When did we start listening to the Fundamentalists?

[rug]

January 22, 2014
By vorjack

There’s something going on here that I don’t quite get. Maybe because I’m sick.

Fundamentalists have principles which they say Christians must follow, things like “sola scriptura” and the “clarity of scripture.” As I’ve pointed out again and again, they don’t live up to these principles. We sometimes call them on this, but one thing we don’t usually do is call them “unchristian.” We might say they’re not being loving, we might say they’re not being consistent, but we don’t say they’re not being Christian.

So, Progressives have their own principles, things like “the nature of God is revealed in the character of Jesus Christ.” At the very least they heavily nuance the principles that they share with fundamentalists. Many they don’t share at all; I don’t think I’ve ever heard a progressive argue for the “clarity of scripture.” (Sure enough, here’s Rachel Held Evans arguing against it, and I wouldn’t put her far into the progressive spectrum.)

And yet, right now some of us are calling progressive protestants unchristian, because they don’t follow fundamentalist principles. So we don’t call fundamentalists unchristian for failing to follow the principles they do endorse, but we do call progressives unchristian for failing to follow the principles they don’t endorse. Is this making any sense?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2014/01/when-did-we-start-listening-to-the-fundamentalists/

[Fumesucker]

1. Makes as much sense as anything else about religion n/t

[cbayer]

2. I share his confusion about this to an extent, although the reason

some people keep doing it seems pretty clear. It's simply an unsubstantiated broad brush attempt to paint all religion as bad.

Take the worst of it and say that it applies to everyone. It's becoming less and less effective, though, as progressive people of faith push back and become more vocal.

[rug]

3. It's much easier to attack a cartoon one has drawn than to actually examine things.

[cbayer]

4. Easier to attack but much more difficult to defend.

[edhopper]

5. Nothing like accusing atheist of something

by doing the same thing. "Why do all atheist say...."

Right.

[cbayer]

6. Who says that?

[rug]

7. Are you imagining things?

[edhopper]

8. I guess you weren't saying that atheists

like to broad brush all religious believers in replies #2 and #3.
What did you and cbayer mean?

[cbayer]

9. I was addressing my remarks to what I consider a very small subset of atheists.

I would call them anti-theists, but that makes them angry, lol.

I was certainly not directing it at all atheists. Not in the least.

The vast majority of atheists I know are nothing like the people he is describing.

[edhopper]

10. then nevermind

[rug]

11. Your guess is correct.

You can ask cbayer what she meant but I noted that strawman arguments apply to anyone who makes them. And it doesn't to anyone who doesn't.

[Fumesucker]

12. I just wish "progressive people of faith" would "push back" against the fundies

But they leave that heavy lifting for the most part to the hated atheists and then they hate even more on the atheists for doing so.

[cbayer]

13. You know, that's just not true.

I'll just put Moral Mondays out there as the biggest recent example, but religious groups and interfaith groups that often include non-believers are doing a lot of it and doing it more frequently.

What heavy lifting are the "hated atheists" doing? There are secular groups fighting for the 1st amendment and those groups include non-believers and believers. There are protests today in response to the pro-life march that includes religious groups. There are religious groups all over the country who work to elect progressive/liberal democratic candidates. There are religious groups working for immigrant rights and GLBT equality.

And while there are also certainly non-religious groups doing all of these things as well, where do you get the information that all the "heavy lifting" is being done by atheists? It just not true.

Where in the world do you get the idea that progressive people of faith hate atheists? Do you have anything, anything at all, that would substantiate that outrageous claim?

[Fumesucker]

14. Mostly I read DU, that's really all it takes

It's quite clear that even here on the über progressive Democratic Underground that a lot of DUers of faith loathe atheists. It was just a couple of days over a year ago today I really realized it with the huge theist reaction in GD to some atheists saying they were uncomfortable with the religious trappings of Obama's second inaugural.

Both cali and Will Pitt among others took it upon themselves to lecture atheists about the religious nature of our nation in as condescending a manner as they possibly could, like atheists don't know America is really a Christian nation. It was one of the more divisive displays I've seen on DU and put me off this place a lot. The pile on by theists that time was huge and very nasty.

Somehow I doubt you would call into question the perceptions of say a racial minority or a gay person about bigotry aimed at them.

[cbayer]

17. Loathe? I think there are some individuals who some people dislike very much, but it's not because

they are atheists.

