Is religious fundamentalism compatible with modern democracy?

[BurtWorm]

It really ought to be, I think, as distrustful as I am of it in general. If the First Amendment has meaning, it is that no form of belief should be incompatible with democracy, that people should be free to believe and worship as they like.

Problems arise when fundamentalist religious belief leads one to presume that secular society in and of itself is a social ill that only fundamentalist religion can cure. We might want to tiptoe around the issue for fear of offending nonfundamentalist believers, but it would be a lie to pretend there aren't fundamentalists in the US (like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, etc.) who do in fact have an agenda to use political power to shape the society more to their image.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with any American acting to change society toward their idea of good. But what if "their idea of good" is an intolerant, anti-democratic, irrationalist theocracy? And what if they use one of the "legitimate" "mainstream" parties to steal (by lying about and disguising their purpose) into positions of political power to make it happen. ? Is that good for democracy? If so, how is it that the knife forged to cut democracy's throat is good for it? If not, what is to be done?

[bryant69]

1. Should the Communist party be outlawed?

It's the same question more or less.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

4. Is Stalinism compatible with democracy?

That's the same question.

[bryant69]

7. At the basis communism of almost any brand

Seeks to overthrow the government and the economic system and replace them both by communism. Now of course stalinsts are the worst of the lot, but they all have essentially the same goal.

So should we allow such people to operate openly?

And of course, moving back to religion, it's hard to distinguish between fundementalist christians (bad) and regular Christians (less bad). A comparison might be made between teh Stalinst group plannign to overthrow the govenrment and another Communist group who technically advocates overthrowing the government, but works through peaceful means. Are they both dangerous to the United States?

[BurtWorm]

12. Orthodox communists expect the capitalism to collapse

They believe it's built into the system. Certain fundamentalists (perhaps the majority) similarly believe that the end times are built into the system. People of these types believe they don't need to instigate revolution or Armageddon. They're not the problem. It's the ones who want to do away with democratic structures--the Leninist-Stalinists and Dominionists--who are the problem.

Do we outlaw L-S and D? I would rather not. I think shining the bright light of a free media on them would probably do the trick of keeping them in check--but the media have to do their jobs. (I also believe Dobson and Dominionism are much more dire threats than Leninist-Stalinism these days.)

[bryant69]

29. Orthodox marxists you mean, not Orthodox Communists

Communism is distinct from Marxism in that it believes that you need revolution.

Also I'd agree that LeninStalinism isn't the threat dominism is - but the principle is the same.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

31. No. There are some Christian communists who don't believe in revolution

but they do believe history will end in a communist golden age. This is why they emulate it in their communes and monasteries. Christian communists predate the Marxist variety by hundreds of years.

[bryant69]

33. Well now we are dealing with semantics

When I am referring to Communism, I am referring to the Intellectual tradition started by Lenin. Or to be more accurate the Revision of Marxist thought that Lenin started.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

36. Well, I thought I made clear when I referred to Leninist-Stalinists

that I was making that distinction. But technically, L-Sists were no more communist than the early Christian communists. In fact a lot of remaining socialist/communists would say the L-Sists were as impure as a capitalist version of "communism" would be. Historically, communism is democratic and nonhierarchical, which is not what the Leninist corruptions of it were, by any stretch of the imagination.

[arendt]

15. Nobody gave the Communist Party tax-exempt status...

and chaplains in the military and Congress.

You can let the fundies have their freedom if you stop
making me fund it.

arendt

[tk2kewl]

2. it "should" be, yes

but when religious fundamentalism seeks to undermine the basic tenets of our democracy then it must be fought vigorously, and without reservation

[Rex_Goodheart]

3. BurtWorm, my own post on the same topic

got shitcanned by an Admin. I think that was uncalled for.

My criticism was of fundamentalism and Biblical inerrantism, and how those qualities are not something we'd want in judgeships.

There's a big difference between most Christians and Bible inerrantists.

