Giving fundamentalism a secular boost

[struggle4progress]

Media atheists of the narrower kind are fast becoming the new best friends of fundamentalist Christians. For every time they write about religion they are doing very effective PR for a fundamentalist worldview. Many of the propositions that fundamentalists are keen to sell the public are oft-repeated corner-stones of the media atheist's philosophy of religion.

Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is 'the real thing' and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even.

This endorsement is of enormous help to fundamentalists. What they are really threatened by is not aggressive atheism - indeed that helps secure a sense of persecution that is essential to group solidarity - but the sort of robustly self-critical faith that knows the Bible and the church's traditions, and can challenge bad religion on its own terms ...

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/comment/fraser/070309fundament

[David__77]

1. What the hell is "agressive atheism?"

I think this article is consoling to the more enlightened wing of monotheistic religionists, but atheism is precisely diametrically opposed to fundamentalist religion.

[lvx35]

3. what the hell is aggresive atheism?

"What the HELL do you mean AGGRESSIVE!!!!" ;)

Seriously, look precisely at fundamentalist beliefs, things like creationism. Ask yourself...Are all atheists more critical of those beliefs than others? Are they just publishing books called "the creationist delusion?" or are they publishing books called "the God delusion"?

You'll see its the latter. Some atheists condemn the word "God", which means very different things to different people, and then proceed to argue against "God" using precisely the fundamentalist definition of the word.

[David__77]

5. A-theist (without theism)

I do not have a theology. To me, "spiritual" matters are questions of consciousness. I happen to believe that consciousness is a special form of matter, but still material nonetheless, in the final analysis. Atheists have always talked about the importance of spiritual matters. This doesn't need to have anything to do with other universes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Specifically, he's criticising Polly Toynbee, and this article of hers

Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

because that's where the "a mighty test of strength between the religious and the secular" quote comes from. The Church Times may have claimed "broad support for the Equality Act from the Church of England and the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians", but one interesting thing to do is look at the votes cast that evening by the Church of England bishops (yes, in the antiquated British parliamentary system, the established Church of England gets 26 seats in the House of Lords for its senior bishops):

The Contents were voting against prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in provision of goods and services in Northern Ireland.
...
The Bishop of Chester Bishop aye
The Bishop of Rochester Bishop aye
The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Bishop aye
The Bishop of Winchester Bishop aye
The Bishop of Worcester Bishop no

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-01-09&number=1&house=lords&display=allvotes

So, out of 26 possible episcopal votes, 4 were for continuing discrimination, and only 1 against. That's not really 'broad support for the Equality Act', is it? I think Toynbee was justified in referring to the 'religious' as a broad category in this case.

[lvx35]

2. Exactly.

There is a huge symbiosis there. Together, they endlessly present the false choice of a murdering God who literally created the world 4,000 years, and the non-existence of anything spiritual at all.

[Evoman]

6. No.

We present the choice between the supernatural god and the non-existence of the supernatural. I've never argued against the "murdering god" unless it was with Zeb or other fundies. I've argued against your "universal love" gods, and your "collective concious" god consistently.

Your all just mad because you have no more proof for your god than the fundies do. And thats what it always comes down to. This article is bullshit.

[bananas]

8. No, atheists like Sam Harris believe in the supernaural

"Atheism" doesn't mean "belief that there is nothing supernatural",
there are many atheists who believe in the supernatural.

[Evoman]

10. No he doesn't, but I concede the point.

Atheism should be restricted to "non belief in god", not the supernatural.

[skepticscott]

16. This begs the question

of what exactly would qualify something/someone as a god, as opposed say, to a very powerful non-god. It's an important question that is almost always skipped over in these discussions. Who gets to decide if something is a god or not? Some Xstians consider angels to be powerful supernatural beings, but not necessarily gods. If we were to encounter highly advanced alien beings, they might appear as gods to some humans, just as Europeans with (relatively) much more advanced technology appeared to more primitive people that they encountered in their explorations. Ok, I concede that when Tiger Woods won the US Open at Pebble Beach by 15 shots over the whole rest of the civilized world, he jumped the bar into god territory, but as far as anything or anyone else, that question reamins unanswered, and as long as it is, it's pretty difficult to give meaning to the question of whether any gods exist.

[Evoman]

22. Good point.

But what I'm getting at is that atheists tend to be skeptics about other supernatural claims (for example crystal healing, and auras), but not necessarily so. Maybe in cases like this, use the term skeptic atheist? I don't know for sure though..its tricky. You make really good points.

