How many posts at this site have been about the election? I haven’t counted them, but there are so many that it almost seems like an obsessive pursuit. It’s almost a little embarrassing, especially for a website that does not present itself as a current events or news commentary site.
On the other hand, the upcoming election is compelling to many of the authors at this site (I am the most guilty), because John McCain and Sarah Palin embody so many of the characteristics that inspired the creation of this blog in the first place.
Back in 2004, a handful of my acquaintances became emboldened by the national political mood and came fully out of the closet with their fundamentalist explanations for how the world works and how it must be changed. The positions were strikingly uninformed and one-sided. They were proud of their lack of any basis for the conclusions other than the Bible or their version of our “Christian” government. They showed no ability to understand the basis for the beliefs of people who disagreed with them. They quoted the Bible incessantly without showing any understanding of the historical development of the Bible as a book of stories, many of them entertaining or inspiring, but many others disturbing and self-contradictory.
I took advantage of this opportunity, just as I still do today, to question such beliefs. Because I was hearing such silliness out of the mouths of real human beings, I was inspired to write, research, converse, and write some more, in an attempt to figure out what was going on. I wanted to know if my worldview was utterly and starkly disconnected from that of fundamentalists and neocons or whether there was some possible translation by which we could still communicate with each other. In those early days of this blog, I remember feeling frustrated, sometimes angry with fundamentalism of all stripes. I now realize that good-hearted people who happened to have traditional religious beliefs (but who were not fundamentalists) got caught up in my frustration. It’s not that I don’t have differences of opinion with non-fundamentalists religious believers, but I have gradually come to the conclusion that it is fundamentalism that is the real problem. I am now fully aware that there are many good hearted people who sincerely believe in a sentient God who are my full-fledged allies, despite our many differences in the way we respond to the mysteries of life.
One way of illustrating my re-orientation is to consider that there are many agnostics, ignostics and atheists out there with whom I have less in common than with many good-hearted and thoughtful believers in gods and religions. This becomes all the more clear when I articulate what really should be our main concern as inhabitants on this planet: to get along with each other and to make the community a better place for all people. Yes, many nonbelievers are also good-hearted (Ebonmuse of Daylight Atheism is one of my favorites), but not all nonbelievers are good-hearted. The ultimate question is to ask with whom I would have more in common: a goodhearted thoughtful believer in “God” or a self-centered and intolerant nonbeliever? Because the answer to that question is clearly the former group, this means that I am not here to wage a war on religion itself. It is my firm belief that each of us acts on beliefs that we cannot prove. My attack is on destructive impulses, regardless of the manner in which someone packages his or her destructive belief system.
I will continue to explore why people who claim to believe in God make their (to me untenable) supernatural claims. This is a fascinating topic that deserves the increased amount of discussion that it is now getting. It is clear to me, however, that thoughtful and kind-hearted people who believe in gods and who belong to religions are not a threat to my way of life, whereas fundamentalism is a threat because it shuts down the brain in a way that prevents meaningful discussion of real-life issues and all too often inspires heavy-handedness, reckless and insensitive conduct. Fundamentalism is usually based upon out-of-control anxiety and fear, hyper-groupishness, obeisance to authority, and intolerance to the differences of others. It is also clear to me that fundamentalism comes in a variety of flavors, the most visible being religious fundamentalism (there are Christian, Muslim versions, for example). There is also political fundamentalism, of course. Those who are neoconservatives represent an especially dangerous version. It is my belief that the highly visible decay of the United States is due to the rise of both political and religious fundamentalism.