I would never disqualify most Christians. While I don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, they at least see the book as representative and conceptual rather than literal. The former can be rationally defended, the latter can not.

[BurtWorm]

6. I was trying to reframe yours to make it less inflammable.

My hypothesis is that yours, being a direct statement about "fundamentalists" rather than "fundamentalism" made it vulnerable. But I could be wrong.

[bryant69]

9. his was vulnerable because he mentioned specific

Bible stories, and basically said that anybody who believed in them was a fundamentalist and therefore inelligable for public office.

There's a difference between Political Religious fundamentalism and believing that the Bible refers to real events.

That is a broad brush - I do think that the moderator shut it down a little too quickly though.

Bryant

[tk2kewl]

10. I thought you were spot on.

A much more eloquent statement than my somewhat crude attempt.

[Bill McBlueState]

21. I guess it's too late to comment on your post

But I think you had a great point. Anyone who claims to believe two contradictory accounts of the same event and holds that belief sacred (whatever labels you put on that person) can't possibly have the sort of reasoning skills needed to sit on the high court.

[RevCheesehead]

5. The problem is a question of tolerance.

The problem with fundamentalists is their unwillingness to compromise. And my problem with them is that when you go for a 50/50 compromise, then they demand 50% of the result, and so on. They don't seem to understand what "fair" means... and often, their goal is to make everyone be just like them.

That's a very interesting question, and I will ponder it further.

[KittyWampus]

17. thanks for unhooking the word "religious" from "fundamentalist"

:hug:

[leftofthedial]

8. no

in fact, it is incompatible with the survival of our species

[MN ChimpH8R]

11. No,

at least if you are speaking of sectarian fundamentalism of any kind (Xtian, Muslim, Jewish). A worldview that espouses that all things in society must be brought under the control of one religious viewpoint is antithetical to democracy in any form. An organizing principle of democracy is the freedom to disagree. Fundies have no use for that idea. They have the "truth" so any other viewpoints may be dismissed out of hand, ignored or preferebly, actively suppressed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Curiously, as an atheist, I don't believe that fundamentalism is

itself the problem.

The problem is with fundamentalist evangelism, where fundamentalists are required to impose their beliefs on society as a whole as a basic tenet of their beliefs. Instead of simply being out of step with secular society, it requires war against secular society, as well as against others whose beliefs, as deeply held as their own, are considered wrong. It is the evangelism that is incompatible with democracy, because it does not allow for tolerance or accomodation.

On second thought, it is more specific than that. The problem is RW fundamentalist evangelism. I'm sure there are lefie evangelists who would like to persuade me that I'm misguided, to convert me. But the RW will impose where it cannot convince, and that is antithetical to democracy.

[BurtWorm]

16. I've always thought of evangelists as interested primarily in saving souls

not so much in organizing theocracy. Have I been wrong? Isn't someone like Rushdoony (the godfather of Dominionism) unusual among evangelicals? (Please!)

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. I think so. That's why there are always those on this site that

object when someone lashes out against fundamentalists or evangelicals. The RWFEs, the Dominionists, seem to me to be a cult, focused on bringing about the end days and armegeddon and will not settle for a Christian majority nation - for them, this has to be a Christian nation and, to their way of seeing things, I should not be a citizen or, probably, even alive. But there are any number of leftie evangelicals, you know, the ones who actually read the New Testament, who I've read here who I know would defend my right to be wrong (in their view) because that is why god gave mankind free will.

Them, I can live with.

[BurtWorm]

44. I can live with them as well.

I can even live with right-wing religious nuts who throw "God bless" or "praise God" into practically every sentence. In principle, these people should also believe that people have a "god-given" right to be wrong. It's precisely the ones who seek and have political power to express their theocratic tendencies that I do worry about.

[Bridget Burke]

47. The Dominionists don't represent all Fundamentalists.

Or all Evangelicals. Or even all Fundamentalist Evangelicals!