Being condescending are trademarks of the two members you mention. And they certainly don't represent progressive people of faith on this board. If they actually said that America is really a christian nation, I'd like to see a link to that, because I really would like to know what they actually said. I'm not even sure those two are people of faith at all. If they are, they certainly don't talk about it much.

I don't question that there is bigotry aimed at atheists among the general population, but it isn't coming from progressive people of faith.

I'm sorry if you have had some negative experiences. This is a two way street, though, and if you look around you will find many progressive people of faith both here and elsewhere who embrace their atheist brothers and sisters..

Just like theists here can see atheists who embrace them, despite the frequent cacophony.

[Fumesucker]

26. Don't take me too seriously, I'm kind of down tonight and venting a bit

I suppose I'm still here on DU more out of habit than anything else, this place has changed a lot and distinctly not for the better. I enjoy some of the personalities but that feeling of community is gone and that was what I really needed because I don't get much of it in real life.

I put up a (rare for me lately) OP the other day, trying to get a bit of a message between the lines, I only saw a few people who actually got my point. It seems like the only way you can get a reply nowadays is to start a fight with someone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353051

[cbayer]

27. I'm sorry you are having a down night, fumesucker.

You seem like a really nice person, but I know you have your struggles.

I have found that some of the small groups are still really positive places. I'm particularly fond of cooking and baking. I pretty much stay out of GD and the bigger forums, because the drama and fighting really turn me off.

And then there's religion, where I really want to see more tolerance and understanding and working together. I think it's gotten better, but it's still not what it could be.

I totally agree with your OP. It's painful to see a thoughtful piece of writing either sink or become another flamefest. I think some of the people got it and you got some support.

I think most of the people who post here are good people who share similar ideals and goals. But they are hard to hear over the shouting sometimes.

Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day for you. I have always liked you, even if we tussle from time to time.

[Fumesucker]

30. So after I logged off DU last night I ran across this...

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

Go figure..

[pinto]

34. Interesting and fun presentation. Really like the guy's delivery style.

I've heard of him, never seen any of his pieces.

[cbayer]

41. I've seen him speak before and this one is really good.

So, are you happy?

[Fumesucker]

44. Better than yesterday, thanks

It was an interesting piece, I'm not sure I like the idea of putting myself in the position of having no choices but I could be misinterpreting what was meant.

Been kind of housebound for a little while since it's been too cold to get out and ride lately, twenty five mph and below freezing temps are not exactly my cup of Earl Grey. Lack of physical activity always tends to make me a bit blue and even my neighbors haven't been out and around as much due to the cold so I'm posting on DU more than normal. Looks like the unusual cold is going to last right through the weekend, my water line has already frozen twice this month so I worked on insulating it better yesterday and it didn't freeze last night so hopefully all will be well in that department although we have even colder temps coming tonight.

[cbayer]

45. Yikes, I am so over that kind of cold and glad to be living closer

to the equator.

If you are used to getting out for your ride, that could be a big part of your problem. Working on your insulation probably gave you some exercise. No cross country skiing for you?

I remember having to leave the faucet on trickle. Broken pipes are a drag.

Anyway, glad you are better today. Here's to the coming spring with longer days and higher temperatures.

[Fumesucker]

47. Despite my efforts my water line froze again last night

This time I knew just where to apply the heat though and had it thawed out with only one teakettle of hot water poured on.

I don't think it's going to make our predicted high of freezing here today.

[pinto]

48. We used to use kitchen towels wrapped real tight with duct tape for freeze protection.

Duct tape. The universal tool. Stay well, hope things warm up for you.

[cbayer]

49. So it froze but didn't burst the pipe?

We had a hard freeze in New Orleans once.

None of the pipes are insulated and hundreds, if not thousands, burst.

You could hear water running everywhere.

Fortunately that is a rare event.

I'm not going to tell you about the temps here.



Stay warm and dry, Fumesucker!

[Fumesucker]

50. The spot in question is a chunky brass valve on the outside of the pumphouse

I have one of those insulating foam covers on it but at the temps we've been getting it's not good to keep the valve from freezing up after an all night cold soak.

Dry isn't a problem, it's bright and clear, warm is a bit more problematic.

I've been in southern Louisiana during a hard freeze, watching the nutria skitter across the top of the ice in the canals was wild.