I started this site back in 2006 because I realized that humans need a constant and a healthy dose of skepticism to keep themselves from falling prey to various types of fundamentalism. This self-vigilance needs to be unrelenting, but our inner personal battles also need to be fought intelligently. Those of us who are too skeptical become paralyzed with doubts and we thus fail to reach back out into the world to actually make the world a better place. For fundamentalists–those who reject skepticism–there will be lots of reaching out in the community because movement always seems like progress, but there is a huge difference between changing one’s community and intelligently changing one’s community. There is no better example than the US invasion of Iraq, where our political and social leaders were anxious for some sort of tangible activity that would “respond” to the 9/11 attacks. It is clear now that what we got is an extremely expensive (in terms of money and lives) endeavor which made the world and the United States worse off and completely failed to “respond” to the 9/11 attacks.
John McCain and Sarah Palin now assert that they are different than George W. Bush. It is equally clear that they wish to continue the same failed policies of the current Administration, especially the war-mongering. Based on the kinds of answers they are giving to questions posed to them, it is also clear that McCain and Palin are political fundamentalists who reject any evidence that does not fit in their pre-conceived notion of how the world works. We can’t afford any more leaders who reject the importance of inconvenient evidence. We desperately need leaders who are self-critical and who are not embarassed to admit this.
It is without apology, then, that we will continue to take an unrelenting side-excursion into politics, at least until November, because it is really not detour at all. Rather, the current campaign is allowing us to see, in a tangible and high-stakes way, the intellectual concerns raised in this site ever since we appeared in 2006.
Since I busted out the old skool weebl and bob in my last comment I went to look at the latest stuff, well, just because. Imagine my delight that it is so very appropriate here. Enjoy.
http://is.gd/3nE7
I for one am just admitting to myself how personally I am taking this election. I really really don't know what I'll do if McCain/Palin wins. I don't have any unrealistic hopes that the next few years are going to be anything other than painful for the U.S., but to me a McCain/Palin win would signal that "The People" are going to continue to support bad decisions based on fear, ignorance, and hate for the foreseeable future.
I would add to your thoughts about religion that the worst aspects of fundamentalism are available in ideologies that have no supernatural beliefs. Maybe the supernatural beliefs make the intolerance and dogmatism worse, I don't know. But belief in the supernatural is neither necessary or sufficient to bring out intolerance, dogmatism, or rationalized cruelty in human beings.
I couldn't have said it better than weebl and bob!
I personally gravitate toward the entries that infuse DI's unique brand of thoughful commentary on culture, psychology, and the media with the more timely discussion of current events. I think the blog does a good job of not regurgitating content that appears everywhere throughout the web. When an oft-referenced video or comment does attract discussion here, our authors seem to shed some extra insight that you can't find anywhere else.
At the same time, I sure look forward to the end of the election! I'd like to get back to actual news on TV, bountiful nonsense on sites like Digg, and a glut of wonderfully unprovoked DI entries. There are many political blogs, but I've yet to find another blog that does everything else DI does.
I think that many people turn to religion out of a fear of the unknown. We live in uncertain times, and in these times, those that fear what the future might bring are easily seduced by the clever talk of individuals who claim an ultimate knowledge. Not trusting in themselves, they place their trust often in leaders that know nothing about responsibility.
Then there are those that embrace the unknown and seek to understand it, to define it, to map it, so that they can build upon the accumulated knowledge to seek further unknowns.
The problem is that politicians have perverted and subverted the desire to know into a dangerous vehicle for their political and personal ambitions.The danger in this is that these leaders hold their own desires above the needs of the masses
What I do not get about those feminists who hate Palin is the fact that they cry over her killing animals and go hysterical over the fact that she is pro-life when it come to unborn babies. They have more compassion on animals than they do on human, helpless babies. Oh that's right, they probably believe in evolution and since according to evolution human babies are no better than animals it does not matter, save the animal murder the babies (should be their battle cry, sure sounds like it).
you wrote "but many others disturbing and self-contradictory"
you throw this phrase around like it is fact but have yet to bring up anything that has not been explained with a proper understanding of context, culture, and original language. Until you do that I would advise you to leave out the expression "self-contradictory" for your own benefit.
you wrote "It is my belief that the highly visible decay of the United States is due to the rise of both political and religious fundamentalism."