[skepticscott]

15. No such thing

I would argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as the supernatural, except in our imaginations. There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If such things as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same inviolable natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending these laws would be simply that-appearance. Like the alpha particles passing, ghostlike, though Rutherford's gold foil, a ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "supernatural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered.

[Evoman]

4. *chuckle*

Yeah, okay. Now we are being blamed for giving fundies PR. Lol...is there anything that we DON'T do? We are responsible for every evil thing in the world...first the downfall of modern society, then we're blamed for the dark ages, and now we are being held responsible for the fundies. Have we been blamed for global warming yet?


"What they are really threatened by is not aggressive atheism...indeed that helps secure a sense of persecution that is essential to group solidarity - but the sort of robustly self-critical faith that knows the Bible and the church's traditions, and can challenge bad religion on its own terms ..."

Lol...yeah, and you've been doing a great job with that so far. Keep it up liberal christians...keep on fighting the good fight *chuckle*

"Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is 'the real thing' and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even."

Oh god...please..I can't breathe this is so fucking hilarious. Would you rather smell real dog feces (the real thing) or a plastic, pale imitation? Even if we did call fundie religion 'the real thing' (which we don't), its NOT a compliment lol.


I love how people are always crying out that liberal christians and atheists should be allies, and partners, and all that bullshit, but then they turn around and blame us for something as fucking ridiculous as this. Uh huh...yeah, we're the ones legitimising fundamentalists. This article is fucking bullshit, but you just keep posting trash like this. If nothing else, its good for a laugh.

[cyborg_jim]

7. Only one group of people go around declaring which religions are true and false

And it sure as fuck ain't the atheists.

[Evoman]

11. Lol

They just want us to give in and tell them that liberal christians are "the true christians". When we don't, we are aiding fundamentalism. Give me a fucking break.

[cyborg_jim]

14. I know. The hypocrisy is amazing.

I for one happen to think the whole concept of religion is bogus so why the hell would I give 'true' and 'false' statuses to any such claimant for a religion?

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Why should "bad religion" be challenged on its own terms?

Doesn't that give it an advantage? Liberal Christians cannot prove their version of a god right or wrong, and neither can the fundamentalists, so how can anyone win if the discussion is cast in those terms?

[kiahzero]

13. It helps to have quotes from people

Such as:

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

Harris is (quite ridiculously) arguing that Christian moderates are only moderate because they don't know their Bible well enough... exactly the argument that is being made in the quoted portion of the article.

[cosmik debris]

17. This whole article is absurd.

If criticizing the fundamentalists helps them, then I guess we atheists should stop helping and keep our mouths shut. Does that make sense to anyone? Is NOT criticizing the fundamentalists going to cause them harm? The whole gist of the article seems to be the same old "blame the atheists" mantra that we keep hearing.

If we do criticize, we help them.

If we don't criticize them we help them.

Does that make sense to anyone?

And a special thanks to S4P for posting yet another article showing that atheists are the real problem here, not the fundamentalists. :sarcasm:

[kiahzero]

19. How is it absurd?

Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is 'the real thing' and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even.

I can't imagine where that idea might come from... oh, right... Sam Harris, for one:

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

The point is this: attacking fundamentalists by arguing that their interpretation of scripture is more accurate is not only wrong on the facts, it's wrong as a tactic. Criticizing fundamentalists is a good thing, but that's not what Harris et. al seem to be doing; they seem to be attacking religion generally by raising up fundamentalists as the Platonic Ideal of religious people.

[cosmik debris]

20. It is simple stereotyping

"Both partners in this unholy alliance agree..."

That statement is Bullshit. Atheists don't even agree with each other, much less with fundamentalists.

If you want to stereotype atheists by the Sam Harris model, I have the same right to stereotype Christians by the Dobson model. Are you all narrow minded hateful people like Dobson? Do you agree with him?

I'm not going to get into the "true Christian" argument, but strict adherence to the scriptures as opposed to casual adherence to the metaphor is the only way that atheists can criticize Christians. Every other criticism is dismissed as "Oh, that's just metaphor."

"...they seem to be attacking religion generally..." Isn't that the point?

As toddaa says, this is just another post to tell the atheists to STFU.

[kiahzero]

23. So, basically you're upset because your arguments are hard to make.

You want to simplify things so that it's easier to make your case... in other words, a classic strawman.

By the way, you might want to reread the first sentence: "Media atheists of the narrower kind" ... the author isn't talking about atheists, or even atheists in the media, but a subset of that subset.

[cosmik debris]

24. No, it is more a matter of theists telling atheists how to behave

And insisting that we do things the theists way. Also the "blame the atheists" tone is unmistakable. But typical of hateful media theists...