Also been skin diving in Puerto Rico two days after Christmas so I can guess what things are like where you are.

[cbayer]

52. You've got me beat on that one. I have never seen a nutria skittering across the

ice, but I bet it was hilarious.

They are truly hideous creatures.

Glad there were no burst pipes and hope you get a break in the weather soon.

[pinto]

15. Not sure I get his point in the brief piece.

Is it that fundamentalists and progressive christians are equally unchristian, in some views? And that should be noted to what end? And I'm missing some framework of what the author considers "christian".

And it's unclear what he means by "some of us". Who's the us he's speaking of?

I don't quite get it.

[rug]

16. I read as a critique of viewing fundamentalists as quintessential Christians.

[cbayer]

18. And using the definition of fundamentalism to describe all christians.

[pinto]

21. Yeah, that seems to be the starting point. Why don't we view progessive christians as we do

fundamentalists?

Much of this is like a cat chasing its tail around and around.

[pinto]

19. On re-reading I take it as, we should equally call fundamentalists and progressives unchristian.

Still not sure what the point of it is or how he defines christian. Would have been good if he fleshed it out some. Maybe it's something to do with parsing dogma to fit how people lead their lives. If so, I'd say "happens all the time".

[cbayer]

20. I have a different read on it.

I think his point is that we have let fundamentalists define what is and what is not a christian.

And others have not only allowed them to do that, but have adopted it as well and used it to criticize and assail all christians.

It's not about saying some groups are "unchristian", it's recognizing that there are different types and that fundamentalists and progressive christians are two entirely different groups.

[pinto]

23. Good point. Fundamentalism has become the poster picture for all things christian.

Not sure if that was his conclusion, but it's clear as far as broad public perception goes.

Do you think he was saying we should note the differences or ignore them in these, what would you call it, dichotomies?, in things concerning religion? Across the spectrum.

[cbayer]

24. I think he is saying that we have to stop letting fundies define christianity.

And that we have to stop non-christians from using that definition as a weapon against christians in general.

I think progressive people of faith and their supporters should note the differences and educate others as to what they are.

[pinto]

25. I'll second that.

[Brettongarcia]

31. I agree Fundamentalists are among the worst. But should we let liberal Christianity off the hook?

If I have to choose, I'll accept liberal Christians over fundamentalists, any day. I have some liberal tendencies myself.

But? Liberal Christians often assume they themselves are above all criticism; they often exude privilege, superiority. Not just over fundies; but over atheists. Though their own position(s) are of course, open to attack. On their own, and for themselves. Totally aside from deviations from Fundamentalist doctrine.

And as a practical matter, anyone who really wants to make a case of Atheism, will have to deal both with fundies. But also liberal Christians too. Though of course, Atheists, Agnostics, have far more common ground, than atheists and conservative religionists.

By the way? Jesus warned us of "hypocrites" in religion; particularly among the more educated and aloof; like the Pharisees. I think the criticism of "hypocrisy" is taken up by many more people than fundies; the notion of "logical inconsistency" or "incoherence" has always been important in Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and lately Analytic Philosophy.

In particular I find that liberal Christians privilege "spiritual" Christianity. Which however, has many problems. In and because of itself; and totally aside from Fundamentalist errors. Involving not only biblical but also logical and empirical incoherencies.

I'm willing to sit back a bit on this issue though. So long as Liberal Christians do not become too patronizing to atheists.

[cbayer]

33. What has been your experience with liberal/progressive christians?

And I mean you literal experience.

Where have you met them, spent time with them, worked side by side with them? If we look at some of the major spokespeople within liberal/progressive christianity who exactly would you describe as exuding privilege and superiority over atheists? Gene Robinson? Bill Moyers? Sister Simone Campbell? William Barber? I am really curious as to where you have gotten these ideas.

You want to talk about privilege and exuding superiority? You might want to check out some of those that have become spokespeople for organized atheism. A couple of them have so much privilege they can't even see the next level down.

At any rate, I don't think liberal/progressive people of faith have a problem with atheism or atheists. I think they have a problem with anti-atheism, but why shouldn't the? Those are people who make an argument for extinguishing who they are and what they do.

[Brettongarcia]

35. I was raised a liberal Christian; liberal Presbyterian. Problems? Lots

Logic problems, insincerity, sophistry, are among the biggest.