Good opinion but it is an opinion. Trace back through the history of the USA and you will see where the decline started, when people started rejecting God and His Word (sexual revolution and its disastrous consequences, prayer, Scriptures, and God removed from public schools, promotion of immorality in the form of "birth" control, not referring to the pill).
Just look at what happened/is happening and you can trace it back to departing from God's standards. He told us that it would happen so we should not be surprised at all. If we do not return to Him then it is just going to get worse.
I think that the increase in posts related to politics is completely justifiable in light of the effects of government on our culture – and the potential damage or repair that the next administration could do. This election will determine the quality of life for most Americans in the next few years, and its treatment by the media throws the intelligence and analytical abilities of the American public into question.
As for the "fundamentalism", I think that you're using it colloquially as regards politicians. Were our politicians truly fundamentalists, they wouldn't be treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with such casual disregard. This administration's insistence that changing one's position in light of new information is "flip-flopping", but that changing the constitution to fit the president's personal agenda regardless of how wrong it could be is strong and decisive has permeated society and the media. It mirrors the apologetics of Christian fundamentalism, which is why the politicians and the religious right have been so supportive of one another. This insistence on standing fast against new ideas, dissenting opinions, and even facts is not something we should look for in our leaders. One party is still trying to spin it as a good thing, and it could make this country into a failure in our lifetimes if we let it.
So. . .the presidential election is most assuredly something that should be getting posts on this blog. IMHO.
Erik wrote:—"What I do not get about those feminists who hate Palin is the fact that they cry over her killing animals and go hysterical over the fact that she is pro-life when it come to unborn babies. They have more compassion on animals than they do on human, helpless babies. Oh that’s right, they probably believe in evolution and since according to evolution human babies are no better than animals it does not matter, save the animal murder the babies (should be their battle cry, sure sounds like it)."
Maybe some feminists do cry over the animal deaths, but not all of them. There are many other reasons to dislike Palin from a feminist viewpoint. Something about people who reap the benefits of feminism even while they condemn it is unsavory.
As to abortion, well, you know, if you taught all those women how to properly use birth control and keep themselves from getting pregnant….
Oh, but that means they could have sex when they wanted to, with whom they want, and there wouldn't be any consequences. Forgot about that.
But wait—men get to do that! Always have. I guess that's the way it really oughta be. What's up with them crazy women who think they live equal lives to men?
As to a decline in the United States, I disagree with both of you. Nations rise, nations decline. All the rise in fundamentalism demonstrates is that a lot of people think we're in decline and don't know what to do about it. I personally don't think we're in a period of decline, just reorganization. But hey, you two go ahead and argue about it. Don't mind me.
For those new to this site, the above three comments have been written by a fellow ("Erik") who feels compelled to inject his fundamentalist perspective into various posts at this site. He tends to write the same eight or ten things over and over, claiming literal inerrancy of the Bible, as well as claiming to be God's own vehicle for promulgating Truth to hell-destined non-believers.
I've let him have his say here, to this point, but if he submits further comments that repeat what he has already said, of if he insists on preaching, he will be invited to go spread God's Inerrant Word at some other blog that will tolerate him.
I don't want to sound as though I am censoring him. I have not done that yet. He has been allowed to post many dozens of comments at this site, and I have allowed him to have free reign to this point. That will come to an end, however, if I conclude that he has violated the DI comment policy.
IF the republican side could field a couple candidates that weren't complete knuckleheads, I'd be less incendiary towards the republican side. That isn't the case.
This election very well may decide the fate of this nation, and the world. How about we put someone competent in charge, since this whole decade has so far been a black comedy.
Erik, if you have nothing new to contribute, please, do us all a favor, and go back to rapture ready. They miss you. The same attitudes and quotes from the bible get tiresome, mainly because you don't know how to do anything else.
