs about the material world all the time based on their own subjective judgments. What you hope is that they're doing it in some kind of an intelligent and reasonable way. There's no reason that people couldn't form their spiritual beliefs on the same basis. A lot of people don't; but then again a lot of people form their beliefs about the material world based on imaginary or wilfully misinterpreted information, too.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[JuniorPlankton]

23. I would make the split in a different place

I believe it's really about faith vs religion.
Organized religion is just a tool for power/money/influence grabbing.
For manipulating people in the name of a God. Sure, it can be done with religion. But religion, by its nature. makes it very convenient.

I doesn't really matter what you believe (within non-violent limits), it becomes a problem when you start preaching. Add to that the "absoluteness" of religion, and you have a terrible mix.
Believe whatever you want, but don't tell the country that ID is just another theory, alongside Darwin's.
As somebody above (literally above in the thread :) pointed out, it's the doubt that makes a difference. Atheist (in theory) can be convinced that God exists (if the guy/gal suddenly shows up). The reverse is impossible.


:kick:

[culturalelite]

39. objective proof

We can distinguish varying degrees of evidence and proof. If I hold four of a kind, I may have good evidence that I'll win the hand, but someone else might have a straight flush, and so I don't have absolute proof. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean that my point of view isn't irrational, ill-informed, obviously false, or just plain stupid. All beliefs are not equal. So we don't need to accept as "legitimate," e.g., the view that mammals did NOT descend from reptiles. The evidence strongly supports the opposite even if no absolute proof is possible.

[Lisa]

49. and another example of beliefs about the material world ...

Plaidder touched on this in an earlier essay, I think -- you can have two groups of people who claim to be arriving at their conclusions by an objective scientific process -- they look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, because their expectations are so different. In a situation where their decisions can end up having a major impact on the material world, e.g. the environment, this can create a lot of interesting conflicts.

So one group of people can claim that the earth is resilient and can cope with anything we do to it -- this group can include industrialists as well as (just to make things more confusing for us!) some ecologists.

And another group can claim that the system is fragile and will collapse when we stress it. (There's also a spectrum of thought here, from the "don't touch it at all" to the "stay in the safety margins and we'll be okay" arguments.)

Even though our records are probably too short and too incomplete to be able to come up with clear universal laws about proper resource management, that doesn't stop people from trying. We've been doing things like trying to set fishing quotas for some time now, even though some researchers now doubt whether a) we're able to do an accurate job of guessing the system's limits, and b) making sure people actually stay within them. The fisheries guy down the hall from me says that we're running a "faith-based system" now -- hoping that we've guessed all the factors and are able to run a model that reasonably approximates reality, and that nature doesn't throw us a curve in terms of climate change, ecological shifts, or some problem with harvesting (e.g. bycatch, metapopulations) that we haven't cottoned onto yet.

Even though scientists deny any ideological investment, there actually is a lot of what Plaidder identified as "fundamentalism" behind which of several plausible-but-flawed ideas gets to be dominant (that's the way it's always been taught, that's the way their supervisor always did things, we can't admit we're wrong on this point because we'll be questioned on others, etc.). And scientists are in a particular bind because of the aura of infallibility that's grown up around them in the past couple of centuries. If they modify their theories to fit new findings, the creationists and global warming skeptics accuse them of flip-flopping or worse, engaging in deliberate deception. If they don't, they're attacked for ignoring reality (plus the very real problem of being saddled with inadequate theories). At its best, science should be able to correct itself and live with ambiguity (kind of like an antidote to strict fundamentalism) -- but like everything else these days, it's under pressure to be less flexible.

[wysi]

51. Good point Lisa...

One difficulty with science is that to have a career in it, one needs to 'discover' something that other people take notice of, and that tends to lead one to be wedded to the discovery (even if it turns out wrong). A lot of scientists avoid this, but some do not (I have a friend who hasn't managed to divorce himself from his 'discovery' despite it being wrong!). The pressure to succeed can make a person lose the very flexibility and creativity that made her or him a good scientist in the first place.

wysi (scientist/philosopher)

[Lisa]

53. thanks wysi!

Remembering a T-shirt I once saw, from a scientific supply place -- "If I hadn't believed it, I never would have seen it".