I'm tired of posting links to Theocracywatch.com. Here's another source: www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html

My own beliefs? Former Roman Catholic. Agnostic tending towards Atheist. But someone who's read enough religion, myth & psychology to not discount the religious experience(s).

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Thank you. That's just what I said, which is why I amended my

statement to specify RW fundamentalist evangelicals, who I see as closely aligned with, and most susceptible to Dominionist propaganda. RW is concerned more with power and control of others than with individual soul saving -- that's why they are RW.

[KittyWampus]

14. Their Coexistance is as problematic as Scientific Fundamentalism/Democracy

Science Fundamentalists adhere strictly to Materialism and this is anathema to any society whose goal is to treat everyone as having equal rights that need to be protected.

Materialism views human beings a machines. If you want a society to treat humans as something other than machines, you need a Scientific approach that supports that goal.

[BurtWorm]

18. Name one science fundamentalist.

And show me why that person's views are a threat to democracy in the way a theocrat's views are. Please.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. who are these scientific fundamentalists?

The OP gives three examples of religious fundamentalists who pose a threat to democracy. Can you give three examples of scientific fundamentalists who pose a threat to democracy?

Otherwise, this sounds like a nasty old strawman argument.

[jonnyblitz]

26. I guess it's a bad thing to require proof before one believes

something. damn scientific fundamentalists!! :eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

55. *crickets*

[Qibing Zero]

48. You know, I've never met one of these type of people before.

Please, tell me what they're like.

Every person I've met that rejects religious doctrine and enjoys science has been a very open-minded, well meaning, friendly person. Their ideas are never anywhere near the materialistic, selfish ways of being that us non-religious folk are always framed as having.

In fact, the only people I have ever met with those kind of extremely selfish attitudes were those who accepted some religion as fact (usually because of being brought up that way), but disagreed with and rebelled against the general platform and the lifestyle. That is NOT healthy at all...

[Ioo]

19. No

I think that born agains are not capatable with life!

[mmonk]

20. No

because they are absolutists and absolutists have no tolerance for a pluralistic society and as you can see when they achieve power, they use it to undermine representative democracy for others.

[Az]

22. If it wants to be

The problem isn't democracy. Its the nature of a progressive moral society.

Religious fundamentalism is a fixed moral condition. Its very basis is to hold to a particular doctrine and deny all else as immoral. But a progressive moral society comes to learn that things may not be as we once supposed. As we learn more about ourselves we discover that some things that were considered moral may not have been and that some things that were considered immoral may have been illjudged.

Western society underwent a transformative period several hundred years ago. The fundamentalist sects that controlled our society were pushed aside to make way for a human based form of governance instead of the god based. This paved the way for a morally progressive society.

The dominant religions at the time had to adapt. Thus many humanist concepts were folded into the sects that could adapt. Others did what they had to in order to survive.

But the structures that ruled the western civ for over a 1000 years do not simply forget about their claims of moral authority. Thus while adherants move further along the path of an intergrated world view the more orthodox churchs attempt to resist the advances.

Over time we have arrived at a place where the advances of society so threaten the conservative factions in religion that there can be no more compromise. They have dug in their heels and torn up the social contract. They will tolerate no further advances and are going to do their utmost to dismantle the ones they can.

It is within modern religion to be accepting of both faith and reason. But it is a choice. Even fundamentalists can recognise the necessity of a secular society in which they can practice their faith as they see fit without imposing it on other people. It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense of fundamentalist fervor.

[napi21]

24. Dobson, Robertson and the like have given fundamentalists a

bad image. When someone mentions fundamentalism, no matter if it's Christian, muslem, or any other religion, instantly people think of extremists who always try to push their own beliefs on everyone else!

I have no problem with anyone practicing whatever religion they prefer, and really, I don't think most others do either. The problems occur when anyone tryies to force others to conform to theirs only!