In response to Erik Brewer's last post, he suggests Erich is entitled to his opinion but that it is wrong.
I ask Erik: if the nation only retreated from the will of God in the 1960's (which I gather was ushered in the "the sexual revolution and its disastorous consequences"), am I to understand the shameful episodes predating that time were 1) the will of God and/or 2) the expected behavior of a righteous nation? Were such things as slavery, the massacre and removal of indigeous peoples, the wholesale disenfranchisement of minorities, the inability of women to vote, and segregation (to name a few) somehow "approved" by God?
Indeed, it seems the fight to secure many of the rights and liberties we now take for granted was led by godly men and women who respected the dignity of every human being. They engaged evil, not by looking backward but forward. But that's just my opinion.
Alison: Here's the definition of "fundamentalism" I had in mind. This is a 2006 quote from Jimmy Carter:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/04/09/funda…
• Mark Tiedemann
Abstinence with the help of Jesus Christ is the best form of birth control. Plus the choice was made when the women chose to sleep with the men. We all have the right to life in the Constitution accept for innocent helpless babies (murder them because they cannot protect themselves). What hypocrisy!
You wrote “Oh, but that means they could have sex when they wanted to, with whom they want, and there wouldn’t be any consequences. Forgot about that.”
There are always consequences for sex outside of marriage. Please do not be so naïve or “uneducated”. (see STD’s and how rapidly they are spreading, even in the age of the condom, which does not protect 100% by the way).
Just because men do it does not make it right. Men murder others, should we legalize it and make it right since people are already doing it?
• Erich Vieth
Man you hate it when people do not agree with you (start with the name calling as usual).
I write in response to questions that YOU GUYS ask, keep in mind.
Why don’t you let the reader form his own opinion of who I am instead of “feeding” him what you want (oh that’s right, if he thought for himself then he would no longer be a “free thinker”).
That’s right censor the opposition (brilliant tactic, did you study under Hitler or Stalin?)
You wrote “at some other blog that will tolerate him”
Remember what I wrote about those who scream tolerance being the most intolerant? Point proven!!!
• ultrascott
Here you go trying to say what I meant. We have already had this conversation. Slavery is wrong as well as treating any human as a lower class citizen (even though there are many who want to murder babies who “may” have a birth defect). Please do not try the old “blame God for man’s sin”. Many have already tried that here on this site and it does not work.
I said everyone is entitled to his opinion even if it is wrong (do you think that everyone who has an opinion is right?). Use logic.
• Erich Vieth
According to the given definition about fundamentalism, I am not one. The Word of God is absolutely right (no mater what I believe). You obviously do not read what I write because you keep calling me a fundamentalist. You can disagree with me all that want but I am telling you that you are disagreeing with the Word of God because I am sharing the Word with you.
"Just look at what happened/is happening and you can trace it back to departing from God’s standards."-Erik
As much as I hate feeding trolls, I have to wonder when these 'good old days' were? Every era in American history has its horrific and backwards moments. In the 1950s domestic violence was rampant and it was culturally acceptable to discriminate against black people. In the 1920s and 30s there were labor upheavals, organized crime due to legislated morality, and widespread hatred of Jews, asians, blacks, Italians, et al. The turn of the century was brutal, no labor standards were in place, and people died of easily preventable diseases.
Mr Brewer wrote:
"According to the given definition about fundamentalism, I am not one. The Word of God is absolutely right (no matter what I believe)."
I find it difficult to believe that there could be a better definition of both fundamentalism itself and a clear example of exactly what fundamentalism does to a human mind than what's contained in the above mind-blowing contradiction. Only a true fundamentalist could not see that.
"I'm not a fundamentalist. No matter what I believe, I believe the Word of God is absolutely right."
OR
"Regardless of my personal beliefs, my personal belief that the Word of God is absolutely right is … absolutely right."
OR
"I don't like fruit cake, but fruit cake is the best cake in the world and it doesn't matter what I like."
