The US and Fundamentalism

[morteduzionism]

Although its not over yet, soon many of us will be able to celebrate and rejoice because the Bush-era will be at an end, would you consider it a period of time when fundamentalism ruled the US? While we spent treasure to prevent the rise of fundamentalist regimes abroad...were/are we living in a fundamentalist regime? Do you think the rest of the US will allow the 'christian right' to hijack any more Presidencies? Will the 'christian right' go down as a movement that was bad for the US?

What do you think?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Of course it will. Any move to remove secularisation from government always ends in disaster.

[Curtana]

I'm not from around them there parts but I don't think the fundamentalist Christians were as much in charge of the chimp-like-one as the left makes out. I reckon the US is on a course to get more fundamentalist not less. We cynical Europeans tend to think its naïve. Don't know if that's fair or not. Just so long as you N. Americans keep caring enough about the rest of us to help out once in a while I'm happy.

[Oldgamer]

Morte, is it your position that people who believe in Christian fundamentalist theology should recuse themselves from public service?

Christian Fundamentalism does not rule the United States, nor shall it ever. More than anything else, it is a statement by certain Christians that the Bible is the sole source of truth and doctrine. As such, it is a theological, and not a political view.

I don't disagree with anyone who claims that Christian Fundamentalism generally facilitates right-wing political views. I would hope that others would agree that liberal Christian theology facilitates the adoption of liberal political views.

The United States is a secular state, and shall remain so.

[morteduzionism]

[quote=Oldgamer;1782223]

Morte, is it your position that people who believe in Christian fundamentalist theology should recuse themselves from public service?

Only if/when they try to initiate policies based solely on a narrow interpretation of dogma or an even narrower sense of self righteousness.

[Pirate36]

I believe you have claimed victory way too early. In fact I believe the US is still traveling a dangerous road holding hands with evangalican christians. I have seen more of my friends and relatives getting stronger religious beliefs than the other way around.

[Oldgamer]

[QUOTE=morteduzionism;1782244]

Only if/when they try to initiate policies based solely on a narrow interpretation of dogma or an even narrower sense of self righteousness.

Would you include liberals who have based their initiation of policies based solely on a narrow interpretation of dogma, or an even narrower sense of self-righteousness? Some of the most self-righteous people I've ever known were liberals.

However, my answer to your comment is that people will base their policy positions based upon a number of things, only one of which is their faith. If a candidate for public office takes a position that is extreme, the American people will respond accordingly.

One example of this was Patrick Buchanan's advocacy of heavy tariffs against foreign products. Another example is Congressman Ron Paul's extreme isolationist views.

Note that even though Congressman Paul is still in the 2008 race, his ideas have been resoundingly rejected by the GOP rank-and-file. They are too far out of the mainstream of American thought.

If, for example, a candidate for office ... a Christian fundamentalist ... attempted to get elected by promising that he would enforce not only the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools, but the recitation of the Pledge to the Christian Flag, he would not be elected. Indeed, he wouldn't be elected even in the Bible Belt. It's a position that could not be accepted, except by extremists. And extremists do not run the United States.

[morteduzionism]

[quote=Oldgamer;1782313]

Would you include liberals who have based their initiation of policies based solely on a narrow interpretation of dogma, or an even narrower sense of self-righteousness? Some of the most self-righteous people I've ever known were liberals.

Absolutely! The person you are describing sounds just like what I am suggesting Republican politicians are: zealots!

I'll say it again: I don't have the right/authority(moral or otherwise) to expect someone else to live their lives according to the way I view the world. Just the same as I don't think anyone else(conservatives) has the right/authority(moral or otherwise) to expect me to live according to their view of the world.

*On another note, one day maybe you or someone can explain what is a "liberal". I've looked the word up but the definition doesn't seem to fit the word as it is being used by people like you(forgive me for any assumptions). The way you use the word is almost as if it causes you physical discomfort to even say it.(I know emotion can't be determined by typed words...so I hope you understand what I am trying to say)

[Blau&Gruen]

Morte, is it your position that people who believe in Christian fundamentalist theology should recuse themselves from public service?

