Should liberals reach out to Christian fundamentalists?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=8524

<edit>

What is a Christian fundamentalist? It is easy to think of Christian fundamentalists in terms of stereotypes. They are often portrayed as being anti-scientific, extremely patriotic, extremely Republican, blind supporters of Israel, and opinionated. But are the stereotypes accurate?

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the basics of the faith. These basics of the Christian faith include: the literal 1st and 2nd coming of Christ, his virgin birth, his literal crucifixion and physical resurrection from the dead, the belief that salvation comes only through faith in Christ, and the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God. This last proposition is often misunderstood because it is often confused with believing that one must always interpret the Bible literally. This is not the case.

As ridiculous or repugnant these beliefs are to the liberal, none of the beliefs imply any set of political convictions that promote injustice. What we do see are subsets of fundamentalists whose thinking do support oppression and work against equality. One such subset of thinking involves some who see the United States and Israel as God's nations and thus anyone who criticizes either nation, criticizes God. But one can be a fundamentalist without having such views.

It is not difficult to see that the stereotypes do not always hold true. Though many Christian fundamentalists voted for President Bush in the last election, my conversations with fellow fundamentalists tell me that a significant number of fundamentalists looked to the Democratic Party to provide a legitimate alternative--I myself voted for Nader. During the summer, I visited a fellow fundamentalist friend of mine who was teaching at the Au Sable Institute in Michigan where Christian fundamentalist college students can study environmentalism. A fellow fundamentalist friend from England tells me that conservative Christians there tend to be politically liberal. I have fellow fundamentalist friends who are uncomfortable with or oppose the war in Iraq. There are a number of my fellow fundamentalists who oppose the current marginalization of the Palestinians practiced by Israel. My own church allowed their high school students to study a book containing the writings of Martin Luther King Jr.

So why am I bringing this up here? I do so because I want people to know that the basic tenets of Christian fundamentalism do not imply any set of political convictions that promote oppression. Thus, Christian fundamentalism itself should not be seen as an enemy to social justice. Rather than asking fundamentalists to leave their faith, we only need to challenge them to examine their faith more closely. This will not solve all disputes between fundamentalists and liberals, but it may mean we can work together on far more issues than we do now.

more...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

2. No, reach out to normal Christians.

You will be plowing the sea going after the Fundies.

[eridani]

10. Exactly. There are more than enough perfectly sane Christians

Why bother with the whackjobs?

[formernaderite]

52. I work with some black fundamentalists....

two brothers...their pentacostal religion is WAAAAY over the top....and they're democrats. Basically they're not very political, just religious and feel their vote should help the neediestm, though they are virulently anti-abortion they've never blamed the dems for their stance. I'm sure they're not an anomaly, and from what I undertand their whole church is similar.

[Ian David]

3. We can sponsor guest sermons from those snake-handling preachers

The more fundamentalists dancing with poisonous snakes, the better.

[sui generis]

4. why? fundamentalism often also includes proselytizing

which is at odds with the separation of church and state.

Reach out to all Americans, not to subcultures of any kind.

Reach out with fairness, human decency, and real "moral" leadership, not this hokey made up crap that every millionaire tv evangelist claims is moral.

Not going into wars based on lies is moral leadership.

Letting Americans marry whomever they love is moral leadership.

Taking care of our children, our sick, our elderly is moral leadership.

Not mortgaging the future of our children is moral leadership.

Keeping jobs in America is moral leadership.

Taking an influential stance on human rights abuses with our trading partners in China and Africa and South America is moral leadership.

Having a robust foreign policy that actively promotes human decency EVERYWHERE is moral leadership.

Feeding and caring for our own hungry fellow Americans is moral leadership.

[bryant69]

8. Proselytizing is not at odds with seperation of Church and State

Unless they recieving federal funds to support their proselytizing.

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

[sui generis]

14. not to split hairs but

in practice, proselytizing sects seek the public forum, and the most effective public forum is public education and government.

In practice, when I hear a senator or congressman or president of the United States say "this is a christian nation" that separation is being violated, and it happens every day.

[bryant69]

17. Let's split hairs

The first part of your statement is kind of non-sensical. Everybody seeks the most effective way to spread their message; there's nothing wrong with that. The question is are they allowed to teach religion in the class room or as public servents? Well the first definately not, the second we might disagree on what teaching religion means.

The second seems to imply that public servants should be banned from expressing their opinions on religious matters? Maybe I misunderstood.

[Modem Butterfly]

22. Public servants should not use public money to advance their religion

When I'm getting my vision checked for my driver's license renewal, I should not have to hear about how much Jesus hates abortion. Do it on your own time, Brandine, and just show me the eye chart.

[bryant69]

33. Brandine?

[Modem Butterfly]

35. I live in Georgia.

[bryant69]

37. Ah. I guess that makes sense, then.

[sui generis]

23. let me clarify

I don't trust people with a religious agenda, at all.

I don't want to hear it coming from my elected representatives while they are in session or when they are considering eroding that barrier by supporting Irrelevant Design over evolution in the classroom. I don't want it mentioned in the classroom either directly or by derivative, or for any reason other than in the course of ordinary social studies. I don't want anything that my tax dollars pay for to go to anything but government, public safety, economic policy and social programs.

I'm sorry if my statements don't make sense to you - I hate religion and don't think it has any place in reality or government. I accept that it exists and some people choose to practice it and I don't despise people merely for being religious, but I do NOT want to see it have anything to do with government or any "public" venue. I absolutely have slavering lizard eyed rabies about anyone who thinks that I or my children need to hear the word of god on my tax dollar.

That's about as clear as I can make it without drawing blood.

[bryant69]

32. OK

I liked that drawing blood ending there - so you would be comfortable banning religion from the public square altogether.

I do oppose teaching intelligent design for the same reason I would oppose teaching evolution as proof as the non-existence of God (not that i think anybody would do that). Religious beliefs don't belong in science class or anywhere except in social studies (as you mention) or in literature class.

I also don't think you need to hear the word of God on your tax dollar. But I don't know if a religious person can stop being a religious person just by being elected or appointed to a government postion. That's part of who a person is - out right attempts to preach, well that's clear. But having the language of religion as part of your vocabulary - well, I'm less sure you can really put a stop to that.

But I am religious and so probably have a different view on this than you do.

Bryant

[cfield]

43. I'm with you there, mostly

Just because someone practices religion, doesn't mean they should present it as fact to non-believers. Whatever the religion is, believe it, embrace it, live it, but DON'T force it on anyone else. As a Christian (that is, the Jesus believing type, not the Dubya type)my 'religion' tells me to spread the Gospel-being Jesus and His teachings- to others. I'm all about sharing with people why I believe what I believe. However, I do not think that presenting it as "you have to believe this because the Bible says so" is a quality method to sharing my faith. And I will not preach to people unless they're asking me to. If they want to know why, I'll tell them but I'm not one to force people to hear what I have to say. Because I am a nobody; believing what I do doesn't make me superior and I have no right to act better than you because... I have faith, I'm above all...

As far as teaching evolution, or creationism, or whatever, in the classroom? Teach it. But not as fact. Teach it as it should be taught; some people believe this_______ and here is evidence to back it up. Others believe this_______ and here's why.
Christianity vs Catholicism vs Islam vs Worshiping the Orange Fairy? Teach the basics of each, okay, then let the student decide what, if anything, they believe. If my kid, after being raised to know that I believe in XYZ comes to me and says I know you believe that and I know why you do but it just doesn't fit with me. I really believe in ABC and here's why..... well who am I to say you're an imbecile and wrong. I am nobody. My religion is not fact to anyone who doesn't believe it and I'll never try to convince you otherwise. That's the beauty of free-will; you're free to examine the different aspects and make your own conclusions.
Not sure if this post makes any sense at all but I had to try.

[Norquist Nemesis]

59. Welcome, cfield!

Made sense to me! :)

:hi:

[Rich Hunt]

138. I'm for separation of church and state, too

...but some people are well-educated and take care to hide their dogma-based prejudices. The most obnoxious dogmatists aren't always the ones you can see.

[Tsiyu]

131. This should be its own thread

If I could nominate it, I would :thumbsup:

[cfield]

5. ???