So perhaps you would care to suggest a better way to criticize the fundamentalists. And don't forget to include examples of how well it has worked.

[kiahzero]

28. You can behave however you like

If you want to make counterproductive arguments that just serve to make you look dumb, that's your right.

I'd say that, if your goal is to criticize fundamentalists, you'll have more success if you criticize them rather than holding them up as more purely religious, and then attacking religion generally. Perhaps you'd try pointing out how their beliefs are incoherent; for instance, the belief in a loving, all powerful, all knowing deity is irreconcilable with a belief in Hell.

As to "how well it works," that depends on what your goals are, and what you define "working" to mean.

[cosmik debris]

32. That's right, blame the atheists

for the problems with fundamentalists. Christians always know best how do do this sort of thing. And atheists can never do anything that meets the approval of sanctimonious hypocrites.:sarcasm:

[kiahzero]

33. Would you care to explain how I "blamed the atheists?"

You also might not want to assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a Christian.

[cosmik debris]

34. I see no point in it

You have god on your side, I can never be right against such odds.:sarcasm:

[kiahzero]

35. In other words, you can't.

What a surprise.

[cosmik debris]

36. We've been through this before.

No matter what I say you will say that I'm wrong and you are right. You will pretend that it is a matter of your superior intellect when in fact it is only a matter of your arrogant ego. I just thought I would save some time and concede now. You may do your Church Lady Superiority Dance now.

[kiahzero]

37. I know it's hard to back up your words, but I thought you'd at least try.

Here's a thought: if you don't make bullshit claims like saying that I'm "blaming atheists," you won't have to retract them later when people ask you to support them.

I do appreciate the irony of a theist (even a marginal one like myself) taking an atheist to task for not supporting his claims, though.

[cosmik debris]

38. I'm sorry

Last night I got a little drunk and you got pushy and irritating. This morning I'm sober, but you are still...

[kiahzero]

39. I'm always pushy and irritating.

I have to practice, you know.

[toddaa]

18. Hey, it's another 'atheists need to STFU' article

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd suspect that the words atheists, fundamentalists, and radical secularists were being entered into a google textbox on a daily basis.

[struggle4progress]

21. Of course, the article says nothing like "atheists need to STFU" -- as you know perfectly well

And when I encountered the article, I was while neither for anything religious nor for anything dealing with sexual orientation issues

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Any comment on the 4 C of E votes for allowing discrimination, and only 1 against?

(I ask mainly because you're the only one who seems to have picked up that the article was mainly about moderate religious views on sexual orientation and discrimination).

[struggle4progress]

26. As an outside across the pond -- who is more likely to wonder at ...

... an established church, with an hereditary head of state as its supreme governor, and its bishops seated among the Lords -- I should be presumptuous to say much on the division you cite regarding the Equality Act regulations, which I have not studied, especially as the local political faces are unknown to me.

But, of course, my ignorance never much dissuades me:

The Catholic objections, as I understand them, lie in the adoption issue, the Catholics holding the regulations would compel their agencies to place with same-sex couples, contrary to sufficiently clear moral teaching, so rather than comply they would abandon adoption services. Though I personally doubt whether the Catholics can ever have sound scientific basis for that stand, there is perhaps a legitimate conflict between the principles, of avoiding discrimination and of allowing to voluntary associations their freedom of conscience, where reasonable persons may well differ. The position taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that further discussion on the topic will be appropriate, then seems entirely appropriate.

People will naturally wonder why such issues, rather than pressing justice questions, obtain so much attention. It has been noted elsewhere in this forum that an effort, to produce a schism in the Anglican communion over gay rights issues, has been funded by American extremists with entirely political motives. One might therefore hope to see the controversy defused. As I cannot address the absence of a majority of bishops in the Lords vote, I simply note that deducing the views of the missing score, by counting the handful present, could be misleading.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. To further complicate matters, the controversy was in 2 parts

The first was the vote in the House of Lords on 9th January, over whether any person or business (in Northern Ireland, but it was also taken as being a precedent for the future votes for Britain) could be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality - the example often given was a guest house refusing to let a room to a gay couple. It was this the 4 C of E bishops voted for (ie to allow the discrimination), and 1 voted against (the amendment was put forward by a member of Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party, who might might therefore be described as a hardline Protestant). At the time, the Church of England, as a body, said it wasn't supporting the amendment - so I was surprised to see 4 bishops had voted for it. On the whole, the bishops rarely vote - so the 21 not voting isn't all that surprising.

After the vote, the Catholic church, with the support of the Church of England, then wanted an exception specifically for their adoption agencies. It was only around the 25th January that Blair decided against trying to make such an exception - it didn't actually come to a vote in Parliament.