I trust that your friend didn't come up with the "phlogiston" theory? :)

[The White Tree]

26. I would think that people can and do "have faith" in all those things.

And everything else in life for that matter. No one really "knows" anything per se. Even the most rigorous scientific ideas rest on the idea of faith in the science, particularly the science that proceeded it. Otherwise we all would be required to relearn everything from square one, to do every experiment, to observe everything on our own, in order to believe it.

It's like the movie - The Truman Show - which has a premise that an entire reality was created around a central figure who was the unknowing star of a TV show. His "reality" was very different from the reality of all those around him. He believed in that reality until it started to unravel because it was all he had to believe in.

I believe in God because I can't conceive of a universe where there was nothing and then there was a big explosion and then there was something that lead to the culmination of what we are now that was not instigated by some higher power. I don't know what that power is but I choose to believe it is God. I returned to the practice of my particular faith, Catholicism, because I connected with the teachings and what is being said. In that sense I have faith that my faith is meant for me. However, I have no guarantees.

Stated that way, I don't see why my Faith should be a problem to anyone either progressive or conservative. To each I would say the same thing - Who are you to judge?

[Smarmie Doofus]

65. Interesting POV; I can't conceive of a "big bang"universe either...

but I don't get the jump you make to a "higher power" and then to "God".

From the same starting point, I conclude that these things can't be known and leave it at that. Truly, I think that some of us are "wired" toward religiosity and some are not. ( Indeed there was a recent study of this question somewhere; don't know how "scientific" the study was.)

I don't feel that "faith" is a problem, exactly;( although I do feel something CLOSE to that; let's say I'm troubled by the thought process. Perhaps I don't understand it, granted.) and the closest I come to "judging" is Judge Judy.

As a very, very, very, ex-catholic, what is it specifically about that religion with which you connect?

[Merope215]

10. Plaidder does it again!

You're wonderful.

:yourock:

[G_j]

12. wow, what a great post!

you pretty much describe the way I feel about it also. I wish I could write as well, thanks.

The bottom line is that in a world which grows smaller by the day, faced with enormous problems and stress, the 'progressive' path would seem to be finding a way for all to be free and safe.
Fundamentalists (of all stripes)stand in the way of humanity working TOGETHER to solve the problems we MUST solve to survive.

[blogbear]

13. Western notions of Christianity sprouted in different directions..

after the Reformation and Martin Luther..Fundamentalism seems to have followed a more rigid and doctrinal path than say Calvinists..The problem is not that fundamentalists don't have a right to practice their prescribed beliefs (because they do have a right)..The problem has become that these individuals do not have more of a right than other faiths to domineer the public or domineer the whole nation in matters of state..

[Gelliebeans]

14. As always plaid

you are the cat's pajamas!

[grannylib]

15. Well said. I not only want to take my country back, I'd really like to

rescue my faith from being kidnapped/hijacked/bastardized/maligned/misunderstood, and NOT for the purposes of cramming it down anyone else's throat!
For me, my faith is what drives my progressive/green/democratic/independent leanings; they are inseparable.
But that doesn't mean I have to be a bitch about it
B-)

[starroute]

17. Arrogance is one word for it -- another is "cult"

It's the nature of cults to be defined by their adherence to a set of non-consensus beliefs, by their claim that they enjoy a privileged position when it comes to understanding the workings of the universe, and by a strong tendency to set themselves off from the rest of society and treat the larger society as their enemy.

However, most cults don't have the level of power that the fundamentalists do.

[G_j]

18. kick

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Beautifully said. Thank you for saying it.

Arrogance is the worst sin of all.
It would certainly seem that arrogance and compassion cannot exist within the same person at the same time.

When I meet someone who believes their way is the only "correct" way, I immediately put a distance between myself and that person.
I do not believe that there can ever be one "correct" way that suits everyone.

[MichaelJH]

46. Correction - Pride is the worst sin of all

Arrogance is the son of pride. The definition for pride is a conceited sense of ones own superiority. The prideful think they are the center of everything, making them arrogant in their views of what is truth and not truth.

We all know the opposite of Pride is to be humble. The Church (fundamentalist) is nothing but pride in Christ, Which is an oxymoron. Once they say they are the true way and everyone else is lost. Then, their pride in Christ is their arrogance.
I hope I explained that well, I'm not too good at writing, please overlook me.

WE are all equal, looking for our own joy and happiness, with our environment molding our opinions of TRUTH.

[grendelkhan]

24. And Religion Has Nothing to do with Faith

Religion tells you what to do, how to do it, and why those people who don't do it like you suck.