Your second paragraph describes me exactly. EXACTLY. I believe in exactly that. That's my belief, my "religion", what my faith is based on. I don't expect anyone else to believe it, and I have my own reasons for believing it-not just because somebody told me I should. And believing that, is a large part (though not the only reason/s) that I HATE Dubya.
I don't remember who it was yesterday that posted the letter Dear Average Republican. Well, I borrowed it and sent it out to my fundie relatives. Here's just one response I got back. Still waiting on more.
------------------------------------------------------------------
hey cindy you left out some stuff ...... like killing babies,trying to take the 10 Commandments out of EVERYTHING (what kind of rules are you going to teach your children when it becomes illegal to try to combat everything they are teaching them in schools....such as evolution?) and making it politically incorrect to even speak the name of Jesus....who by the way, died for those same liberals, same as He did for me. I am a Christian, now, in the past, and forever, and I didn't just suddenly find my religion when it was discovered that America would vote for a Christian before a man who claimed to be a good Catholic, but would vote for all the things the Catholic church stands against because it was the popular thing to do. now suddenly, Hillary and Bill have decided to show their "religious" side? come on.........What are you going to say to your child when he comes home from school and tells you there is no God. are you going to remain the "good democrat" and say nothing about Creation because you have to say GOD DID IT......not the big bang.? Of course, you can always tell him/her about the empathetic democrats who are pushing all the government programs that will eventually bring about total dependance on the government, so who needs God? Am I against all democrats? No. I would vote for a democrat in a minute if he was an honest, God fearing man who has the guts to stand up for what he believes instead of redefining himself every time a poll was taken. I voted for Jimmy Carter and would again. I definitely would vote for the guy who ran as Al Gore's vice president (i cant believe i can't think of his name right now, Joe something i think ) our world will not be a utopia until Jesus comes, no matter what they tell you. they cannot make it happen. a republican cannot make it happen. the only thing we can do is REMEMBER THAT WE ARE ONLY ON THIS EARTH FOR A SHORT TIME AND OUR HOPE IS IN JESUS CHRIST, NOT A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. I love you very much, but i wish you would understand that our responsibility to God is to NEVER DENY HIM OR HIS TEACHINGS and it is our responsibility as Christians to stand up for Him and fight with all our might to keep God in America, we're doomed if we dont.


Cindy Field <[e-mail]> wrote:
Dear Average Republican,

There is NO "liberal agenda" but the shared interest of liberals who want to
see things get better for everyone. You, your parents, and the guy who bags
groceries down at the Piggly-Wiggly.

Liberals want to see you with enough money to buy groceries, pay off your
house, and put at least one gas-efficient vehicle in your garage.

It's not an agenda. It's people hoping for the best for other people.

It's about hoping that your Uncle John, who's been farming the same plot of
land for the last 40 years, doesn't lose his farm because he falls off his
tractor and breaks his leg and can't pay his doctor bill.

It's about hoping that you have some options when your town's biggest
employer goes belly-up 'cuz it can't compete with the textile factory in
China.

It's about making sure you get paid enough that you don't have to take two
or three jobs just to make ends meet. So you can spend more time with your
family...so you can play catch with your boys, or take them fishing on
weekends, or take your little girl to the local swimming hole and teach her
how to swim.

It's not an agenda to want the best for people. It's just humanity. It's
about being a good neighbor, even if that neighbor lives half a country
away.

Ask a liberal what empathy is...it's about understanding where someone else
is coming from. And most of us try very hard, even if we don't agree.

Being a liberal isn't about making fun of God, or your beliefs about him.
Most liberals take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. They try to live the
teachings of Jesus, even if they aren't sure he's really the Son of God.
Thomas Jefferson called him the World's Greatest Moral Philosopher. You'll
find very few liberals who'd disagree with that.

It's because of liberals that your ten year olds get to go to school rather
than being forced to work in factories for spare change. It's because of
liberals that you can trust your workplace to be safe and free of unexpected
dangers. It is because of liberals that, should you be injured at work, you
can expect fair medical treatment and compensation for your lost work.

That's what we do. We try to look out for everybody. Even the people who
hate us.

We don't have an agenda. We don't take marching orders from anyone. We do
what we do because we believe in people.



(Not written by me but danged if I couldn't say it better myself)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read this about 10 minutes ago and am still so flabbergasted that I haven't even begun to think up a quality response. So, should we reach out??? I'm *almost* to the point of saying 'why bother reaching out; it won't change anything'.
Just thought I'd share, sorry for the long post.

[sui generis]

13. way to go Cindy!

The "rules" you teach your children are the rules of fairness and decency. There is NOTHING in the ten commandments that couldn't follow from someone practicing the golden rule.

We are not doomed. If we can't take care of ourselves, and think for ourselves, and teach our children modern lessons in a modern world, and live lives full of decency, fairness, and virtue with or without religion, then we are certainly doomed, because religion written on paper, screamed from the pulpits and street corners, practiced in solitude and humility, however done, is secondary to decency.

Whatever you believe or don't believe, you don't need the fear of hell to know that murdering someone is wrong, or that stealing is wrong, or that walking by someone starving in the street when you have a full stomach is wrong.

Whatever you believe or don't believe, you can teach your children that being fair and honest sets an example of fairness and honesty, and when enough people expect and practice fairness and honesty in all things it becomes the norm.

Liberals, polls, democrats, republicans, neocons, fundies, preachers, and even Jesus, are all irrelevant if you don't know where your own heart is first. An evil drunk will still be as evil sober - there is no reason to think that an innately evil person won't be as evil with or without Jesus.

[jim3775]

6. BUSH IS THE FALSE PROPHET! BUSH IS THE FALSE PROPHET! n/t

[YOY]

7. First you must learn their language to debate efficiently:

Yer not a reel Kristian! = I disagree with you.
Yer a heathen! = I heartlity disagree with you

Ah haf excepted Jebus into mah hart! = My arguements are infalible due to my "faith"
Gawd haits fahgs! = I am uncomforatble with my own sexuality and cherry-pick scripture to support it.
The Bibahl Sez= A cherry-picking preacher once told me and I beleived it
I will prey for yew. = Yeah, whatever! I obviously cannot win this arguement.

Jeebity Jeebity Jebus (or any combination thereof using the words 'Jebus' and 'Jeebity')= I cannot be disprooven 'The ultimate trump in any arguement'

Touch to win over anyone with that specific lingo...

[mattclearing]

104. Brilliant. Thanks for that.

:D

[madmom]

9. I found this awhile back and hung it on the fridge

"I do not find in our particular superstition of christianity one redeeming feature... Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world" Thomas Jefferson

[htuttle]

11. No. It's time for humanity to put away childish things.

[mmonk]

12. When they quit attacking us

and bearing false witness, I might consider it. But right now, they are a cancer.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Progressives should reach out to anyone with whom we share common ground.

Which would mean about 98% of the American public.

NGU.

[QC]

16. How many people here actually read the article before responding?

From the looks of this thread, I'd say not more than one or two.

[LoZoccolo]

92. I've often said that DUers are seldom doers...

...in reference to how many don't do much beyond reading and writing stuff on the computer...now we can't even depend on them to do the reading part! Sad.

Really, a lot of people are just here to jack off and nurse whatever emotional problems and neuroses they have. When it's good here, it's really good, but you have to really have to protect your time from the people for whom it's mostly about themselves.

[QC]

132. Sadly, you're right. n/t

[slackmaster]

18. Not until they stop their Big Lie tactics on evolution, abortion, etc.

This morning's local fishwrap contains a series of LTTEs regarding an article published recently on the "controversy" of biological evolution vs. intelligent design "theory".

The first thing that caught my eye was this letter. I've underlined the Big Lies I've been following recently. I've not bothered with the various red herrings and other minor intellectual sins. Just the real whoppers, and Googling any one of them verbatim will produce prodigious results.

You state that "the scientific case for intelligent design is nonexistent," but fail to state that the scientific case for evolution is also nonexistent. Most good definitions of a science include words like observable, subject to experimentation, repeatable and verifiable. The idea that life evolved from non-living particles by time and chance has never been observed, nor has an experiment been conducted to show this, nor has it been verified or repeated.

Also, the idea of macroevolution contradicts scientific laws which show that life comes only from other life and that systems left to themselves go to a condition of greater disorder, randomness or probability. Mathematical probabilities show that the probability of life occurring by chance is less than 1 in 1,040,000.

Thus, it takes a great measure of faith to believe in evolution. Both evolution and intelligent design are religious ideas. No idea concerning origins is scientific. Why should the religious idea of evolution be allowed to be taught as science?

ARLO MOEHLENPAH
Chula Vista

See http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050817/news_lz1e17lets.html

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

21. What's the problem ClassWarrior?

Doesn't your very handle refer to an Us vs. Them outlook?

What do you mean by "class"?

I grew up in the '60s when science was king for a lot of kids. If someone had come to me in 1970, when I was 12, and told me people would still be debating evolution vs. creationism in the 21st century I would have laughed at them.

We don't need fundamentalist clowns and zealots dictating how science should be taught to our children.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Read my sig line too.

Concilliation is a Progressive value. Yet so many here call "them" children, then turn around and whine and squeeze their eyes shut and hold their breath and shout, "Not until THEY..."

I agree that the fundies are dead wrong, but does that give us an excuse to abandon our Progressive values?

Sorry, I believe we're better than that.

NGU.

[slackmaster]

36. I cannot compromise my values to pander to someone's religion

Yet so many here call "them" children...

But I didn't actually do that, did I?

I agree that the fundies are dead wrong, but does that give us an excuse to abandon our Progressive values?

I'm not sure what YOU mean by "our Progressive values", and the term has been used to cover everything from soup to nuts.

MY values include individual liberty, intellectual honesty, and not letting people peddle their religious mythology as science.

The farthest I'll go with conciliation toward the ID crowd is allowing ID to be taught in public school, in a philosophy class or comparative religion where it belongs. Shit, I'll even encourage it.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

42. Glad we got that all straightened out

:smoke:

:freak:

:spank:

:beer:

:boring:

[sui generis]

25. love the way you generalize

just kidding.

Reach out to all Americans.