Oh my good golly gosh, Mr Brewer has outdone himself this time. The mental contortions required to hold two completely contradictory beliefs like that in one brain remind me of those tiny twisty girls from Cirque du Soleil.
Seriously, you couldn't write this stuff. Truth is indeed funnier than fiction.
Well, I am ignoring my own advice, but here goes:
Erik Brewer wrote: "You can disagree with me all that want but I am telling you that you are disagreeing with the Word of God because I am sharing the Word with you."
Erik, are YOU God?
That seems to be what you are claiming here and elsewhere in your postings; that you unerringly know God's will and that you possess the wisdom and insight and judgment of God and everything that you say is the infallible, unquestionable word of God and everything that you do is sanctioned by God. That could only be true if you ARE God, because the only mortal who ever possessed God's power was Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If you are NOT God, then who are you to claim so many of God's attributes for yourself?
Before you respond, sit down and really THINK about what I have written here. Would you even know God if you encountered Him? Would you even be able to recognize His work? Just how certain of that are you, and exactly why are you so certain?
You do not need to respond to these questions publicly. They are for you to ponder alone.
And here's more to ponder, Erik: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the great chain of truth is exactly as you describe it: from the mind of God, to the pages of the Bible, to Erik's brain, to Erik's fingers on the keyboard. Do you see a weak link there?
Erich, I know what you're getting at when you use fundamentalist to describe the attitude, as President Carter so eloquently did. What I feel, though, is that it actually weakens the true meaning of the word and opens it up to abuse. The literal meaning implies that there is a fundament, or a fundamental set of givens, that are adhered to. Hence, that type of religious person who believes that his text is literal and must be followed exactly. (At least the parts they like.) He may be a fundamentalist, but that describes his beliefs, not his attitude. As the attitude has become more prevalent and recognizable, the word has been popularized as a description of it.
This bothers me partly because it muddies the language – if you change a word's meaning, your meaning can be misconstrued when you use it. It also bothers me because it has gone from being descriptive to merely inflammatory. A fundamentalist politician, using the dictionary definition, might not be such a bad thing. Using the popular definition, as Carter did, turns a fundamentalist politician into something despicable.
So, I understand what you meant. . .I just wish that the definition weren't so flexible.
Vicki asked, "Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the great chain of truth is exactly as you describe it: from the mind of God, to the pages of the Bible, to Erik’s brain, to Erik’s fingers on the keyboard. Do you see a weak link there?"
Indeed, we should all wonder why the god-of-the-Bible employs such circuitous methods to convey the truth to humankind, when more direct forms of communication are obviously available. Why does the god-of-the-Bible play the game of Telephone? I've discussed this question in more detail here: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/31/why-i….
• Edgar Montrose
How in the world could you ever get the “I am God” from any of the stuff that I have written? Do you actually read what I write?
I am sharing with you what God has already said in His Word, He is God and it is His Word. What kind of trick are you trying to pull here?
God has revealed His will in His Word (if you would actually study It you would know that as well). I am sharing the infallible Word of God with you. Again, it is not my Word it is His Word (please read and let sink in).
I have never claimed any of God’s attributes as my own (I guess you want me to say that I do, still do not understand your logic here).
I have encountered God. I encounter Him daily. That is something that every human has the chance to experience. If you have never encountered Him that does not mean that everyone else is like you.
I do recognize His work every single day. How do I know? I see that He keeps His Word every single day. I see that He has changed my life. I see that He changes lives every single day. I see that the Hebrews are still here. I see that people still hate the Hebrews because they are God’s chosen people. I see that people still want to take the promised land away from Israel. I can go on all day long.
[Warning from Admin: Portions of this comment violate the policy on "preaching." See the commenting and email policies of this site for further information. I've allowed this comment through in it's entirety as a teaching device. Future incidents of "preaching" will be deleted (the remainder of the comment will be published).]