It certainly appears that a group of "Pat Robertson" fundamentalists have or are trying to take over the Pub Party. It also appears they just might be failing...at least in the past month or so.

[Coastie for Truth]

25. What does "religious fundamentalism" mean?

I am very much into the writings of such "PROGRESSIVE Religious Fundamentalists" as Forrest Church (Senator Frank Church's son and a noted Unitarian theologian and civil libertarian and First Amendment scholar), Jim Wallis, Michael Lerner, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. I was also raised by my grand father, a radical left wing religious fundamentalist and clergyman, and followed Monsignor Charles Owens Rice.

I was also taught that Karl Marx was spiritual, and that his comment "religion is the opiate..." was a criticism of "rapture" theology that taught "suffer the oppression of the "ownership" class- your reward will come in the after life" and that Marxism could be interpreted as following Biblical teaching now, here on earth, in this life (kind of like "If Jesus came to earth today he would be a leftie, pro gay rights, pro-choice")

Leftie fundamentalism is not about homophobia and killing health care providers and teaching intelligent design. It is about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, educating the ignorant, caring for the widow and orphan and the halt and the lame, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

[BurtWorm]

27. Maybe it should be called inerrantism rather than fundamentalism

Meaning, a conviction that what one believes is absolutely correct because it is what God wants all to believe.

[Rex_Goodheart]

28. I believe...

that my own post should be allowed back on this forum, because almost everything I said therein has been repeated by one person or another within this thread.

[BurtWorm]

32. What you said in your original post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4978020


We learn from Harriet Meirs's church members that she considers herself an "originalist" in interpreting both the Constitution and the Bible. That is, those documents are to be understood literally according to the words as written, i.e. without symbolism, allegory, metaphor, or abstract of some basic purpose.

The problem when interpreting the Constitution in that fashion is obvious. The Bill of Rights, in particular, is not a document of statutes but of principles, and because the document could never be exhaustive enough to cover every real world circumstance the Supreme Court must necessarily view it as an abstract. "Necessarily", that is, only if one is an honest justice.

But such a literal posture is even more telling of a person's ingenuousness when considering the Biblical realm. The problem there is that the book is blatantly contradictory and unscientific and can not be reconciled to any sense except by resorting to hideous contortions and suspensions of logic.

Ms. Meirs ostensibly believes that both the first and second chapters of Genesis are literally true despite the patency of two conflicting accounts of creation. In order to "believe" such a thing she must first accept a position as dogmatic truth then shoehorn the text in comical fashion back to it.

Ms. Meirs ostensibly believes that the story of Noah's Ark and a worldwide flood is true, despite mountains of evidence which say otherwise. Again, Mrs. Meirs, as do all fundamentalists, accepts the truth of a proposition then ignores or twists the evidence to fit. That habit is exactly the reverse of how a qualified judge would reach a legitimate decision.

Now, one might say that Ms. Meirs is capable of applying different mechanisms when making faith-based decisions versus legal ones. I would agree, but I see no reason at all to trust her to do it. If a person is willing to lock even herself into some faith-based presupposition despite available evidence then it's foolish for the rest of us to expect that she'd be honest about anything else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

I've always found the 'inerrancy' thing baffling.

The very basis of Judaic thought is that the text of the Torah is inerrant - if a scribe gets a single letter wrong in copying the text, the entire scroll must be destroyed.

But every verse of every book has any number of different interpretations, and god's will can only be divined by careful studying and finding all the different interpretations; god is too complex to be limited to a single point of view. For one thing, the oldest books were written without diacritical marks, thus leaving out vowels - and the word of the text can change by putting in different vowels, completely changing the meaning of the verse. To really understand the old testament, it must be read in Hebrew.

IOW, the literalists, who accept only the single most literal translation, in English, of the Hebrew text are in exact opposition with the beliefs of the people whose books they have adopted.

And I say, Huhhhh?