Who gives a shit what they believe in, it's irrelevant. Decency is decency with or without faith. They need to decide what side of the fence they're on and then vote with their heart - we don't need to "change" to reach out.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Huh?

NGU.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

41. None of it made sense. Clarify.

NGU.

[sui generis]

44. again with the vietnamese

if it ain't in Demopedia it's just too damn clever to be used on DU.

The Democratic Party does not need to "reach out" to any group or subculture.

We need to address fairness and decency for all Americans equally in our political platform, and they will come to us.

If I say, "I'm reaching out to gays" by supporting special rights for gays, then I'll be doing a double mistake: singling out a group and making promises that are inappropriate for America.

When I say, "I'm for any American having the right to marry any American they love" I'm supporting all of America. When I say, "I'm in favor of making sure you cannot be discriminated against because of your sexual orientation or your perceived sexual orientation" I"m supporting all Americans, including those of the hetersexual orientation from being fired for being heterosexual.

That's not "reaching out". That's doing the fair and decent and American thing.

[ClassWarrior]

45. I wish that your attitude matched your words.

I agree that Progressive values dictate EXACTLY that we "address fairness and decency for all Americans equally." Too often, though, people who should know better engage in the kind of bigotry toward certain groups that's alive and well on this thread.

NGU.

[sui generis]

54. no attitude here

sorry you took it that way - thought I was being funny.

Anyway, disagreeing that ID should be taught in schools is not bigotry. It's disagreeing. Disagreeing that the Ten Commandments or a crucifix or Velvet Jesus have any place in a courtroom is not bigotry, it is well reasoned disagreement.

I don't really have a problem with religion anywhere around me, EXCEPT in government. I personally don't like it all, and can give bookish essay reasons why, but that doesn't mean that I prejudge anyone or have a negative opinion of people who are religious.

Until we get to government. Once it's in the classroom, or the courtroom, I have a serious problem with it and with the people who believe it should be there. If that means being depicted as a bigot by those people, then I will proudly own that label IN THIS ONE CASE, but mostly because name calling is irrelevant to rationality, and doesn't change my reasons for not wanting religion in government IN ANY FORM.

It is hard to not feel under assault by people who would change America fundamentally to erode these barriers, who already abuse the system whenever and wherever they can get away with it. For some people it forces them to reject ALL of it rather than waste brain cells and time trying to pick the good from the bad.

That's also not bigotry - ultimately, it's just rejection.

It would be bigotry if they asked you if you were religious and then didn't hire you because you said you were christian, or baptist or Wiccan. Or that you didn't believe in a "greater being" or attend regular religious service.

It's not bigotry to want to keep potential bigotry out of government.

[ClassWarrior]

62. I disagree with them too. As I said in another post, I believe they're...

...dead wrong. I simply said that it's better to reach out to them with the hope of bringing them back to our values - the best of American values - than it is to trash them (and all Christians in some cases) and treat them as hopelessly less-than-human. In my book, that's bigotry.

NGU.

[JNelson6563]

78. Nice disregard of substance

Pot meet kettle.

[ClassWarrior]

97. I wasn't commenting on substance, Julie. I was commenting on attitude.

The attitude that, "I'll only practice Progressive values when THEY start practicing Progressive values."

We're better than that.

NGU.

[JNelson6563]

121. I thought there were good points

and I see nothing wrong with a "meet you halfway" view of things.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I think I took it a little different than you did. If we are to work with those we differ with there will have to be compromise by both sides.

I understand your view that we can't show up with a bunch of demands and expect cooperation. Neither can "they".

Cheers-
Julie

[HootieMcBoob]

20. To Christians? Yes! To Fundamentalists? No!

Religious fundamentalists are a cancer on the world. It doesn't matter what religion they are: Christian, Muslim or Jew. They are one of the reasons there is so much pain and suffering in the world today - I would do everything possible to try to marginalize them.

[Junkdrawer]

24. You'd have to deprogram BEFORE you could talk politics...

seems a waste of time to me...

[ClassWarrior]

47. That's the point! DON'T talk politics with them - talk VALUES.

As Lakoff says, Progressive values are the best of American values - and that's how we can short-circuit the "programming."

NGU.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. Xian fundamentalists have so entwined their religion with their politics..

...it is impossible to seperate the two. What's more, their politics are actually inimical to freedom and to what America stands for. So no, I don't think we should reach out to them. In reaching out to them, we have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

[liberalismresurgent]

27. Liberals should fight for paper trail period.

That's the real issue, Not no Christians or Jews or Buddhists.
And accountability of the voting machines and those who own them.

[noonwitch]

30. Yes, when it comes to humanitarian relief in places like Africa

If christians (and others of good will) put doctrine and politics aside, God could do great things through the church and perhaps a continent could be saved from disease and hunger.

Pat Robertson has his Operation Rescue in place, the Catholic church is always in places where people are in need, the Salvation Army is there, more liberal groups like CROP, Church World Service, and the UCC's One Great Hour of Sharing have been in Africa and other impovershed areas for decades (centuries in the case of the Catholic church). There are also individual efforts, like the Agape Orphanage (for AIDS orphans in South Africa), and western-run schools for african children. If we had a way to coordinate between these groups and others, like Heifer International, those children's groups that run infomercials late at night and UNICEF, great steps could be made in parts of Africa that could spread throughout the continent.

Instead, we nitpick amongst ourselves. The fundies say the liberals are evil, the liberals hate the SA because they allegedly discriminate against gays (I still challenge you all to find a single incident of anyone being denied assistance from the SA because he or she is gay), conservatives distrust anything that has any ties to the UN and most of us recognize that financial aid given to governments is useless, because the governments are corrupt. God can work through any of these agencies, but think of what He could do if they all were dedicated to working together toward a goal of a free Africa, where the people are using the land to produce food, are helped to develop their own resources for farming and self-sufficiency, and eventually are able to participate fully in the world economy? I'm sure there is some level of cooperation between the groups on site, but there really isn't on this side of it, where the funds come from.

[pitohui]

116. pat robertson is profiting from diamond/gold trade in africa

you do know that charles taylor & pat robertson are business partners

robertson profits from the human misery in africa


don't be fooled by some tiny tithe of hundreds of millions of ill-gotten dollars being kicked back to people who wouldn't be starving & chopped-up by armed terrorists if taylor & robertson & other exploiters of africa's mineral wealth weren't there in the first place

honestly can't believe you cited robertson as a possible force for good

there is no hope

people are completely uneducated abt what is going on

<sigh, head in hands>

[noonwitch]

127. I knew about the diamonds, but his organization is capable of doing good

Pat is a lawyer and he is not stupid. He knows what will get him indicted and what won't. He keeps the Operation Rescue money separate from his more personal ventures.

My point was that if we keep nitpicking about so and so's politics or doctrine, nothing will be accomplished. If we get together as christians and good people who aren't necessarily religious, great works can be accomplished.

[Silverhair]

31. Most of the responses demonstrate a BIG problem we have.

With so much hatred for Christians being shown in this thread one would think that Christian votes are not welcomed. The message looks like one must be an atheist to be a Democrat. With that kind of message, and given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are believers, (John Kerry is a Catholic.)is it any wonder that we are losing elections.

Hatred drives people away.

[Modem Butterfly]

48. The Xians on DU spend a great deal of time drawing a distinction...

...between fundamentalism and "real" Xianity, to the point of claiming that these people aren't actually Xians.

Personally, I think that there are different kinds of Xians. The fundie variety who believe that their religion needs to be fulfilled through our political system are not folks whose support we should pursue or accept.

[Silverhair]

49. Your defination of fundamentalist and mine are NOT the same.

Please read the OP's defination of a fundamentalist. And also look at the number of posters in this thread that actively HATE any form of Christianity.

[StayOutTheBushes]

69. Not to mention the constant taunting in the usage of 'Xians'.

[Modem Butterfly]

72. The term "Xian" was coined by the followers of Christ...

...in an effort to not use Christ's sacred name. The term was common until the last century and is still widely used by Xians themselves today. It's not taunting.

[StayOutTheBushes]

107. I'd love to see your reference.

[Modem Butterfly]

109. Reference

http://www.answers.com/topic/xmas

In ancient Christian art ÷ and ÷ñ (Chi Ro--the first two letters in Greek of Christos) abbreviate Christ's name. In many manuscripts of the New Testament, X abbreviates Christos (Xristos). The Oxford English Dictionary documents the use of this abbreviation back to 1551, fifty years before the first English colonists came to America and sixty years earlier than the completion of the King James Version of the Bible. At the same time, Xian and Xianity were in frequent use as abbreviations of Christian and Christianity.

[StayOutTheBushes]

114. From your reference....

some view it as demeaning to Christ.

[markus]

119. So you feel the same way about Xmas?

It's a convenient short-hand, no more.

The persecution complex of Xians in the most religiously tolerant nation on earth (at least, for the time being) is ridiculous.

If were' going to set rules around thie debate, fine. Here's mine: the imposition of religious tenants with no clear public purpose (morality is not a public purpose) is unAmerican.

The radical clerics in this country would not accept the above. Until them, I see no reason to have dialogue with the Xian right than I see to dialogue with skinheads or neo-Nazis or neo-Confederates or anyone else who--as the premise of their argument--are prepared to overturn the very foundation of what makes us a nation. They are the "enemies ... domestic" I once swore an oath about.