Christian Fundamentalism does not rule the United States, nor shall it ever. More than anything else, it is a statement by certain Christians that the Bible is the sole source of truth and doctrine. As such, it is a theological, and not a political view.

I don't disagree with anyone who claims that Christian Fundamentalism generally facilitates right-wing political views. I would hope that others would agree that liberal Christian theology facilitates the adoption of liberal political views.

The United States is a secular state, and shall remain so.

You are absolutely correct. Majorities are in fluid state in every modern society. Politicians take up trends and answer them as good as they can with their agenda. If that coins into majorities is another question, always.

[Blau&Gruen]

What do you think?

I do not think politics are orientated around religion. Religion is only something that has to be taken into consideration doing politics.

[Pirate36]

Religion is only something that has to be taken into consideration doing politics.

I cannot believe an intelligent person cannot see how dangerous of a statement that is! Religion has no place in governing people, well that is if you believe people should be free that is....

[Blau&Gruen]

I cannot believe an intelligent person cannot see how dangerous of a statement that is!

What is dangerous about this statement? Lord Ralf Dahrendorf, the liberal british and german scholar of soziology, has answered when asked about Fundamentalism in the US, there are so many different groups, they nullify eachother anyway. Read carefully, what Oldgamer says. Most Americans, I have met so far, believe in the Constitution, some in the Constitution and the Bible. The order is rarely inverse.

[Pirate36]

What is dangerous about this statement?

The fundamental mechanism of religion is to control masses of individuals to the will of a set compilation of beliefs. These beliefs are not voted on or debated...they are considered the WORD of God. So once religion becomes involved even slightly into democratic governing institutions then the essence of that democracy is undermined.

The problem with using liberal "self righteous" dogma equivalent to religious dogma is the "God" factor. How do you debate someone that holds his set of beliefs as the "word" of god in a political setting?

[Blau&Gruen]

The fundamental mechanism of religion is to control masses of individuals to the will of a set compilation of beliefs. These beliefs are not voted on or debated...they are considered the WORD of God. So once religion becomes involved even slightly into democratic governing institutions then the essence of that democracy is undermined.

It is without question that religion should not involve into democratic governing institutions. What the "fundamental mechanism of religion are" is another question, whose answer can fill libraries. Religion can be seen as a tool to control people, that is correct. It depends, what kind of theory you have in mind. You need simply to be aware that Religion has other facets, too. You can as well say, religion serves social and emotional needs. One slogan does not explain the world.

[VoodooTengo]

I dont see much distinction between fundementalists no matter what their religion is, the weapons of islamic fundamentalism are the kalashnikov and an RPG, the weapon of christian fundamentalism is the ballot box.

I dont think people whos primary concern is the afterlife/ thier personal religion, should be involved in politics because they tend to have policies that dont look out for this world, but the next one.

The Republicans will never fufill the wishes of the Christian Right, because then who the hell would vote for them? they are pretty non christian in all of their policies except banning abortion, and gay marriage, which arent really even christian issues by definition.

[Blau&Gruen]

I dont think people whos primary concern is the afterlife/ thier personal religion, should be involved in politics because they tend to have policies that dont look out for this world, but the next one.

It's their right to concern, isn't it? It is your right not to vote for'em.

[VoodooTengo]

It's their right to concern, isn't it? It is your right not to vote for'em.

I don't dispute they have i right to, i just don't think religion should be involved in politics because it is inherently focused on what comes after this life, and politics is exclusively about this life.

[Oldgamer]

I don't dispute they have i right to, i just don't think religion should be involved in politics because it is inherently focused on what comes after this life, and politics is exclusively about this life.

Relgious faith constitutes a continuum, stretching from this life to the next. It is a tremendous mistake to think that faith concerns itself solely with the next life. We live in this life, and our children and grandchildren live in it. I must concern myself with what kind of world my descendants will inherit.

Also, all religions have a moral content, which helps its adherents decide how to live this life. As a former teacher of ethics, I've come to the conclusion that the only reasonable basis for personal morality and ethical behavior are the absolutes that come from our faith.