The biggest problem I have is this however: however liberal a Christian might be, as long as he or she publicly supports "Christianity," he or she is going to be seen as supporting to some degree, the whole camel. When anyone calls himself "a Christian," he or she will all too often be accounted as a supporter of the whole. Fundamentalists will hear them support "Christ" - and take that as in part, support for their own position. And indeed, so long as one accepts the term "Christian," they strengthen the whole; the group identity. In spite of occasional demurrers.

This was the major objection I had to David Hart's appearing on the pages of a conservative Catholic journal, First Things in fact. Like many liberals, he had the notion that he might live happily among conservatives, appearing like them; but he thought he would be subverting/elevating from within; sending veiled messages of a more liberal state of mind, to those who could perceive them. My argument to Hart himself though, was that so long as he is "playing the game," inevitably, conservative people will miss his (allegedly) "higher" message. And they will simply take him as support for their game.

The over subtle game of co-option of the label "Christ"ian, working from within, finally does not work well. In net effect, it ends up strengthening the Right.

Christians are used to endless flattery; and they vainly believe it. They have constantly been told, Sunday after Sunday, that they are the voice of absolute truth, of God himself. It is therefore hard to shake fundamentalists by mild arguments. Until conservatives, Evangelicals. hear really hardhitting, straightforward criticism - not endlessly co-optioning - they do not really change fast enough.

The in-between role of liberal Christianity has had some usefulness. But in our own era, there is increasing conviction that not liberal co-optioning, but a certain amount of strong confrontationalism, is the more successful strategy.

Personally, I can live with (and did live with) liberal Christians. However, to the degree that they have ended up - often even in spite of themselves, and in spite of their own protests to the contrary - strengthening radical fundamentalism, they themselves are part of the problem, and not of the solution.

Ideally, I envision a DU "religion" section that entertains dialogue between Conservatives, Liberals, and Atheists. And that does not give any of them an automatic pass. Not even Liberals.

[cbayer]

36. When you say liberal Presbyterian, what exactly do you mean.

Was you congregation/denomination engaged in community activities? The civil rights movement? The anti-war movement? Charitable activities?

You need to read that other article posted here about letting the fundamentalists define christianity. You are presenting a great example of how and why that's a problem. We can change the narrative on that.

When I was growing up, christianity was associated with liberal/progressive causes. MLK was the hallmark of that. That the definition of christianity has been cooped over the last 30 years by the fundamentalists and religious right is a fact and I think that liberals/progressive do hold some responsibility for letting this happen.

But the religious left can and is taking it back.

If you grew up in a church that constantly told you and other congregants that "that (you) are the voice of absolute truth, of God himself", I am going to humbly suggest that you did not grow up in a liberal/progressive church.

I still see no argument from you the would support the idea that liberal christians have strengthened radical fundamentalism. Can you give me some concrete example of that?

The DU religion group will never entertain conservatives, but is is a great place for liberal/progressive theists, atheists and those in between to gather and discuss. And no one should get an automatic pass. Not even atheists.

[Brettongarcia]

37. Yesss indeed; Presby. USA; the liberal branch

I was very active in early civil rights. And the Vietnam protest.

I am aware that many liberal Christians hold that "all have sinned," even Christians. And that therefore they sometimes say, no one can define "God" too well. Yet? Nevertheless, they DO. Week after week, even liberal pastors deliver quotes, ideas, they claim are from God.

This strengthened religious conservatives, in that so long as liberal claimed to be Christian, for instance, in the polls the number of "Christians" in the population remains high. Any fundie therefore could - and did - point to the statistic that "Christians who believe in God" are the vast majority in the population. And assert that therefore, their views should be privileged, as the majority. Fundies and pollsters often overlooking differences within this group.

All of whom moreover, did adopt the appearance of at least nominal solidarity. And mutual support.

[cbayer]

38. Again, you are allowing the fundamentalists to define christianity.

That's a mistake. The number of christians do remain high in polls. The key is in further defining the groups under that very big umbrella. What do you think liberal/progressive christians should call themselves if not christian?

Allowing the fun dies to include everyone is allowing them to control the conversation. That is the fault of the population at large, not the religious left. It appears you are doing the same as the fundies and pollsters.

I see no evidence to support your claim that the religious left adopted the appearance of nominal solidarity and mutual support. Clearly, as you point out, that meme came from the right and it is the responsibility of everyone, including yourself, to point out the differences.

