What is Fundamentalism?
Posted by DLW in Uncategorized at 10:03 am | 
Permanent Link
Wikipedia has an extensive entry on Fundamentalism. It would be good for liberals who seek to avoid another rout like the past election to understand the meaning.
For fundamentalists, the belief that the Bible alone is the basis for determining what is right conduct has discouraged a sweeping dedication to the life of the mind and elevated shared beliefs, such as with the traditional pro-life position on abortion, to the same level of veneration as scripture. This has, in turn, led to a neglect of political subjects or an involvement that only trusts certain sources and which is heavily weighted by certain presuppositions and that take literally the meaning of labels, like conservative and liberal, whose actual referents are changing.
In general, these groups are not into involvement with society. In the past, they have not been heavily involved with politics. And their emphasis on shared beliefs makes them very contentious with each other, often undermining their ability to act together, as well as their witness to others.
All of this goes to say that if we can resolve the cultural wars issues then we will undermine the Republican Party’s source of strength. Many of them may still participate in politics, but their votes will not be as predictable or reliable for the Republican Party and there will likely be less political solidarity so as to give other groups more of a chance to be decisive in influencing elections.
dlw
The 26th of November, 2004 at 10:48 am
For me it is not that fact of whether the Bible is the sole source of authority - which for me it is - but how the bible is used as an authority, and how one wileds that authority. Fundamentalists propose simple methods of interpretation and application; they go for sound bite theology and morality, rather than the harder work of principles applied; they see everyone else as stooges for Satan rather than people to be lived with and worked together with. The continuing ’security issue’, combined with American millennarianism, will only continue to feed the roots of your country’s fundamentalism, just as it does for Islamic fundamentalism. And one has as little chance against that as you noted that the likes of Wallis will in the political arena.
The 26th of November, 2004 at 11:12 am
I don’t see how one can be critical of applying Biblical principles without also allowing that other sources of information are needed to determine what is right conduct.
I.e., we need to make fallible judgments about what can and cannot be changed about this world we live in. And that should be based on what we have learned from our experiences.
The extreme factionalism of fundamentalists and their unwillingness to learn from others, like ourselves, make them easier to manipulate by others. I still think we need to encourage liberals to compromise some so as to undermine their political solidarity as a group. It is not enough to set out an alternative course like Wallis is doing.
I’m afraid I didn’t quite understand your last sentence, so a clarification would be in order.
dlw
The 29th of November, 2004 at 5:04 am
My last sentance was based on the idea that merely putting forward a liberal agenda is not enough, since the right have their blockers out, in a combined force of ‘moral values’ - the liberals are out to get us, millennarianism - satan is out to get us, the security issue - the world is out to get us, etc. I know enough about american football to realise that you don’t tackle them head on, but get the ball thrown over their heads. Another image would be of Judo, where you use their strength against them. As long as the left and right see it as a ‘them and us’ situation, even in spite of the ‘what’s best for America’ line, then they’ll just be knocking their heads together, and nothing will get done. But then, as long as politics is seen in a them and us situation generally, the greater good will always lose.
The 29th of November, 2004 at 11:14 am
I like your football/judo analogies.
Many on the left have already stated that there is no way that the left can win over the social conservative vote. That may be true to a good extent, but what is in play is the solidarity of social conservatives on the specific issues and their willingness to continue to give their votes for cheap to the economic-conservative dominated Republican Party.
I think one can acknowledge the existence of different competing interests vying for the control of gov’t and also try to love one’s enemies and accept the need to compromise so that antagonisms do not become pathological and crowd out giving more people more voice on the issues that affect them.
dlw