[Modem Butterfly]

124. Some folks find modern Xmas celebrations to be demeaning to Christ

Finding someone to take offense to something isn't really a challenge. But the fact remains that the use of the term isn't taunting or insulting.

[StayOutTheBushes]

126. Well it's not inclusive. We should find some other symbol that

is better representative of the group.

[Modem Butterfly]

129. The term they came up with themselves isn't inclusive?

Why not find a different symbol too since some Xians are opposed to capital punishment and might object to the cross?

No matter what term, or symbol, you come up with, you will stil have people who are either ignorant or just extremely sensitive. You simply can't account for every single person.

[Modem Butterfly]

81. I haven't see any active hate for Xianity

I'm not sure how you define fundamentalism, but my definition pretty much agrees with the article cited in the OP.

[BeTheChange]

125. I dont think that most people read the OP's article..

I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian.. I follow the fundamental teachings of Christ. The people that a great deal of DUers seem to hate arent Christian's at all.

MLK was a fundamentalist Christian. Jimmy Carter is a fundamentalist Christian.

Here on DU, this top has been discussed alot and it is almost always assured to denigrate into a flame war. Its usually the same posters, too. I dont care what anyone pays lip service to, Christian bashers run rampant around these parts. It's best to speak to people in person about stuff like this. The hate and stereotyping that people keep hidden is too prone to come out in anonymous internet discussion forums.

My .02

[QC]

133. Hardly anyone here reads articles before commenting on them.

In these parts, it's more important to be the first to respond than to offer a substantive contribution to a discussion.

The article makes it clear that we're most decidedly *not* talking about people who want to combine church and state, people who believe government should favor the wealthy, etc., yet most of the complaints here are along the lines of "I'm not going to reach out to people who want the church to run the government!" No shit, Sherlock. Nobody asked you to.

There was a time when DU was one of the smartest forums on the net, but that is no longer the case, and this thread perfectly encapsulates the reasons why. This place is all about preening and posturing and drama queen hysterics now.

[HootieMcBoob]

50. I don't see hatred toward Christians here at all

What I see is a lot of frustration with the way Christian "fundamentalists" have taken control of the politics of the country including the way the government treats science which is reflected in the fact that we're still wrestling over whether to teach creationism in public school science classes. It's not a problem with Christians or Christianity. In fact I would venture to guess that by far the vast majority of people on this site and indeed within the entire Democratic Party consider themselves Christians, I know I do. I just don't like it when anyone tries to cram their beliefs down my throat and that is the goal of most Christian fundamentalists - they, like the fundamentalist of islam or Judaism, tend to be extremists who don't care at all what anyone else thinks. Their minds are closed and they are intent on dragging us all back into the dark ages with them. I don't intend on helping to make it any easier for them.

[NewJeffCT]

34. Yes, we should

Jimmy Carter was fairly liberal & votes from fundies for him probably made the difference in the 1976 election. (My Dad normally votes for Democrats, but was leery of Carter because of the religiousness.)

We really need to remind many of these folks that the Bible speaks a lot more about helping the poor, sick & downtrodden than it does about gay marriage, supply-side tax cuts or abortion.

PS: I'm an atheist

[madrchsod]

40. well good luck

i have tried and found it`s pointless. they will not listen to anything different from what they are being told in their churches or on tv. my belief in christ and theirs are not the same and never will be.

[seabeyond]

46. well f* ya..... as i just saw a thread that talked dobson and repugs

hanging themselves. i have four regular mother friends who are in religion. that jsut love dobson. his work for three decades were moderate. it is the last 3 years that he sees he can implement control of hate and the sheeple will buy it.

now is absolutely the time. they have defended and been suckered. i have it on record. i made them talk it and take a position. now i am giving them the results of there supporting their religion in our law and government. what a wonderful gift of dobson own words talking beatin an 18 month old to not show marks, to take away free will. everyone of these four women are not this and would never support.

i say thank you for igft of clearity

we cannot ignore fundamentalist, because fundamentalist has gone from a particular sect of baptist and catholics, low number of 14%and has risen in last couple years to 54%-62% depending on what you want the indicator to be. i see having creationism in academic a marker.

we ca not afford to not talk to fundamentalist, and bring them back to moderation, awaken them, let them be born again in christ.......it would behove us all

collective conscious awareness

[Swamp Rat]

51. If WE don't talk to them, someone else will..

:puke:

[BeTheChange]

128. That's what swung everything starting a couple years before Reagan..

The neocons mobilized the Christian base.. and formed the new Right.

The "Moral Majority" was coined and 25 years later, here we are...

They continue to talk to the Christian base, and the Dem party doesnt.

[Coexist]

53. If the fundies preach that women are subservient to men, then no.

I have no common ground with them - because equality of ALL people, no matter what their race, gender or religion comes first with me (and most liberals, I think)

I'm no one's rib.

[ClassWarrior]

55. So your solution is to let them continue to preach that, rather than...

...reach out and begin the hard work of showing them the error of their ways?

I see.

NGU.

[Modem Butterfly]

58. I don't think "let" has anything to do with it

If people believe that, they should have the right to preach it whether we like it or not. But we should not change to make folks who believe that more comfortable.

[ClassWarrior]

64. I have never once advocated that we change anything.

I refuse to change my Progressive values - the best of American values AND the values that Jesus taught - for anyone or anything. I simply said we should be bigger than them and offer the hand of conciliation first.

NGU.

[Modem Butterfly]

68. How do you offer "the hand of conciliation" to people...

...who believe your very politics are anathema to their religion?

[ClassWarrior]

71. See post #47.

NGU.

[Modem Butterfly]

73. KPF

[ClassWarrior]

74. ?

NGU.

[Modem Butterfly]

75. KPF, dude

RMT, after all.

[ClassWarrior]

77. Okay, don't explain. See post #19.

NGU.

[Coexist]

60. It's not for me to tell people that their religion is wrong.

I believe it is wrong, they believe it is the truth. That is a no-win argument.

Fundamentalists, that I know - (edited to add this disclaimer since the article disagrees with this) take the bible literally - word for word.

Christians who are not fundamentalists can be reasoned with, but we are not talking about them.

[ClassWarrior]

70. All I said was that we should offer the hand of concilliation first...

...if we really stand behind our values. If they slap it away, that's their problem and not ours. But we'll never know unless we take the first step.

NGU.

[Coexist]

76. I'm not saying that I will hate them because of their label...

but I cannot, in good conscience, step over an entire gender to make a new friend.

[ClassWarrior]

79. Neither can I.

Nor can I in good conscience allow my fellow human beings to hate one another - left or right.

NGU

[FlaGranny]

83. I have to take exception with you there.

Fundamentalists do NOT take the bible literally, word for word - only the parts they WANT to take literally. They pick out parts to follow and ignore the rest. They ignore many of Jesus's teachings about compassion and caring for the poor. They pick the parts of the old testament they like - i.e., homosexuality bad, spilling the seed bad. They totally ignore the parts about stoning your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath, or the part about killing your son if he talks back to you. There is no way - PERIOD - that anyone on earth follows/believes the entire bible literally.

That's what bothers me the most. As far as I can remember, the bible says nothing about stoning or killing a homosexual; but it does say to stone your neighbor to death, so you can assume, from reading the bible, that working on a Sunday is worse than being a homosexual.

Why do Christian fundamentalists rely so much on the old testament?

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. Thanks for posting this. I'll read through it and see if it fits in with

my website.

[kentuck]

57. No. We should atttack them with the truth..

If shown the difference, they will come to our side voluntarily. They do not need to be courted.

[Perky]

61. Whoa stop right there!!!!

Are you actually suggesting that Biblical Fundamentalism as opposed to social fundamentalism, is, antithetical to poliitcal liberalism

You think it is impossible or stupid to think that a person can't beleive in the virgin Birth, the Death and resurrection and Second Coming and at the same time be a liberal????

[charlie]

66. Not what I'm reading

Even just the excerpt posted above says the opposite.

[sui generis]

67. not really a religious discussion

a reasonable generalization. Of the 99% of the people in the news who style themselves as fundamentalist, most support George Bush and his policies, and most voted to take away the rights of some Americans because they don't love people of the opposite sex.

Should we reach out to "those" fundamentalists? The answer is clearly "no". What are you going to compromise with?

This is a big tent party, but it is only one color. If we make the tent red to reach out to social conservatives (of whatever religious background), then it will no longer be a blue tent.

[arwalden]

63. The Only Way To Do That Would Be To Abandon Progressive Ideas...

... and substitute them with the treasure-trove of BIGOTRY and HATE that the Christian fundamentalists thrive on.

To answer your question--based on how I interpret "reach-out"--my answer would have to be: NO!

If your question was "should we try to convince them that they are wrong" or "should we try to help them to see reason"... then my answer would be "yes".

[WyLoochka]

65. Fundamentalists = Pharisees

Jesus didn't "reach out" to the Pharisees. He lambasted them. Scorning and rebuking the Pharisees - over and over again - was central to his ministry.