I don't know whether there's any funding trying to cause a split over homosexual rights in the Church of England; I've never heard it suggested. The impression I get is that some members, including some priests and bishops, are quite anti-gay without any financial encouragement. Yes, we can't deduce the opinions of those who didn't vote; but I tihnk it is notable that those 4 bishops did vote as they did, indicating the homophobic stance is present in the moderate Church of England to some degree. This, I think, means Polly Toynbee's article seems more justified.

[struggle4progress]

29. US Millionaire Bankrolls Crusade Against Gay Anglican Priests

Published on Sunday, October 12, 2003 by the Observer/UK

America's religious right draws a line in the sand as Anglican primates meet in London
by Janice Doward

Howard F. Ahmanson Jr does not like publicity. The fifty something multimillionaire, who lives in Newport Beach, California, is something of a recluse ...

What is known is that in the 1990s Ahmanson, whose family made a fortune in banking, subsidized a number of controversial right-wing causes. These include a magazine called the Chalcedon Report , which carried an article calling for gays to be stoned; a think-tank called the Claremont Institute which promoted a video in which Charlton Heston praises 'the God-fearing Caucasian middle class'; and a scientific body which rejects the theory of evolution.

Now Ahmanson has a new crusade, whose repercussions will be felt far beyond the United States. He is using his cash to stir up the most divisive row facing the Anglican Church, one that threatens to rip it apart when its leaders meet in London this week.

At its heart is the Church's stance on homosexuality, an issue that divides liberal and conservative. Somewhere in the middle is the Anglican Communion's spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Initial estimates suggest that the Communion's leaders are split down the middle, with some 20 of the 38 opposing two separate events that have occurred in North America ...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1012-03.htm

[struggle4progress]

30. A Gospel of Intolerance

By John Bryson Chane
Sunday, February 26, 2006; Page B07

It's no secret that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are engaged in a bitter internal struggle over the role of gay and lesbian people within the church ...

Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative wing of the communion, recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that criminalizes same-sex marriage in his country and denies gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law also infringes upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions.

Were Archbishop Akinola a solitary figure and Nigeria an isolated church, his support for institutionalized bigotry would be significant only within his own country. But the archbishop is perhaps the most powerful member of a global alliance of conservative bishops and theologians, generously supported by foundations and individual donors in the United States, who seek to dominate the Anglican Communion and expel those who oppose them, particularly the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Failing that, the archbishop and his allies have talked of forming their own purified communion -- possibly with Archbishop Akinola at its head.

Because the conflict over homosexuality is not unique to Anglicanism, civil libertarians in this country, and other people as well, should also be aware of the archbishop and his movement. Gifts from such wealthy donors as Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley, Coors and Scaife families, or their foundations, allow the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy to sponsor so-called "renewal" movements that fight the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches and in the United Church of Christ. Should the institute succeed in "renewing" these churches, what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401801.html

[struggle4progress]

31. I'll agree that the present stance of the Church of England does not seem terribly progressive;

see: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/marriage.html

OTOH the CofE also claims on the same website to have played a role in the decriminalization of homosexuality, so actual views may sometimes be more nuanced than ordinary political statements

[varkam]

40. Seems like he took a line right out of the DODs playbook.

Something about criticizing the government gives comfort to the terrorists. :eyes:

A couple of lines from the article I found especially :crazy::

Fundamentalism was invented only in the 20th century.

Huh? What the hell? I'm pretty sure fundamentalist sects of religion have been around much, much, much longer than the 20th century.

Ignoring the fact that Christianity helped invent secularism

Secularism necessarily predates Christianity (or any religion at all, for that matter) - but why let a little logic get in the way of a good time?

[kiahzero]

41. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

I realize it's Wikipedia, however, it does support the claim that Fundamentalism is a modern invention.

[cosmik debris]

42. How about a little FACTUAL history

Remember the Puritans who settled in New England in the 17th Century? Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Remember the slaughter of the Huguenots in 1536? All examples of Christian fundamentalism prior to the 18th century.

And since the article did not specify Christian fundamentalism, it might be interesting to note that islamic fundamentalism dates back to the middle of the 7th century.

[kiahzero]

43. You're playing fast and loose with your terms.

Yes, if you define all religious intolerance to be "religious fundamentalism," it goes pretty much as far back as civilization goes.

[cosmik debris]

44. I'm sorry again

I forgot that you are always right.

[kiahzero]

46. I am a =POPE=, after all.

Papal infallibility for the win!