[BurtWorm]

51. There's another word for their type of worship: bibliolatry

Book worship. And we're not talking about rare and antique book worship (which is another sickness entirely ;) ). I believe it's a sin, according to some theologians, in that it is a form of graven-image worship. But try telling this to a young-earth creationist, for example.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. But

you posted "The very basis of Judaic thought is that the text of the Torah is inerrant - if a scribe gets a single letter wrong in copying the text, the entire scroll must be destroyed." inalterability but no inerrancy.

But - the very basis of Talmudical reasoning is that every word, phrase, declension, semantical difference, lexical distinction and grammatical difference is a starting point for a different interpretation.

(I struggled through about 15 credits of university level Talmud study at various and sundry secular and theological schools)

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. That is what I was trying to say --

you put it better. Inalterable, not inerrant; while the literalists believe there is only one interpretation, ignoring the vast, centuries long tradition of Judaic thought which they claim to honor.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Militantism is a factor as well.

No doubt that the Amish are fundamentalists, but you don't see them demanding that everyone in the country drive buggies and wear big hats (no, I'm not dissing the Amish -- I tend to admire the principles they adhere to and I am not threatened by them). The problem is with those who insist on imposing their views on others.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Short answer: No.

Long answer: No fucking way.

[BurtWorm]

34. Good answers, Dirtbag.

:thumbsup:

[Az]

35. Yeah, those Amish are a real threat to Democracy

Its not the faith that is a threat. Its the combination of religion and politics. As soon as a group believes that it should force its views on others it becomes toxic. Not all fundamentalists believe they have to right to force their beliefs on others.

Fundamentalists are simply believers that hold to what they believe the core doctrine of their faith is. Strictly. That in and of itself is not the threat.

[belle]

39. If only the RRR were willing to go the way of the Amish,

we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sure, there are still fundamentalists who believe in rendering the things of Caesar unto Caesar and of the lord's unto the lord's. But the theocratic strain has become too predominant to ignore. And, for better or for worse, it's what most people outside the fold tend to associate with fundamentalists: people who won't rest until the world is recreated in their God's image.

[Az]

42. I agree 100%, there is a threat

But as we represent the people that encourage inclusiveness and tolerance it is our responsibility to be as clear as we can about who and what the threat is. The threat is intolerance. It comes about from a religious belief that this society should be ruled by religious doctrine. It is the belief that one's views should be the only ones given voice in our society.

[wuushew]

52. How many Amish actually vote?

I remember hearing in 2004 that the GOP was making a big push convince the Amish to vote for * in the Presidential election in Ohio. Supposedly separating jury duty from voter rolls was given to entice them into voting.

The Amish credo of not judging others is dangerously absent in most followers of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

[Az]

53. Its about nuance, remeber thats our thing

If we are going to use our minds to examine problems before us we have to examine the details and solve the real problems. Not the ones that we respond to emotionally.

For many of us religion offers quite a bit to be fearful of. But its not always what we believe it to be. So yes fundamentalist Christian sects may currently be the chief threat to Democracy. But it is not inherantly part of their creed. It is a combination of their religious faith and a political movement. And not all fundamentalists share in the value of that political movement.

Its nuance. Its examining the issue and seeing it for the complex factors that make it up.

[belle]

38. As citizens, sure. As a basis for government, nope.

As far as personal beliefs...in theory, sure, your personal beliefs should not interfere with your ability to work for the government. And there are people who call themselves fundamentalists that do not fit the stereotype, I know, and who can be smart and fair and surprising in their judgments. Even, yes, open-minded. Not many, but I've known of a few.

Thing is, if one of those beliefs is a firm one that Church and State should *not* be separated...well, at minimum, I want to know what exactly is motivating that person to want to be employed by a democratic government.

[Qibing Zero]

41. No, and the problem is that it's so widely accepted.

Our modern use of 'democracy' is that of an open society wherein the people have the say in how things are run and thus decisions are made based on the betterment of those people provided through freedom and equality. If you hadn't specified and instead used a broad meaning of democracy, I would say yes, but note that saying that would be committing to the belief that democracy works when people are not open-minded - which is simply not true.