So, do I want there to be a Church of the United States?

No, imperatively no. I would fight against that development with every power at my disposal.

But my faith must influence my vote. After all, it's for "the children" ...

[VoodooTengo]

Relgious faith constitutes a continuum, stretching from this life to the next. It is a tremendous mistake to think that faith concerns itself solely with the next life. We live in this life, and our children and grandchildren live in it. I must concern myself with what kind of world my descendants will inherit.

Also, all religions have a moral content, which helps its adherents decide how to live this life. As a former teacher of ethics, I've come to the conclusion that the only reasonable basis for personal morality and ethical behavior are the absolutes that come from our faith.

So, do I want there to be a Church of the United States?

No, imperatively no. I would fight against that development with every power at my disposal.

But my faith must influence my vote. After all, it's for "the children" ...

We are talking about fundamentalists here aren't we, who believe that the rapture is going to happen any day now, so they really have no reason to be concerned with the environment, or the worlds perception of America, because any day now they will disappear into nothing.

I believe in living by my morals but not voting by them, it implies a level of moral superiority that i personally don't feel comfortable with, to impose my beliefs on others. I believe everyone should be free to do what they want for the most part like if people want to do drugs or gays want to be married, and when they die God will judge them, but if you vote to restrict those things you also may be judged for taking away someone else's free will, as Jesus said "Judge not least ye be Judged"

Edit: Religion is also not the only basis for personal morality, a lot of it is hardwired into us, as can be seen by people who grow up without religion or nurturing but, are still moral, though that takes on the age old debate of nature vs. nurture.

Also in response to your post about liberals on the last page i'm a liberal and a Christian and damn proud of it. The Reuplicans are not for liberty, look at what they have done to war on terror detainees, and the bill of rights/habeus corups since bush took office. Jesus himself was very socialist in his views, the KGB did a very interesting profile on him during the cold war, like they would do on a foregin leader based off of writings and statments made by him, i think its online.

[Pirate36]

Also, all religions have a moral content, which helps its adherents decide how to live this life. As a former teacher of ethics, I've come to the conclusion that the only reasonable basis for personal morality and ethical behavior are the absolutes that come from our faith....

No. The faiths have selectively chosen moral guides(for thier specific purposes of control) based on Aristotle and other ancient philosophers (you know BEFORE that Jesus guy might have existed) Its called Natural Law.

The Natural Law ethic is rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle (384-322 BCE). He believed that everything in life serves a purpose and as such distinguished efficient causes from final causes. 'Efficient' causes are those things/processes that get things done (E.g. I use tools to create a figure from wood) whilst the 'final' cause is the end product (E.g. The figure I have created from wood using my tools). As such he saw that every object and every action has a final purpose (telos) and this determines its 'good'. Thus if we understand what the final good of an organism is then we will understand the necessary (natural) processes by means of which it will reach it. In the Middle Ages theologians took this principia ethica to argue that nature manifested the purposes of the Creator who established an order in all things. Thus they believed there were natural laws that govern human conduct and lead one to the highest Good.

You probably only adhere to the Thomas Aquinas version which is the basis for most Christian Moral ethics.

The most famous exponent of the Natural Law ethic was the Christian theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE). Aquinas developed Aristotle's ideas and argued that the natural 'purpose' (telos) of the world is found in God. Humans are free beings and are capable of choosing to follow the 'natural law' of God which is understood through reason (intellect/rationality). He believed the 'human purpose' was, 'to reproduce, to learn, to live harmoniously in society and to worship God' (Jenkins p.26). Thus Natural law describes not only how things are but how things ought to be and this happens when things are fulfilling their natural purpose (and are unnatural when they are not). Moral laws are also grounded in Natural law.

Just pick and choose some morals from ancient philosophy throw God onto the bottom, shake and stir... Presto you have your christian ethics. It always makes me chuckle when religious folk try to claim that thier religion is where they get there moral ethics from. Nope its called Natural Law, you just slap God into the mix somewhere.