[cosmik debris]

48. self delete

[kiahzero]

49. You're a =POPE= too, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordian#Popes_in_Discordianism

[Evoman]

45. So does that mean that religious moderates were responsible for all those atrocities.

Hmm...I may have to ally myself with the fundies yet....hehe

[kiahzero]

47. No, it means that fundamentalist and extremist mean different things

One might say that all fundamentalists are extremists, but not all extremists are fundamentalists.

[Evoman]

50. Oh?

"Fundamentalism" means something specific about how a group of people interpret their sacred texts? Lol..you coulda fooled me.

[kiahzero]

51. Yes, although the term is broadening, as words tend to do.

It's part of why I'm not a big fan of labeling some people as "atheist fundamentalists," as it serves to obscure meaning rather than clarify.

[cosmik debris]

52. No

The Puritans believed in strict adherence to the inerrant scripture. Now it may seem that those are identical beliefs to the modern fundamentalists, but it doesn't matter.

The label wasn't invented until the 20th century, so the Puritans could not have been fundamentalists. It is just a matter of timing. Nothing more.:crazy:

[kiahzero]

53. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the distinctions between the two groups.

Then again, to someone who doesn't see a difference between modern-day Christian moderates and extremists, I can understand why the narrower differences between the Puritans and Christian fundamentalists would be invisible.

[trotsky]

57. But at certain times in history,

burning heretics wasn't that "extreme" of a belief. I know it makes religious moderates uncomfortable to study the less admirable aspects of religious belief, but the Crusaders and the Inquisitors can only be considered "extreme" with a post-enlightenment view. They were quite mainstream in their own time.

[struggle4progress]

54. I find your intellectual dishonesty disheartening, and your disinterest in historical specifics ...

... renders your objections rhetorical rather than scientific.

There is, of course, as you know perfectly well, nothing in the article parallel to a claim that "criticizing the government gives comfort to the terrorists."

Rather, the article objects to anti-religious argument based on confounding religion with certain extremist views, on the groups that those who confound the groups are helping to propagandize the extremists claims about who they are and what they represent. It is dishonest and offensive, that anyone deliberately set out to reduce all religious views to those of the so-called Fundamentalist theologians. This objection is conceptually related to the objection many of us have voiced repeatedly, when the media describes disagreements over current Administration policies as being between protesters and patriots -- in other words, the description has a dishonest propaganda content, which is offensive to those of us who have protested with motives which include patriotism.

It is unclear to me why you ridicule the historically accurate claim that the movement called Fundamentalism first appeared in the 20th century -- but it does suggest a lack of depth to your comments on such historical matters. If there had not been substantial support for a secular state from the Christian population in the United States, or if there had even been any real opposition from the pulpit, our Republic would have begun as an establishmentarian state -- so in this country, certainly, political support by religious folk for secularism has a long history

[varkam]

55. Well I find my intellectual dishonesty entertaining and my disinterest in historical specifics...

refreshing :eyes: I wasn't trying to be either. If you preferred, you could try to educate me before resorting to attacking me. I really could do without the ad hominems.

There is, of course, as you know perfectly well, nothing in the article parallel to a claim that "criticizing the government gives comfort to the terrorists."

I take it that the crux of the argument is that by being critical of religious fundamentalism, atheists are actually giving them what they want. Is that not somewhat analogous?

Rather, the article objects to anti-religious argument based on confounding religion with certain extremist views, on the groups that those who confound the groups are helping to propagandize the extremists claims about who they are and what they represent. It is dishonest and offensive, that anyone deliberately set out to reduce all religious views to those of the so-called Fundamentalist theologians. This objection is conceptually related to the objection many of us have voiced repeatedly, when the media describes disagreements over current Administration policies as being between protesters and patriots -- in other words, the description has a dishonest propaganda content, which is offensive to those of us who have protested with motives which include patriotism.


The way I read it was that criticizing extremist views plays into their hands.

It is unclear to me why you ridicule the historically accurate claim that the movement called Fundamentalism first appeared in the 20th century -- but it does suggest a lack of depth to your comments on such historical matters. If there had not been substantial support for a secular state from the Christian population in the United States, or if there had even been any real opposition from the pulpit, our Republic would have begun as an establishmentarian state -- so in this country, certainly, political support by religious folk for secularism has a long history

Fundamentalism as in taking the written word of holy texts to be literal truth has been around long before the 20th century. Ever hear of a series of expeditions called the crusades?

And again, secularism as a philosophical idea necessary predates any sort of organized religion so the claim that Christianity "invented" it is ridiculous on it's face.

[trotsky]

56. Wow, what a great way to foster positive relations in here.

And you think you're a follower of the so-called "Prince of Peace," eh, s4p?