All forms of thought should be allowed to thrive in any democracy. That is, under the belief that intellectual freedom and freedom of thought will lead one to rise above simplistic selfish desires, and accept that the fact that every individual is going to be different is cause for exploration, not animosity. Unfortunately, since religion is simply a way for explaining the unexplained in some form of 'truth' that is deeply rooted in both control of power and blind tradition, it does not embrace free thought at all. The belief that humanity found some sort of absolute truth five minutes ago, let alone thousands of years ago, that should not be skepicized today, is detrimental to our progression.

This 'absolute truth' factor is accepted widely, regardless of the particular closed-minded belief (religious or not), because the mind which is not free (and the individual that lacks perspective) is unable to discern just how much he/she does not know. Many of us have very strong convictions, but we are also the first to admit when those convictions are compromised. Unfortunately this is the not the norm. For mos,: if there is overwhelming evidence contrary to a previously held belief, the evidence is rejected on a countless number of grounds, mainly because of some sort of fear - the fear of being wrong, the fear of having to completely rethink many things that one previously had set in stone, and in major cases the fear of having to change one's life completely.



Most people today may not accept the most fundie view of things, but the majority of Americans still accept some form of Christianity as fact. Since that is often the root of their morals and their opinions on things, they'll vote with their conscience and side on what they believe are the 'ethics' issues. Of course it's more complicated than that (most also believe the US is still that grand old invincible country, as it takes something that hits them at home for them to wake up), but that always seems to be the crux regarding their vote. However, if any 'cultish' authoritarian ideals were able to surface and gain some support, they would immediately be cut down, because they are not widely accepted.

Really, the time has come to face the facts.

Everything changes. The Constitution was written the way it was, allowing amendment, because of that fact. Yes, the First Amendment holds weight, and yes we should be allowed to think, worship, and believe freely. However, it becomes an issue whenever the people reject these very creeds of freedom laid out in our prized documents in favor of their 'absolute truth' beliefs. If the majority (or the majority of the individuals in power) feels that they are the ones who are all-knowing (or, knowing all they think people need to know), and also that we should be taking away freedoms, and repressing free thought, is that not problem-forming toward the constitution in itself? If most of the people believe in an authoritarian state representing rules laid out in some religious text, and were able to pass a law placing into power such, they would be doing everything in the boundaries of a 'democratic system'. Does that make it right?

No. Religious fundamentalism is as troublesome toward our view of democracy as any other authoritarian belief. While necessary (to consider and learn about at least), if these kind of beliefs are able to take power they become truly dangerous to everyone.

[Demeter]

43. In a Word, NO

Religious fundamentalism isn't compatible with Reality, and therefore, it is not compatible with history, science, ethics, or any other hard-won knowledge of the past 60 generations or so.

The only thing it is compatible with is fascism, perhaps because both are exercises in denial. Neither believes that a true practitioner can err. Hence the doctrine of Papal infallibility, the in-errancy of the Bible, the whole Master Race concept, or the Might Makes Right philosophy. Add to that Greed is Good, the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, and other fairy tales used to justify inhuman actions, and you have a sure-fire way to decide which way the wind is blowing.

[triguy46]

60. So, let me get this right...

We had no need for Carter or Clinton?

[Demeter]

61. These men were not fundamentalists.

And they have said so, repeatedly.

[triguy46]

45. If it isn't

then I'd suggest you sign up and head to Iraq and start shooting at shiites and suunis. I presume the thread was aimed at intolerance in the US, but if we are not to tolerate Dobson, then why should we tolerate religion anywhere? Hell, I think the Pope is a dork. Gonna take him too? Is the idea to tolerate all religions or only those that pass some "non-fundamentalist" test? You gonna write and grade that? Or do we need to infiltrate them to monitor them?