A big part of Jesus' message is that there will always be Pharisees amongst us. He lashed out at them in very harsh, very vivid terms so that those who study his words would be able to recognize them in their own generations.

Rebuke the Fundie-Pharisees as Jesus did.

BTW, evangelical does not equal fundamentalist. The fundie-pharisees have stolen and corrupted the term giving evangelicals a bad name among those who actually adhere to the real teachings of Jesus, while at the same time misleading millions and millions of sheep with their false teachings. But then, that is what Pharisees always do - generation to generation to generation. There is "nothing new under the sun."

[LoZoccolo]

88. Did you even read the article?

I don't think you did. Knee-jerking is basically saying you don't care enough about what you believe to be studious in it.

[WyLoochka]

102. Yes , I read the article, Zocc

Curt Day, the author, is one of the misled sheep in that he willingly embraces being called a "fundamentalist."

Perhaps he'll break completely out of the misled flock one day soon and eschew the label, as many have done. He is obviously not right in the middle of it, so there is hope for him.

For the record, the Pharisees cared a lot about "what they believed in" and were very "studious." Didn't stop Jesus from verbally attacking them and exposing their inner filth.

Yes, we should attempt to help to pull the wool back from the sheeps' eyes, but not by serviley palavering to their anti-Jesus' teachings beliefs.

[LoZoccolo]

105. I'm sorry, you may have read it but didn't understand it.

I should have acknowledged that. My apologies.

[WyLoochka]

151. I don't agree with it

I'm not going to apologize for your chronic insufferability, however. That is your problem.

[Joe Chi Minh]

145. You got it, sonoradesertdem.

[Norquist Nemesis]

80. Would I invite Mormon door-knockers in for a cup of tea?

Or buy flowers from the Hari Krishnas knowing it supports the cult? No.

Not all Christian fundmentalist are fundamentally overzealous whackos seeking to 'reform' our culture and society. The most effective believers of any faith are those that LIVE the word and share through example; it's the one's that PUSH the word who cause me to put up a wall.

Unfortunately, at least IMO, the ones who PUSH the word have a bullypulpit of immense proportions. I remember a time in the not too distant past when an occasional Billy Graham sermon would be broadcast and early Sunday mornings you could catch a church service on PBS. Now, I push the button for the TV listings and (Religion) is strategically placed just before CSPAN, several PBS independant stations offer "news" and "analysis" with a panel of 'experts' such as Jay Sekulow, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer.

A few hours to the south of me, along Interstate 70, I witnessed a super-sized cross set up for anyone to see from at least three miles away. It's almost 200 ft high! A little hard to overlook except maybe in a thick fog.

So, as far as reaching out...right now I'm having trouble keeping them at arm's length.

[Modem Butterfly]

82. I once invited the Mormons in...

I was in college at the time. The missionaries sat on my couch and my female housemate came in and sat on my lap. She played with my hair and stroked my neck until they quickly left. It was hilarious. We never got a return visit.

[Norquist Nemesis]

91. LOL!

That sounds like something I would have done at that age, too!

The fact is, it's my past experience with being in the thick of a religious cult's birth that causes me to be frightened with what I see going on today. It's here, it's huge, and I'm not confident the majority of people have the will to do something about it. Not to mention admit its existence. :scared:

[onager]

84. I'll reach out to them with a flamethrower.

The modern American type of right-wing Xian Fundamentalist is NOT interested in compromise. Robespierre wasn't interested in compromise, Lenin wasn't, and neither is Jerry Falwell or Dobson or Pat Robertson.

Now these people know they will never convert every American to their phony Jeebus fantasy, even though "every knee shall bow" is one of their theological wet-dreams.

But their goal...in case you hadn't noticed...is to pass laws that will force us all to ACT like Xian Fundamentalists. They're coming close to that goal right now, and IMO, because of that they have even less interest in compromising with people they perceive as their mortal enemies--liberal Democrats.

If you seriously believe you can accomplish anything by "reaching out" to the American Taliban, I'll just have to steal a quote from Mr. Taxloss, over on the Atheist board: "I've seen you before, buddy. You were in the cattle-car headed for Belsen."

[Modem Butterfly]

85. Ah, Taxloss does have a way with words, doesn't he?

:evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. The association of fundamentalists with right-wing politics is recent

Formerly, they were either apolitical or left-wing.

There's no reason they couldn't be so again. But as in the Islamic world, the establishment has neglected the poor and working class, and religious zealots with right-wing leanings have eagerly exploited the gap. Fundamentalists are conditioned to trust anyone who calls themself "a Bible-believing Christian." I'm not sure that they're even aware how much they've been seduced into being pawns for the neocons.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that Democrats have to support a theocracy, but they should reach out to working class people of all stripes in a non-condescending way, and while I can live with talk of "leprechauns" and "sky spirits" in a forum like this, a politician who stood up in front of a crowd of fundamentalists and said, "You're all deluded by fairy tales" would get zero votes. That's just the way it is, and no amount of ranting can change that.

The principle to follow here, I think, is "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Instead of , Dems need to adopt a populist economic program and soft-peddle (not eliminate) its stances on the hot button issues. For the past twenty years, they have done the opposite, promoting a corporate economic program that destroys American jobs while pushing social positions which, however right, are offensive to a lot of working class voters. The establishment Democrats have become the Yuppie Party, promoting personal freedom, maximum stock dividends, and despising anyone who isn't "presentable."

If challenged, for example, a politician should say, "Yes, I'm pro-choice. Yes, I'm pro gay rights. And by the way, most of the country never had school prayer. Now let's talk about something that we can all agree on: that there aren't enough decent jobs in this town and that you're paying too much for too little health care and that there isn't enough affordable housing and that your boss is being taxed at a lower rate than you are and that whenever government budgets are cut, you're always the ones who are hurt most."

No one has to become a fundamentalist. No one has to cater to them in government. But not all of them are brain-dead, and I believe that some would be receptive to a political approach that understood and dealt with their real needs.

[Modem Butterfly]

89. The politican who stands up in front of a group of fundamentalists...

...and says that reproduction should be between a woman and her doctor or that gay people should have equality under the law will also get equal votes. And in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, politicans are always standing up in front of all of us no matter where they are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. He could get away with that if

1) He didn't state those positions unless specifically asked

2) He didn't act like a condescending yuppie enlightening the rubes

3) He made it clear that he understood their way of life and their problems and had concrete solutions for at least some of them

I'll tell you a true story. I was living in a small town in Oregon during the first attempt at an anti-gay initiative around 1992 or so. Oregon's an odd state, in that the rural population is mostly non-religious, but very macho, while most of the religious minority are Mormons or fundamentalists. So anyway, the fundamentalists set up a table on the main street to campaign for the anti-gay initiative.

I walk up to the table, where a man and a woman are handing out pamphlets. I ask them why they are supporting the measure.

The man starts ranting and raving about "filthy pervertts" and "spreading disease" and "unnatural acts." No point talking to him. I resist the temptation to ask him whether he thinks Arnold Schwarzenegger is hot.

The woman says that her main concern is not wanting her sons molested by gay teachers in school.

"You know," I say, "we had a male teacher in my high school who molested girls, and I've heard of other cases like that."

I let that sink in and continue,"That means that heterosexual men shouldn't teach school either, because they might molest the girls."

I can see the signs of a head about to explode.

"So I guess the only men who should teach school are eunuchs," I add.

She bursts out laughing. "You have a point there."

I don't know whether she continued to support the measure, but I do know that I broke through the Total Information Environment that fundamentalist churches provide.

[Modem Butterfly]

96. I'm from Oregon, and was living there in 1992

Most rural folks ignored the OCA-types and dismissed them as nuts, but they were able to stir up enough latent bigotry to win support for their anti-gay legislation on a county-by-county, and in some cases (Springfield comes to mind) city-by-city. I had the unfortuate luck to attend a few of their organizational meetings and much of their selling point centered on the "fact" that homos come from California.

[QC]

134. Great post, as usual.

Many have forgotten that quite a few of the great progressive heroes of the past were the sort of people many of us here would now deride as "fundies."

[LoZoccolo]

87. "As ridiculous or repugnant these beliefs are to the liberal"

Good reaching out there!

Serious, though, I've been saying this for a long time - peoples' definition of "fundamentalism" has morphed into "any Christian I don't like", and then they use it that way, ignoring that it has had a different, theological definition for much longer.

[Touchdown]

99. That line caught me too.

Stereotyping liberals with the broad brush, while begging us not to do the same.

Their side was co-opted by the GOP. Their side declared war on our side. See "Culture War" declaration by Pat Buchanan, Republican national Convention, 1992. You do not reach out to those who want you subservient to them.

[LoZoccolo]

103. And we continue to do their work for them.

As you bring up, they declared the culture war. In other words, they picked this division, among several they could have picked, as a strategy that would help them gain power. Why we buttress it by acting as a complementary force in solidifying this division, and allow them to fight according to plan, is beyond me.

And it's working too...for them:

In 1987, white evangelical Protestants were split fairly evenly along partisan lines (34 percent Republicans, 31 percent Democrats). Today, there is a nearly two-to-one Republican advantage among white evangelicals (43 percent to 22 percent).