Faith is personal and intimate.

Religious people scare the shit out of me, people of faith give me hope.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. That's too broad

religion does not always do that. As the OP lays out so clearly, fundamentalists, using religion, do that.

Religion can provide a strong and comforting framework within with to celebrate and deepen one's faith. It's not a necessity, but it is a very good thing for a very large number of people. Many people of faith find sustenance in religion.

Religion isn't THE answer, it can be a means to a good end (that is, a developing faith). Don't disparage it so broadly!

[MountainLaurel]

32. Bumper sticker I own

Religion is for people afraid of going to hell; faith is for those who have already been there.

[Patrick ONeill]

38. I have no problem with religion - it is "faith" that scares me

Take any other religion that the Abrahamic ones and "faith" is not important or required - Buddhism is best ;)

Morality is how you treat your fellow man - golden rule etc.

It is only Christianity ( Islam, judaism) that insists upon faith - and makes it more important than how we treat our fellow man.
(Please see the first 3 of the 10 commandments)

What is imporrtant is praising Allah, accepting Jesus, whatever. If you don't "believe" then you are a lesser mortal.

It is "faith" that justifies the religious fundamentalist, and that lets them believe they die for Allah as they fly their planes into skyscrapers.

[movie_girl99]

27. fantastic post

as usual. I so look forward to reading your stuff. You hit the nail on the head every time.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Bingo.

[SeanQ]

30. Thank you!

[da_chimperor]

31. Can we make this required reading for all DUers?

It rocks, and can really put the kibosh on some of the more pointless flame wars.

[Patrick ONeill]

34. A "Fundamentalist" is a christian from a different sect than mine

[shockra]

35. I appreciate your thoughts, as usual, Plaid.

But the examples you give for types of fundamentalism are appropriately based on what is already prejudiced thinking. Social, supremacist biases that exist in the world and people take them to extremes. But racism, capitalism, nationalism, religion, etc. are biased at their roots and destructive to society even when not in the extreme.

There are also people of course, once they've become informed, who find capitalism the cause of all the world's ills, or gender bias, or racism, etc. BUT -- this is part of a learning process. Once you become educated you are able to look around you and see everywhere the way this bias constantly functions in the world. After a while, though, most people are able to incorporate this reality into their view and don't see one prejudice as the *only* prejudice but how it fits together in the wider complex of multiple prejudices based on race, class, sexual orientation, etc. Being progressive is recognizing the many forms of injustice in the world and how they all work together to prevent healthy societies.

It's an ongoing process where you have to keep uncovering and re-examing the prejudices that you have been steeped in all or your life, and have acquired unconsciously, if you want to keep growing as a human being.

I've mentioned a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris here, a few times, because I think that it explains well the destructive nature of religious faith. And how religions are exclusionary belief systems that inevitably clash in deadly ways. There also was an interesting article on God and faith at Swan's not too long ago.

http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mgarci29.html

I related to quite a few quotes in there, many of which I'd never seen. I've had multiple life-threatening crisises, and have found that my spirituality grew stronger the further *away* from religious faith I got. When it was a matter of life and death religious belief systems turned out to be detrimental to my survival, rather than an aid to it. In large part I think due to their entrenched sexism. My sense of self-worth and agency grew the more I cast the fallacies aside.

There are quotes in the above article by Jung that attest to "knowing" God rather than believing in him. I think this is spot on. You either know God, or you don't. Believing in God leaves everything up in the air (so to speak), and leaves you in the position of needing some kind of intermediary, like a pastor or a pope, to tell you what God is about.

[msmcghee]

36. Good post PA . . .

I saw the sentence "Nobody has to tolerate intolerance" in your post - so I assume you wrote it at least partially in response to a post I submitted yesterday by that name.

I think you are pointing out the difficulty of the reality we are immersed in. We on the left believe the solution to social problems lies in respecting others' opinions, being open to their pov, trying to get along with people we don't necessarily agree with.

Unfortunately, just like on the playground in grade school, there are some kids out there who see this as a great opportunity to attack with no consequence. While they pound the crap out of us - we say, "Can't we just be reasonable and discuss our differences?" They say, "Sure punk, either all kids learn biblical creation in public schools or I'll shut this system down."

We need to understand that they hold their beliefs above any sense of public discourse and process.