Instead you seem to continue to preach the fallacy.

[Brettongarcia]

39. Would you be willing to explicitly tell Fundamentalists they are following a false Christianity?

[cbayer]

40. No I would not.

I think people should be able to define themselves as they please.

The narrower one makes the definition, the better off we are. If you define christianity only as a belief in Jesus as the Christ and a wish to follow him, I don't think there is a problem.

But when you start to drill down a little and see how different groups have furthered defined and interpret this, the differences within the group become more obvious.

It is clear that the broad term includes very, very diverse subgroups. Anyone who lumps them all together and draws conclusions from that is making an error.

Including pollsters and non-believers.

[Brettongarcia]

42. But you are not willing to make an explicit break with the Right Wing of the church?

And so you still salute what, to many, will look like the same flag? And still enjoy the appearance of solidarity with them?

For many years, this was the classic strategy of Liberals. In part, of necessity; anyone who did not bow to this flag, could be censured, and even burned to death as a heretic. However, in our own time, others of us are increasingly able to dissent more fully, and more obviously. And this increasingly large segment of the population and its more direct arguments, I suggest, will help everyone in the end. More than longstanding but heavily compromised efforts.

[cbayer]

43. What are you talking about?

First off, I'm not in a position to make a group with anyone, as I'm not a member of any group.

Secondly, my argument is that they aren't members of the same group so there is nothing to make a break from.

The religious left has not "enjoyed" or "benefited" from an appearance of solidarity. Your premise is faulty and you continue to build your arguments on it.

The religious left has been too quiet, but they have not been complicit and are now pushing back.

Many of the arguments you are making could also be made for what I call the "lefties than thou" group and I am beginning to see that this is the category in which you probably fall.

[MellowDem]

22. When religious progressives...

Shared the same flawed presuppositions as religious conservatives, that is, because they're religious, good luck making any sort of theological argument against religious conservatives. It's all flawed.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. I have a solution

We assume anyone who calls themself a Chrisitan is a Christian and if it turns out there is a god he/she/it/they can sort them out

Honestly, both sides are guilty of No True Scotsman fallacies and both feel like they are DEFENDING their faith from the corruption of the other side.

[MisterP]

29. Reagan

the mid-70s saw a strongly synchronized and well-funded movement to move *everything* rightwards: we get the Baptist coup, we get some outright gynophobia, we get Powell-Memo think tanks, Team B, sundry neocons, etc., etc.
Reagan welded together the post-1976 GOP's four cores: fundamentalists, right-libertarians, corporatists, and militarists; each of these units has opinion-leaders and even its own press; each is a separate power base, so the GOP's built like a triangle
the 70s Jesus Freaks also made it acceptable to mention religion again--in the 60s the media's attitude was either 1) "Jesus was American" or 2) "who's this Geeses fellow?"; creationism had as much pull as flat-Earthism (it has the same "antitheology" in fact)

[rug]

32. Yeah, they really coalesced as an organized political force under Reagan.

[MisterP]

46. it's almost like a well-funded astroturf movement helps serve some ulterior purpose!

[shenmue]

51. We shouldn't. We don't have to.

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. Christian fundamentalism started in the 19th century

Christian fundamentalism
Christian fundamentalism, movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the advent of the theory of biological evolution. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection (see resurrection), and Atonement (see atonement). Fundamentalism became a significant phenomenon in the early 20th century and remained an influential movement in American society into the 21st century. See also Evangelical church.

It was part of the The Second Great Awakening (aka the Second Revival)

[longship]

54. Well, I try not to judge religious people unless they judge me.

Then I have something to say about it, and I will defend my atheist turf fairly vociferously and criticize the religious with fairly strong words.

But I don't have a single complaint about the progressive religious. I don't agree with them on religion, but they aren't causing me any pain or even any consternation. I just don't care if they do not believe like me. I see them as a natural ally to atheists because I would bet that they see the fundementalist religions the same way atheists do. Some atheists would disagree, and I have no problem with that either.

Maybe it is a matter of an alliance of convenience. If that's so, who loses by that? I see that the fundementalist movement will likely only be beaten down by such alliances. And I see them as a significant global threat. If the progressive theists see it that way, or even if they don't, at least there may be a common ground on which to build a better future.