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0101-03.htm

The people saying that it's useless to reach out to them due to some anecdotal experiences they might have had are ignoring history and hard statistics.

[Touchdown]

110. Because they want me dead.

They said so in their books. Reed, Robertson, Rushdoony, etc. I will not be conciliatory to anyone who seeks to destory my Constitution, my country, and stone me to death.

Fundmentalism, by it's very nature is intolerant. It feeds on itself until nothing is left.

What you are advocating is Stockholm Syndrom.

Regarding your statistics. Let us lose elections for 1000 years before I will give in to these people.

[LoZoccolo]

111. You don't get what I'm saying.

Another class one disagreement, which I don't participate in for long.

[Touchdown]

120. I guess I don't.

I don't hold their values of strict adherance to manufactured dogma, and conquest of ideology as valid. I value my life more than my tolerance for their views to push for my execution. Call me calloused that way. I'm only human.

I don't see the logic in the idea of opposition, even strong violent opposition to a belief in the virtues of oppression, and denial of one's life, as some kind of "complementary" stridency. They're fighting to control my life. I'm fighting for my right to life itself. You cannot equivecate the two. I speak for only myself in this matter.

[LoZoccolo]

106. I think I misunderstood what he was saying, at first, though.

I thought he was speaking as someone who thought they were repugnant as well.

[LoZoccolo]

90. Gee, all these people replying without reading the article...nice.

Nice to know they take politics seriously beyond their own ranting and raving.

The only thing I'll add to this is the notion of class one and class two disagreements. A class one disagreement is one in which one side cannot explain the other's position to the other's satisfaction. A class two disagreement is one in which this doesn't happen, and is a real genuine parting of ways.

Until we understand what fundamentalism really is, and respect the real definition, rather than making our own rage-soaked one, our conflicts with the religious right will remain to some extent class one disagreements, and further, the right's leadership will continue to take advantage of the fact that we make it a class one disagreement in efforts to mobilize them against us under the pretext that we're being unfair.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. I can't believe that I'm agreeing with LoZoccolo

Yes, it does seem that 3/4 of the posters didn't read the article and are playing out their own personal issues instead of responding logically to the thesis of the article.

[LoZoccolo]

95. Ha ha ha ha! Well we /are/ both Democrats.

I think the reason I come off as contrarian is just that I only really feel like posting where I'm saying something different than a lot of people. But the main stuff, like outrage about the Bush* administration's manipulative tactics, is just too deeply and clearly wrong for me to add anything to the discussion that the most of the rest of us are feeling and posting as well.

[ulysses]

171. if anyone is less likely to do so than you,

I have to think it's me. Yet, here I am. :shrug:

[pitohui]

118. well you don't seem to know what fundamentalism is

do you live w. talk w. deal w. fundies

apparently you do not

i do

before criticizing those of us who do know what it's abt, who have been in these churches or have friends or colleagues brainwashed in these churches, perhaps you might read the book for yourself & attend the services for yrself & get to know these people for themselves

then you will find the reality is what the other poster said -- he must fight, tooth & nail, against those whose fundamental religious text says explicitly that he should be stoned to death in the marketplace for adultery


you seem to have a very naive idea of what the fundamentals really are

the gospels are 4 books of the bible, there are many dozens of other books

[markus]

122. But that's not what fundamentalism is in this country

I did read the article before my initial reply. It's a lovely statement of faith that would not be out of place in my former (Catholic) church. However, it ignores that the overwhelming majority of Xian fundamentalists believe (rightly or wrongly) in a literal application of the Old Testmanent and the non-Gospel portions of the New Testament as the only basis for a socieity. (I was going to say a civil society, but I would argue they don't want or believe in one, as much as they demand "majority rule" on their agneda).

If you are suggesting that because someone is what I will instead call an Xian originalist I would be unable to speak with them, that's ridiculous. That description of fundamentalism basically describes all of the faithful Xians I know, not the commonly accepted definition of fumdamentalists.

It's all very nice to write an article about how the terms are all wrong. Of course they are. But if fundamentalism and evangelicalism are conventient sticks with which to beat the enemies of our country--foreign and domesstic--then I'm going to take it up and use it.

I've had the same basic discussion about the term "evangelical", with people who get upset that I would like to see it equated with "bigot" and "hate". Yes, I don't think your average member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America walking around Fargo is a hateful bigot. But the situation we have is that Dr. Dobson and Rev. Falwell et al command the public's attention, not good Democrats in the ELCA who might well be Xian "fundamentalists".

There argument (and yours) is not with me. It's with your church and the larger community of Xians. Tossing the Pharisees out of your temple is your business, and I understand it is part of the charge you accept as a Xian.

Until you succeed, I will continue to attack the fundamentally unAmerican views of the self-styled fundamentalists and evangelicals who can command space in the MSM. I am sorry if it offends you, but it can't be helped until the Falwels and Dobson's are driven back under the rocks from whence they came.

[LoZoccolo]

123. Well, we will continue to have our own rhetoric used against us, then.

But if fundamentalism and evangelicalism are conventient sticks with which to beat the enemies of our country--foreign and domesstic--then I'm going to take it up and use it.

They're far from convenient, seeing as your use of it buttresses the strategy the GOP selected - out of many they could have - to bring them to power.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the exit polls of the 2004 election. The argument there was that 22% of the voters voted on the basis of "moral values", and the GOP made a point out of emphasizing this. This is odd when you consider that it's a waning segment - 40% voted this way in 1996, and 35% in 2000. They could have made a bigger point out of combining the totals for Iraq and national security and tried to say that it was Bush*'s war on terror that won him the election, which was bigger than 22%. I feel they emphasized this to try to bring on some blowback from us, and get us to push another segment of our evangelical base over to them; in effect, when we backlash according to their plan, we do their work for them.

If you don't think this has been happening, consider this:

In 1987, white evangelical Protestants were split fairly evenly along partisan lines (34 percent Republicans, 31 percent Democrats). Today, there is a nearly two-to-one Republican advantage among white evangelicals (43 percent to 22 percent).

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0101-03.htm

And that's just white evangelicals. Republicans have been courting African-Americans by providing social programs through the faith-based initiative.

I have no idea why you think it's convenient to continue a trend that's brought the GOP to power, and to allow the GOP to fight according to the successful plan they picked. We should never allow our enemies to fight according to plan, much less help them along in it.

[markus]

152. They're strategy is failing

Declining numbers of voters cite "moral values" (code words: anti-gay bigotry, pro-life).

Yes, we need to stay on our true Democratic message--which has lots to appeal to true Xians--I am not interested in doing anything that would lessen the opportunity to isolate and marginalize the people who represent the "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" movements in this country.

Look closely at the exit and post election polls. With the exception of gay marriage (which was largely a campaign of lies and fear--no one was suggesting churches would be compelled to perform religious marraiges, but that was a key argument) most Americans agreed with Democratic positions.

What we need are candidates who aren't afraid of those positions. What we need is the sentiment on teh war to change from "support the commander-in-chief" to a revulsion for the GOP's warmongering. And we need to move the ball on gay rights, because those of us who support it are not going away and we're not going to shut up.

At the same time, those who's entire life is tied up in hating gay people and those of other demonimations must be marginalized and isolated. They are a cancer on our civic and political life, and should be treated as such.

Which approach do you prefer (or loathe the least): attack pseudo-Xian religious leaders like Falwell, Dobson, et al, or attack the entire the concept of "fundamentalist" or "evangelical". If you answer is neither, they we have to agree to disagree.

[LoZoccolo]

153. Their strategy is failing?

Bush* is in the White House and we have a Republican congress.

It doesn't matter how many of the voters claim that as their first, the point is that they're gaining part of our number, and pretty clearly planning to gain more, using an idea that both them - and you - are spreading in tandem.

Anyways, the foundation of the religious right rested on the idea that Communists were going to take away religious freedom; as long as a fringe of our number wants to embarass us and make it look like they're still at it, they can continue to get people organized against us as such. You don't realize what you're doing when you claim the religious right is a threat enough to be the target of marginalization, and then turn around and fuel their recruitment and continued organization.

You say in another post in this thread that you think the idea that Christians are persecuted in this country is false; what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't on this point.

[markus]

154. They are in the White House because of the war

"Vote for me or you will die, and the queers will get your children." That was the Bush campaign message. I don't really see the "moral values" in that, unless you accept that homosexuality is a moral issue, which I do not.

People voted out of fear. I want them to fear Dr. Dobson and Rev. Falwell as much as they fear Osama bin Laden, because the former are a much greater threat to our country.

People of geniune Xian faith (as opposed to the psycho-bigots who follow the above) should be naturally drawn to a Democratic program that stresses taking care of people first. I think that Edwards good old economic populism would have taken him much further if he had not been so inexperienced. From my conversations with the few people in the social justice wing of my former church (who had not become bulgy-eyed abortion zealots), I do believe that the Democratic Party is their party. So do they.

Abortion is the trickiest issue, and Democrats have been successfully navigating those waters for decades, even with the active opposition of the anti-abortion movement to Democrats with 100% anti-abortion voting records.

Gay rights is a seperate issue. We need to move the ball on that, plain and simple. There is no basis in the gospels of Jesus for anti-gay bigotry. None. (I'm not interested in what Paul had to say about it. Last time I checked my former church and most denominations were called Christian and not Paullines).