That is a very important sentence. They don't care about science or objectitvity or discussing other pov's or getting along with others. They are simply out to impose their belief system on us. They use our attachment to democratic principles as a weapon against us. Their belief system has morphed into a monster inside them and it is out to sieze control of our nation and subjugate all of us to it.

Because we see process as the critical component in a democracy - we want to believe that if we just say it right, if we just frame it correctly - they'll see the light and agree with us. How could they not? Meanwhile, they are destroying all the wonderful gains toward enlightenment and tolerance and equality that have been accomplished since we became a nation.

They do not care about those things. Their belief system has taken over their minds. It is the only thing that counts to them. They will not stop until they win or they have been completely defeated and humiliated. We will not defeat them by reasoning with them about process. They just laugh at us when we do that - and see it as evidence of our weakness - proof that their God is on their side.

I believe the only chance we have is to become very intolerant of intolerance. We need to point out bigotry and intolerance with a vengeance - and get very angry and vocal when it happens. When we do that it shames them. You can tell by their outrage, their cries of PC, PC!

Every time some RW bigot starts ranting about what their God wants or whatever - it is the duty of every liberal who hears it to calmly and clearly point out to that person (and anybody else in range) that they are being an intolerant bigot. There's no need to argue points with them - in fact, that would be useless. If they try to argue with you simply say you do not have discussions with bigots. You'll be amazed at how effective this is. You will have made your point - and anyone who heard the exchange will now have something to think about.

But you have to label it publicly for what it is. If you do what we all want to do - if you simply let is pass as "everybody is entitled to their own opinion" - you are helping them spread their toxic memes and they will infect others.

I know it goes against all our sensibilities to confront others this way - we prefer reason and discourse, because we are liberals - but if we don't start drawing this simple line of labeling their bigotry for what it is - we will lose this war.

[wysi]

52. Excellent point...

... I think what we sometimes forget is that this (the current political situation) is not merely a difference of political opinion. In this case, we are right, and they are wrong.*

*Please don't take this as evidence for dogmatism... if I believe there is some principled reason to consider arguments and points of view I do so. But as the original poster said, we need to be intolerant of intolerance (or dogmatic about dogmatism) in order to defeat the facists. Reason will not work.

[Desertrose]

37. Thanks, Plaid Adder..well said as usual.

:applause:


Fundamentalism exists in all forms....religion is not mandatory to be a fundy, thats for sure.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Let's put it this way.

Religion is to fundamentalism what unprotected sex is to AIDS.

[Festivito]

41. Room for the fundamentalist atheist as well?

The atheists I know express devout fervor defending themselves, as do many here on DU Forums. They have a)picked their ultimate answer, and b) must destroy (via ridicule) those who oppose.

There are many fine atheists, but to the one I find them more agnostic than atheistic. As to the rest, this streach of meaning of fundamentalist befits them.

[Laurab]

42. Excellent post - thank you

Anyone who believes their way is the ONLY way scares me. You nailed it.

[Tyler Durden]

43. Let me put this another way:

I don't care if someone think Jesus is going to show up next week handing passes to the movies. It does not affect me until my 10 year old comes home crying from some friends house because their Mommy told her she needs to be SAVED or she's going to burn in Hell forever.

I can live with ANYONE who does not make a habit of pissing in my flower beds.

But FAITH is NOT a "Point of View," it is a belief that I don't have to hold and that I have the right NOT TO HAVE MY or MY CHILDREN'S FACE RUBBED IN. I DO NOT go around saying "Gee, it's so nice you're delusional and believe in some myth." I don't care what your Religion is, and I believe in your right to believe it.

BUT YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MY FACE BEGINS. You do not have the right to EVANGELIZE ME OR MY CHILDREN, no matter WHAT your religion tells you that you must do.

If you believe that I and my family will burn in Hell, then let us go there. You can even keep MOST of your tax-free status IF you stay the FUCK out of politics. That's as far as I go, and I feel it's more than HALFWAY.

IS THIS TOO MUCH TO ASK?

[Hamsta1]

44. Another one out of the park, PlaidAdder!

[blackspade]

47. Wow!

Excellent post.
Extremists of all stripes bug the crap out of me.
When folks refuse to see common ground on any issue, they damage everyone.

[Fortunato]

48. sticking together

Thanks for stating this clearly and definitively. I doubt I could have said it better myself.

In the words of Lincoln, "Preserve the Union." Conflict's going to happen, but once we start excommunicating each other over our disagreements and consistently vilifying our intellectual opponents, the end is very near.