Roger Williams was tossed out of Massachusetts for being more radical than the Puritans could allow. He had the nerve to question not only the effort at theocracy, but even more fundamental, the soul competency of the Puritan leaders! So on the one hand he's a liberal (seperation of church and state, yea!!!), on the other he's a flaming fundamentalist (soul competency, boo!!!). So where would he fall on the 'irrationalist theocracy' scale?

I guess, in your terms, the Church of England would be OK, Episcopalean, some Methodist, but not all, the Presbyterians who like gays, but not the other...Hell, its tough keeping score.

I'm beginning to see as much anti-religion around here as wacky pro-religion among the freepers. In Rodney King's immortal words, "can't we just all get along?"

[hogwyld]

49. Not when they try to force me to conform

You're damn right I'm anti religion. When they try to force me to conform to their view and label me some sort of godless heathen, or try to deny certain rights. If they all went to Montana and left me and my family/friends the hell alone, I would have no problem of them praying to the flying nun. It's when they try to impose their moral code on the populace that I lose it.

[triguy46]

58. And exactly how are you being "forced to conform?"

[Qibing Zero]

63. What would have to happen for democracy to fail?

How about the majority of the people becoming repressed until they were too ignorant to see what was going on around them? That majority could and would vote to overturn the exact base the country was founded upon in the first place. That is what is happening today -slowly but surely.

All of the freedoms we have are offshoots from the freedom of thought. We have the freedom of the press to ensure the government cannot control the flow of information and cannot bypass skepticism, we have freedom of religion to ensure the government cannot tell us who or what to worship, we have freedom of speech to ensure that we hear many sides of discussions and learn from our own mistakes and are not simply told what is right and wrong, etc, etc...

However, our system has been breaking down and feeding ignorance for some time now. It's okay that people are believing whatever they want, but not okay for them to try to enforce those beliefs upon the government and thus upon others. Our freedoms must be maintained and, I'm sorry to break it to you, but taking religion to a level of absolute truth does NOT promote freedom (and I got into what it does to progression in my response to this topic).

[hogwyld]

46. Not in a free society

People with religious convictions should not get to work for the government. I know somehow that toxic mix will go into any decisions, whether intentional or not. If they want to be involved in public service, they can volunteer at their temple. That way people go in there of their own free will.

[triguy46]

59. So, let me get this right, we are all for freedom...

except freedom of religion? How is less more?

[melody]

56. I've been wrestling with this the last few days, too

I think what it comes down to is the vast majority of Christians are *not* Dobson/Robertson/Graham, et al. Those men aren't really ministers at all but highly ethically compromised hacks who masquerade as preachers to fund their philosophical war chests against women, minorities, gay people, etc.

Fundamentalism (of any form) is evidence of ignorance, imho, but it shouldn't be outlawed. I think we just have to insist upon a religion neutral public life. Perhaps that's the only way to keep the theocrats from taking over.

[StellaBlue]

62. Having spent the past four years in the UK

And having witnessed Europe trying to come to terms with this very question, essentially... and seeing them fail, largely... I would say a loud

NO!

Especially in the tolerant, liberal, democratic, open Western European countries... it's hard to watch. They are dooming their cultures to an inevitable death by kow-towing beyond all bounds to reason to the demands and whines of immigrant religious fundamentalist groups. The ethnic groups seem incapable of routing out fundamentalist, misogynist, and even terrorist members themselves, or have perhaps insufficient desire or impetus to do so, and the majority culture/government does nothing in the name of tolerance. It's sickening.

Especially what has been happening in the Netherlands, which was formerly a haven. I read in a mainstream British newspaper (not the BNP newsletter!) that it is estimated that by 2015, the five largest cities in the Netherlands will be majority foreign-born Muslims. I personally find this quite scary. The native Dutch are quite irreligious, secular, reasonable, liberal, tolerant people. But you cannot have a culture like that if you let it be swamped by people seeking only the economic benefits of Western society, people who want to be segregated from or even overthrow the mainstream and the government.