Do we need to build a platform which will appeal both to our innate god and our innate selfish greed? Yes. A platform of economic populism should be central.

Do we need to build a platform of inclusiveness and civil rights for all? Absolutely. Whill the Xian right foam and froth at the mouth over this because it includes gays? Yes it will.

Do we need to have a platform for some common decency in public spaces (like on FM radio, for instance; I have a 13 year old daughter and I"m within an inch of forbidding her to listen to it. My daughter has seen one R rated move--Chicago--because she is a dancer. Unfortunatley, most of her friends see all sorts of crap).

That's the sort of "morals" I care about. That and morals in our leadership, which are conspiculously absent.

I will not compromise on equal rights. I will not accept the overturning of the right of privacy (which could lead, for example, to an end of widely available contraception, at least) to unmarried couples, in addition to an end to abortion). I will not accept a state religion in any way shape or form.

Given those two points, I am open to dialoge with anybody.

[LoZoccolo]

155. This, too, is a class one disagreement.

I actually made a point out of the fact that the "moral values" percentage is shrinking, and that the Republicans somewhat disingenuously waved it out there as the reason they won when you could interpret the data otherwise.

I'm not talking about your beliefs or changing our platform either.

The argument is concerning the effectiveness of trying to use the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist", terms that describe theological traditions with which a sizable portion of our own constituency identify with (and which you admit, should be the case), into "sticks with which to beat the enemies of our country". I say that is ineffective, and butresses a strategy they picked as the one that would help them win. They want us to do this. Why allow them to fight according to plan?

The issue is not whether or not the reason Bush* won is because "moral values" represented the biggest percentage, the issue is whether or not we assist them in pursuing a strategy to easily get more voters. Not necessarily of their biggest block, but the easiest obtained due to our pushing them out at the same time they are attracting them.

I'll give you one more chance to understand my argument before I move on.

[markus]

157. I don't think this is a Class One argument

with its haughty assummption that I am somehow not paying attention.

I don't think I want to be in a party that accepts the proposition tha t gays are evil perverts, that the world was created 6,000 some odd years ago by Jehovah, and that those who do not accept the bible literally (in the sense the orignal article dismisses) are hell-bound.

That is the well established, popular definition of fundamentalist.

Many people who might meet the original articles' description of "fundamentalist" would never accept that term, which is pretty swell set in the public mind with people who would like to reconsitute our society look something like their mental picture of ancient Isreal.

If you want to try to retake that term, fine. Go ahead. I'm personally much more interested in retaking the world Liberal. Introducing the idea that we must reach out specifically to "fundamentalists" is doomed to fail until you can reclaim the term fundamentalist. Good luck.

Introucing the idea that the moral debate should be about the junk on popular media, corporate responsibility and helping the poorest among us is something I agree with 100%. I just don't see why we've drug in the term fundamentalist into it, except that the writer of the original article feels about the term the way most DUers feel about the term liberal.

Reclaiming mainline Xianity from the current crop of pharisees is not a project that interests me. Discrediting their most vocal leaders does, because they are a clear and present danger. Convince me you have a good new way to do this that causes Dobson and Falwell and the current bishop of the local diocese to disappear without hurting anyone's feelings, and I'm all ears.


Evangelical is a trickier proposition.

If by evangelical you mean this conversation, then fine. I've been evangelized by everybody from The Process and Hari Krishna's to the LDS kids who come to my door, whom I try to get to come in and have a cold drink because my sister converted to LDS and I think of my nephew when I see those guys. It's all water off a ducks back to me.

If by it you mean people who enlist in the Air Force chaplain corps and then violate their oath of office and orders in service a higher power, then, well, that's ugly and wrong and those people should all receive a dishonerable discharge.

If evangelical means introducing Intelligent Design and prayer (by which I mean Judeo-Christian prayer, because that's what we're going to get), then I think that's unAmerican.

If by evangelial you mean the idea of convinving gay people they are sick and in need of treatment, then, well, yuck. I think the evangelicals of the sort I've just described are the ones in need of deprogramming.

Yes, this divide is deep. But we're not the one's who started digging this pit. You want to find a ladder that leads people out of it, I believe. This is a fine, evanglical position, and my sincerest best wishes.

However, until the MSM stops using fundamentalist or evengelical to describe the homophobes and pro-ID forces, well, things will continue to be ugly.

[LoZoccolo]

158. It's up to me whether it is a class one disagreement or not.

No, you haven't explained my position to my satisfaction when you think it has something to do with this:

I don't think I want to be in a party that accepts the proposition tha t gays are evil perverts, that the world was created 6,000 some odd years ago by Jehovah, and that those who do not accept the bible literally (in the sense the orignal article dismisses) are hell-bound.

This conversation is over.

[markus]

159. Yes, we're not getting anywhere

The reason we are talking past each other is, I believe, that we operate in different millieu. In a world where people read Tikkun and KillTheBuddha and discuss the cyclomatic complexity of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, an argument about what "fundamentalism" means is a worthwhile endeavor. Out reach to people who call themselves fundamentalist is a positive, a Christian thing go do.

Here in blood-red Fargo, N.D., one of the topics of the week on the local newspaper chat board is "Should gays be consecrated as ministers." The question might as well be, "Should the Pope continue to drink the blood of Lutheran babiies" It is an ugly place, and people like me did not start the discussion down that road.

I am not interested in finding common ground with the posters on that board. I am interesting in finding the nearest available club to beat them with until they crawl back under the rock they came out from under.

Trying to debate the meaning of fundamentalism would be like trying to debate the meaning of dead with the zombies in a Romero film. There are good Christians in the progressive movement, and we need more of them. However, I don't see the need to reach out to people who have slipped into the miasma of radicalized American Christianity or who are under the spell of Rush Limbaugh. They are lost to our political generation. I just want to isolate and marginalize them for the sake of our country.

I will leave the redemption of their hearts and souls to more qualified individuals.

[Chovexani]

98. Fuck them

Those psychos would gladly burn people like me (queer, non-Christian) at the stake if it was legal. Fuck them in the ear.

Note that I make a distinction between evangelical Christians and fundies. Contrary to what a lot of people here think, the terms are not synonymous. The former can be reasoned with and a lot of them are Dems. The latter?

Fuck them in the ear.

[seabeyond]

108. then i have to fuck my father, my inlaws, my brother, well both

i have to fuck my friends and total strangers. and i dont want to cause i love these people

so no

[TWiley]

100. Maybe with a cattle prod.

The fundamentalists that I know are very set in their ways. They would probably need one of those de-programming camps to ever become normal again.

[Massacure]

101. Only on like issues.

[hayu_lol]

115. Larry Chad Northern is a self-avowed 'good' christian...

It is up to them to approach us, not the other way around.

[QC]

135. Has Northern issued a statement on his religious beliefs?

Or are you just assuming?

[Threedifferentones]

112. The belief that salvation can only come through

faith in Crhist is one that can easily turn into intolerance for those who are not going to be "saved." To me this alone puts fundamentalism at odds with liberalism.

[pitohui]

113. trying to teach a pig to whistle

wastes yr time, annoys the pig

fundamentalism of any stripe most certainly does "imply any set of political convictions that promote oppression," fundamentalism means that you must punish women, gays, divorced, premarital sexers, drunks, people of different religions, more

the 10 commandments leaves no wiggle room, you're a sinner if you screw around, if you worship the "wrong" god, if you even do work on the wrong day

the fundamentals are extremely oppressive to the majority

lying to ourselves about what the fundamentals are does no good, read the bible, the gospels, which are not oppressive, are a tiny fraction of the book, fundamentalists are reading from the old testament and from paul which plainly advocate oppression of women & those of other faiths

period, end of sentence

fundamentalism is oppressive by nature & kidding ourselves about this is a nice exercise for someone who lives in norway or something, but i have to live w. fundamentalists, the people of iraq have to live w. fundamentalists, and the fact is that these are not nice or rational people

[manic expression]

117. Let's reach out to labor, minorities, the poor

and other groups who actually need (and deserve) our help. Then we can talk about Fundamentalists.

(on edit) Also, we shouldn't "reach out" to them, we should state and hold firm on our values and see if they agree with us.

[QC]

136. Many of those people you name are, in fact, fundamentalist Christians.

There's lots of overlap there, you know. Bring in the evangelicals and you'll find that they account for much or most of labor, minorities, and the poor. Categories often overlap.

[KansDem]

130. Sure...

...I'd be happy to!

[Rich Hunt]

137. I think the real question is...

Should liberals "reach out" to dogmatists? One needn't be a fundamentalist to be a dogmatist, and some "fundamentalists" are probably mislabeled, or perhaps they are just lost.

I mean, if people are resolutely deaf to another person's viewpoint, I wouldn't ask them to "reach out" to them. But I don't think you should judge someone as "dogmatic" before you've heard what they have to say.

[Ignoramus]

165. I agree. Faith is perhaps the most basic problem in the world.

Faith is by definition a pact one makes with themselves to ignore ideas that contradict with a preconceived idea. If they haven't made that pact, then it's not faith, it's hope or something similar.