[ClintonTyree]

50. Well said.............

I was raised in a Lutheran family, but had an Aunt that was a Jehovah's Witness. As children, my sister and I would stay with this Aunt quite often because my parents both worked. She single handedly destroyed everything that religion might have taught me, might have helped me with, as a child. She negated 16 years worth of Catechism classes, Sunday School etc. because of her constant badgering and just plain WEIRD beliefs.
Religion is not a monster, but SHE was, so I associated religion with her later in life. That was wrong. I know many decent people who are uplifted by religion, who are given strength and hope by it. The Fundamentalists destroy that with their "retribution" and "hellfire" and god that seems to hate more than love.

Thanks for the reminder Adder, you made me realize why I strike out at times. I shouldn't and I won't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Typically excellent work, however...

I think that we ought not to so quickly discount the influence that fundamentalists have on the undecided. Our country is in the fix that it's in because the fundies have brought people toward their side through their confidence in the righteousness of their cause.

Personally, I think that some counterbalancing fundamentalism is not all bad. I fundamentally believe that we're a country of, for, and by people. I won't compromise in this, and I'll call BS on anyone who feels that "what's good for GM is good for the country". Corporate good is a secondary consideration, I won't support anything that is good for them unless it is good for consumers, citizens and workers first.

Public good should not be a side effect, it should be a prerequisite.

Our party has a dearth of people who speak with conviction. One person's conviction is often another person's condescension. It's unavoidable. The trick is to use convictions to attract more than alienate, or at least set up the environment where cooler heads can do the attracting.

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. A great post and very insightful, PlaidAdder,

particularly: "There is a fairly sizeable chunk of the population for whom politics is really just about trying to feel morally superior to everyone else, and they are not all clumped up on the right side of the spectrum".

[markbark]

57. Damn You're Good! (grin)

I especially liked your pointing out that *Fundamentalism does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.*

I take that one bit further and say that religion has nothing to do with spirituality.
Spirituality (DAMN that's hard to type!) is a search for truth and inner peace.
Religion is a search for power over others.

To quote the old bumpersticker:
Spritual people inspire me.
Religious people frighten me.


--MAB

[Cuban_Liberal]

58. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[byronius]

59. I grew up in Saudi Arabia -- which cured me forever

of any ability to believe ANYONE knows ANYTHING about 'God'. As a ten-year-old, I understood that everyone around me feared physical violence from the mullahs in Khobar. Women, children and animals suffering 'godly' men. I smell the same stink of dominance and superstition in the American fundamentalist.

However -- I grew up 'spiritually' in the neo-hippie/art community, which let me believe that something cool and interesting and powerful is going on that I don't understand. And then there's that word: "Love". Even if that's all there is, certain pathways in certain neural masses -- it's a thing to do.

Harry Harrison posed a good test -- pretend that there is a spirit, and pretend that it will eventually have to live through all the lives of everything and everyone that's ever lived. You can be reasonably sure of being a 'good' person.

All of which means that eventually, I will get to be the Plaid Adder.

:hi:

[wildmanj]

62. fundamentalist

are a tool used by the capitalist to turn humans away from major change going on behind the PICTURE-----as said by others---if one wants to rob a bank set fire to a building all way across town

[Lerkfish]

63. BRAVO! well-stated...

ya done good.

its nice for eloquence to raise its head once in a while.

[SupplySideLiberal]

64. Thanks for getting me thinking today

Three of my least favorite non-religious fundamentalist cults:

1. So-called Christians who are convinced that most of the people alive now and most of those who ever lived will be tortured, not for trillions of years, but eternally, because they got the wording a bit wrong in their thoughts about God. Of course, the precise name of God and the methods of how to worship Him are the ones that happen to be popular with me and my friends. If you grew up in a different time or place and had different influences, well, sorry, my compassionate God will never stop tormenting you.

2. So-called progressives who apply the Marxist model to everything as blindly as any TV preacher. Men, whites, heterosexuals, and corporations are not the bourgeoisie. Women, people of color, gays, and employees are not the proletariat, and "revolution" will not result in a worker's paradise for any of these groups.

3. So-called conservatives who think that the American system of government, being divinely ordained and a natural law unto itself, must be implemented on every corner of the earth. And if you're not quick to take the hint and adopt it on your own, well, start digging some deep bomb shelters.

[terry4kerry]

66. well said

That really was a great explanation between the differences of religion and fundamentalism.