Very scary indeed. That would never happen here, though. We are too intolerant to begin with.

Meanwhile, I couldn't stay as a permanent resident in the UK after breaking up with my 'domestic partner', who was the reason I was granted a temporary visa. I speak English, I am almost entirely ethnically English, I have two degrees, I paid taxes for four years, I WANT to work, except for my love of American football and my American accent I was fully assimilated and loved the country and the culture. Yet I was not allowed to stay. Sometimes I think I might've been better off if I had at least had an 'illegitimate' child with my former partner, as I would then have not only been allowed to stay, but would've been given a free house and about $28,000 in various benefits to support us.

[Az]

64. Tolerance has difficulty opposing intolerance when it is religious

As long as a fundamentalist group does not seek to press its ways onto others it can coexist with a democratic society. But the problem is that the pressure will continuously build on the fundamentalist group.

There is an intolerance built into a tolerant society. It is an intolerance for intolerance. But the nature of what is tolerable and what isn't shifts in a progressive society. But fundamentalist societies do not shift (or rather they resist it). Thus a fundamentalist belief is going to find itself increasingly marganalized by a progressive society.

They can continue to coexist if they submit to the expanding definitions of the society but this creates a dilema for them. The society begins to have a corrosive effect on their beliefs. It pervades the society and affects them and their children. Eventually they may feel so backed into corner that they feel they have to strike back. They feel they have to overcome the corruption and reinstall the values they believe are correct.

Thus fundamentalists will find they either must drop out of society or overcome society. Insulate or dominate. Insulating is a slow path to obscurity and those that believe in glory and righteousness see no validity in this path. So they turn to dominating. And the GOP has given them the pulpit from which to wage the religious right's war.

Its a tricky issue. There is a flaw in our society. It cannot tolerate intolerance and thus becomes intolerant itself. It may seem it is appropriate to be intolerant of intolerance but from the view of those who are intolerant they truly believe they are opposing evil.

You have heard the right refer to liberals as nazis. This is what they are refering to. The fact that our society will not abide the intolerance of the religious right. Of course their analogy is flawed but from their point of view they are being oppressed. They simply do not see their actions as oppressive. There is no way through this other than for someone to blink or break.

[StellaBlue]

65. I wholeheartedly agree with your summation

They really believe they are being marginalized. I heard some evangelical preacher ranting about this on the local (FM!) radio yesterday on my way to pick someone up... it was disgusting, the 10 seconds I heard of it.

I really think that we should just give the fundies several states (like the south and the midwest) and break away. Even though that means I would have to leave Texas. haha. But then they would just continue to split. And some gays would want their own country. Some feminists would want their own country. Some Muslims would. Some Catholics would. And Jews. And French-speakers. Etc etc ad nauseum.

I just don't get how they can't see that by trying to impose their subjective morals on EVERYONE, they are being both intolerant and un-Christian (or at least very unlike Christ). I heard a caller on CSPAN this morning blabbering about how we needed to get back to Christianity and another saying that as long as our leaders are 'people of faith' who believe in the 'creator' then we will continute to be morally 'righteous, the most righteous of nations'. Nevermind that, in reality, we are among the most UNRIGHTEOUS of nations... but the idea that one must be of SOME religion to live a moral life... is NUTS. And they can't even see that as the slippery slope that it is... I mean, what if I am Wiccan? Or Navajo? Or anything they don't recognize as a 'mainstream' religion? As those of us who are nonreligious can clearly see, all organized religions are just large, sanctioned cults. No difference whatsoever.

[BiggJawn]

66. No, it's not.

When you have a movement (Dominionism) that says "Every Knee shall BEND", NOT "Every Knee shall BEND, but ONLY if they agree with our teachings, and are inclined to bend their knees"

For a GOOD example of what government under a religious fundamentalist group would be like, look to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Ideas like that have no place in America.