FACING FUNDAMENTALISM

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 22, 2009 — We live in a new “Dark Age” typified by the elevation of ideologies and contempt for science, reason, and rationality.  Among the most important manifestations of this tendency is a distinctively-American brand of  “fundamentalism” that finds refuge from a changing world by anchoring itself to a few, very basic, religious doctrines, the “fundamentals”, which include the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection.  It finds solace accepting the BIBLE as the infallible word of God, which provides the ultimate foundation for the movement.  It advocates creationism, creation science, and intelligent design as alternatives to the theory evolution, which it claims cannot explain the emergence of the species.  In conflicts with the BIBLE , the good book as the word of God takes precedence.  Evolution, accordingly, cannot be sustained.

My purpose here is to offer an overview of this phenomenon from three points of view, namely:  as a religious doctrine, as a political movement, and—closely related—as a resource for public policies.  Insofar as parochial schools of various faiths, as Christian grammar schools or high schools, may have a powerful motivation to slant the courses their students are provided to insure that the study of biology, for example, does not conflict with the point of view of that religion, agnosticism should prevail within our public schools.  I shall endorse a principle known as “The Ethics of Belief” to identify doctrines that should not be allowed to affect public policy debates and will conclude that overcoming their influence requires a strong system of public education.

These questions are assuming increased importance in American society, as states are attempting to alter the debate about abortion by redefining what it takes for a form of life to qualify as a “person”, where personhood signifies a state at which a developing entity acquires the most basic “right to life” where abortions are permissible only to preserve the life or the health of the mother. In particular, the Australian press has reported that “North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception” (heraldsun.com.au, February 19, 2009), which seems to be an effort—no doubt motivated by fundamentalist beliefs—to undermine the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. This means we really have no choice but to confront fundamentalism as it encroaches on public policies.

AS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE

The degree of conviction evinced by fundamentalists invariably exceeds the strength of the evidence in their support.  The history of the composition of the BIBLE, for example, was dependent upon an oral tradition and the vicissitudes of translation.  Even the basic doctrine of the Virgin Birth appears to hinge upon the probable mistranslation of a word for “young girl” as “virgin”.  This difficulty is not peculiar to Christianity, of course.  In Islam, the belief that young men who die in holy wars are going to enjoy the company of 72 virgins in heaven has been disputed on the ground that the old Arabic term, “hur”, has been mistranslated as “virgin” but actually means “white grape”.  If this were to become generally known, there might be fewer suicide bombers.

Difficulties with rendering a coherent interpretation of the BIBLE are well known.  Even Genesis poses problems from the start.  According to Genesis 1:2, God created day and night on the first day.  But according to Genesis 1:14-16, He only created the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day.  Similarly according to Genesis 2:27, God created man and woman together “in his own image”, yet according to Genesis 2:21-22, God first put Adam into a deep sleep and then created Eve out of one of his ribs.  Both accounts can’t be true although, of course, they could both be false.  The obvious solution is to take the passages as symbolic rather than literal, an option that is unavailable to fundamentalists.

In the case of moral imperatives, the difficulties may be even more serious, since some purported “moral maxims” appear to be cruel or even sadistic.  According to Leviticus 20:9, children who curse their parents should be put to death.   According to verse 10, the same fate should befall those who commit adultery.  They are "maxims" that do not seem to qualify as "moral". Difficulties in sorting these things out leads to great faith being placed in the movement’s leaders, persons such as Rev. John Hagee, who has described the Catholic Church as “the great whore”, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. 

According to Hagee, hurricane Katrina vented God’s wrath on New Orleans for its indulgence of gay sex, including a “Gay Pride” parade scheduled for the following Monday.  Falwell and Robertson agreed the day after 9/11 that it was God’s revenge for tolerating homosexuality, abortions, and the ACLU.  I was perplexed by his inclusion of the ACLU until it gradually dawned upon me that the First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of speech but freedom of religion, where those who “know the truth” take a dim view of those who do not. Most importantly, those who see God’s hand in history perceive what others cannot see. 

One of the great virtues of fundamentalist interpretations of history of this kind is that it is impossible to prove them false.  Even belief in an omniscient and omnipotent God is compatible with any course of historical events, no matter how brutal or destructive they might be.  By the same token, those views cannot be verified either.  The situation is actually rather drastic, since we cannot prove there is a God or no God at all, much less whether God is a man or a woman, or whether there might be gods for every season.

AS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT

Nevertheless, fundamentalists are doing their best to get religion into the classroom and evolution out.  The three tenets of creation science—that the world was created recently and in more or less the form we encounter it today; that minor variations are possible (known as “microevolution”) but that new species (“macroevolution”) are not; and that there was a world-wide flood approximately 5,000 years ago—alas, cannot withstand even the most modest critical scrutiny.  Given there are more than 1 million animal species alive today but at most 10,000 could have been accommodated aboard the Ark, speciation has to have been occurring at an average rate of around 200 new species per year.  This means that the third tenet of creation science implicitly contradicts the second.

Reason and rationality don’t count for much when it comes to politics.  The Republican Party has made a practice of endorsing positions that appeal to fundamentalist, such as anti-flag burning, anti-abortion, and anti-stem-cell-research platforms.  This, of course, does not mean that wealthy Republicans don’t send their daughters for abortions when they need them.  But by manipulating issues to appeal to “Christian morality”, they have been highly successful in bringing fundamentalists to the polls to vote for the GOP, even though it represents the interests of the rich, which seldom coincide with those who turn out in vast numbers to support them.

When left-wing ministers stake out positions, no matter how reasonable, they tend to be pilloried by the religious right.  The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a perfect example.  I have studied his allegedly “controversial” remarks, which include that there are more black men in prison than in college dorms, that racism is still alive and well in the USA, and that American actions abroad contributed to the attacks of 9/11 ("What's Wrong with Rev. Wright?", OpEdNews, March 18, 2008).  Wright’s positions, I have found, are either true or at least not obviously false.  Indeed, even though I think the historical research of The 9/11 Commission was grossly inadequate, the idea that 9/11 was “blowback” for our actions abroad was even the commision’s own conclusion. 

Taking quotes out of context can serve political objectives.  When Wright condemned the United States for making drugs so readily available, passing “three strikes” laws and incarcerating disproportionate numbers of young blacks, he was completely justified in rejecting the idea that God would want blacks to be praising the United States rather than damning it.  And the use of the phrase, “God damn America!” did not originate with Rev. Wright.  Even William James, the Harvard philosopher, declared “God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles” in 1898!  Indeed, if Americans can’t ridicule and condemn their own government when it has lost its way, what does it mean to be one?

INFLUENCING PUBLIC POLICIES

 1  |  2  |  3