A religious viewpoint is one that is based on arbitrary acceptance of a notion. So, for example, atheists are religious because they believe something is true. If they just think it seems to be true, then by definition, they are agnostic.

If you are "a democrat", or "a communist", then you are religious.

But, in actuality, we all operate on faith and have our religions. You can't decide to believe or not believe something. Beliefs happen to you. It's a tendency within us to work against.

It seems to me like at the core of our mentality there is a tendency toward love, and so shedding our faith does not lead to people engaging in kill for thrills. That is another faith in a confused notion about power. Shedding our faith probably leads toward peace.

So, yes it's important to reach out to people regardless of what belief they have become subject to. At the same time, faith is really the ultimate ant-liberal idea, and we should be authentic and honest about it.

[Spinoza]

139. I don't believe there can be any common ground

between fundamentalists (of any religion) and anyone who embraces a liberal perspective based on the Western Enllightenment. This would include a belief in reason, not faith, science, not superstition, and absolute personal freedoms without restriction from faith-based and oppressive mythologies. (e.g. humanity's "Fall" in Genesis).

[QC]

140. Another one who didn't read the article. n/t

[Spinoza]

147. Wrong

[Nimble_Idea]

141. Christian = Republican

And if you don't vote that way, your going to hell.

[QC]

142. And yet another who didn't read the article before responding. n/t

[TankLV]

143. Should mothers reach out to child rapists?

Should jews reach out to Nazi's?

Should blacks reach our to KKK?

Same thing.

You know the answer to that one.

[Joe Chi Minh]

144. Remember the answer Jesus gave

to the rich man, who wanted to warn his brothers - to open their eyes to God's requirements?

"If they won't listen the Moses and the prophets, they will not believe a man, even if he should rise from the dead".

Nobody can complain that the scriptures were written in an academic vein, in difficult language, with long words. Nothing could be written in plainer language. How can you hope to convert someone who immerses themselves in the word of God, yet can no longer recognise its meaning. He is worse of than when he was a child, or than someone who never had the opportunity to read Christ's words. If the salt loses its savour, how can it be restored?

There are very few difficult and/or paradoxical passages in Jesus' sermons. They are almost entirely expressed in plain English. Not in a foreign language.

Jesus was *the* fundamentalist; the very archetype of all true Christians - inevitably and implicitly fundamentalists, if they are true to him - because he is himself the foundation of our Christian faith; yet he didn't consider his teachings to be too difficult to be understood in a spiritual sense. As is clear from the Gospel account of the woman found by the scribes and Pharisees in adultery, in flagrante delicto.

Not that he didn't reproach her for her adultery, but he could see how much more difficult it was in his day for the people to live God-fearing lives, than it had been when Israel had been a theocratic state in the truest sense of the word. The people didn't have to rely on hypocritical "religious" worldlings for their guidance; rather they had the likes of Moses and God himself (who didn't stint in showing them the extent of either his power or his love for them).

He made it abundantly clear that the fundamental difference between himself and his enemies of the religious/political Establishment, was that unlike them, who loved money, worldly respectability and status, his sole over-riding priority - which he personified all the time, through his actions - was self-giving LOVE of God and of his fellow human beings. "Upon Love hangs the whole of the Law and the Prophets". And that was to be the sole vocation of his followers, however they earned their living.

Not that liberal Christians have reason to feel complacent, since many now consider the traditional, Christian canons of sexual morality to be out of date. That was never the teaching of Christ or his Apostles and Evangelists, and that is clear from the teachings of scripture. Yet it is an issue quite fundamental to the Christian faith.

It seems from Matthew 18, that on Judgment Day, there will be rogues who yet loved their fellow men, and did what they could to help them in their need. But we are told in no uncertain terms that there can be no forgiveness for those who fail to love their fellows, to help them in their need. And that doesn't mean putting a few pennies in the poor-box on a Sunday; in our democracies, even such as they are, it means striving by political means to change the very structures of our societies, so that the poorest (generally, the most "naturally" spiritual people) can live and thrive in comfort and dignity.

They don't want great wealth; everyone to have the same amount of money and power. Just a sufficiency for them and their family to live decently. God made the world and its bounty for all his children. Though most of us can do without the ocean-going yachts.

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. "If they won't listen the Moses and the prophets,

they will not believe a man, even if he should rise from the dead".

I should have added that, if Jesus made that very emphatic point in relation to the Old Dispensation, how much less excuse can people who claim to be Christians have, under the New Covenant, for ignoring, even contradicting, the most fundamental of his own divine teachings, further reinforced, as they are, by his Apostles and Evangelists.

There can be no excuse for materialism in a Christian. Jesus went so far as to live the life of an indigent during his ministry, the final years of his life; nor did he mince his words about the worship of God and Money being completely incompatible. We either love one, or we love the other, period.

[Joe Chi Minh]

160. In fact, in that

very parable, Jesus prophesied the appearance of these Pharisees, when he told the rich man that, even if a man should rise from the dead, his brothers, (who had ignored the teachings of Moses and the prophets), would not believe him, either.

[Donailin]

163. and therein lies the rub though

Many fundamentalists will lose everything so that they can condemn homosexuals openly and self rightously. I don't think, for many radical rightwingers, that money is their motive. It's worse then that, it's racism and prejudice.

[Joe Chi Minh]

167. I doubt that very much, personally.

Brute racism would be natural to them, but they are "whited sepulchres", and their piety, entirely counterfeit - empty show, religiosity; a political ploy from A to Z.

Just as they like to show token African-Americans to the fore in photo-opportunities, and less worthy ones, sometimes, in high political office. But like all their high-status colleagues, bar the cabal, they proved in reality, to be little more than cyphers, permitted only to rubber-stamp edicts from on high.

I think their sole motivations are money, power and quite often promiscuous sex. Ironical the way they went after Bill Clinton. I don't recall Clinton inviting porn stars to the White House.

A neocon spokesman, interviewed on the box here tonight, defended their refusal to join the rest of the world, in seeking to control pornography on the Internet. Apparently, pornography is very much a part of freedom and - don't laugh - the 21st century. It must be the truth that will set us free...! We just get more and more civilised, don't we?

How they square that with their claimed adherence to the fundamental messages of Christianity must be one of life's great mysteries. I think it's what's sometimes called, "trying to square the circle".

[Donailin]

162. Oh Brother

what a brilliant post. You are definitely spot on. I read the Gospels almost daily, but in all spinning of the times,it is hard to get past the anger to see the bigger picture. I feel really stupid right now when 15 minutes ago I was lecturing my neighbor.

Thanks for your perspective. A very important one it is.

[Astarho]

146. This article illustrates the problem

of allowing "fundamentalist" to replace the more accurate "zealot". The zealots are as dangerous as they always are, but not all of them are christian, or even religious.

I think more importantly than reaching out, we should listen to them. By listening to what they say, we'll probably figure out pretty quickly if they're fundamentalists or zealots.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

148. I don't know, why don't we just decide to go after stupid people in

general. That would cover the entire RW base.

[tlsmith1963]

149. No, a Lot of Them are Nuts

Fundamentalists of any stripe are people I don't want to associate with. They are too crazy. I would rather go with some more reasonable religious people. The more reasonable ones would be outraged with that guy who ran over the crosses. Let's go with them.

Tammy

[Mr_Spock]

150. Reach out with a megaphone and scream "WHY ARE YOU SUCH HYPOCRITES!!!"

Can they ever be weaned from their love of hypocrisy? I think it's a way of life with them - living a lie is easier than living in reality.

[slor]

161. In a word, YES...

with long pointy sticks.

[Hubert Flottz]

164. No...

Should you reach out to Larry Northern? * Yes with a right cross!

Edit...They Don't Care!

[DanCa]

166. as long as they understand

the difference between having an opinion and legislating it sure. On a side note I just wanted to say that I am a christian and I believe in gay rights, and am pro choice.

[Bluerthanblue]

168. KEY stumbling block

the bible is the inspired enerrant word of god.

People hide behind their pet passages from the worlds greatest 'cheat sheet'.

i have no problem with people believing what they choose to. But to elevate a BOOK to be worshipped, and bowed down to, and to claim it has 'moral' authority over this nation is something i will not support, and will not do.

The apostolic church, the church spoken of in Acts of the bible, represented the most socialistic living ever lived in history.
Did you ever hear any of the apostles say to anyone 'get a job' or
i'm not gonna pay taxes so people can sit on their asses. or i have to get more money and more things, and fuck you if you don't like it, and we should all work towards an 'ownership society' and i want you to 'keep more of your money' and justify raping the world for the befit of themselves?????

CHRISTian- you can't be one, and live like a pharasee.

Who did Jesus kill? What apostle ran for emperor? Church was held on the sand at the edge of the sea of Gallelie.

the BEST way to 'reach out' is to be genuine, honest, and consistiantly ...liberal. The walk is what will speak, what will draw others. At least from my experience. Trying to dismantle their religious beliefs with 'words' will just make them dig their heels in deeper.

We should, i believe, ALWAYS be reaching out- even to those who would spit on our outstretched hands (i'm a liberal)

[stepnw1f]

169. I Just Reached Out...

with my middle finger.

[ulysses]

170. sure.

With great care, but sure.