Are Christian fundamentalists a threat?

[Meadmaker]

I have read on this forum some commentary that there are Christian fundamentalists who are a real threat to American life. Do people agree with that?

Frankly, some of it sounds like paranoia to me. I look at what is going on in America, and I don't see a huge wave of fundamentalists about to take away our liberties and impose theocracy on us.

Let's look at some of the battleground issues where I have seen this subject brought up. Abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design, and school prayer all come to mind. In every case, the fundamentalists, if they won, would take us back to a place we were forty years ago. I wouldn't recommend that, but is that reason for panic? Moreover, there is no way they are going to win that big. They can't even manage to keep a copy of the ten commandments (Protestant version) in the courthouse. They are fighting tooth and nail just to prevent judges from stumbling on a right to gay marriage. If they managed to get Roe v. Wade overturned, all that would do would turn it over to the state legislatures, most of whom would keep abortion legal.

What is the harm? Why the hostility? Yes, there are political fights to be fought, and it should be done, but I just think that the reaction is way out of proportion to the threat. Can anyone make a case that the fundamentalists are on the verge of any victory that will likely have a significant effect on your life?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If the new Supreme Court overturns Lawrence v Texas, then yes. It will once more become illegal, in my state and many others, to have consensual sex with an adult of the same sex. Of course, on the same grounds of letting states decide which sexual behavior is permissable and which is prosecuted, the states could also outlaw any kind of heterosexual behavior as well. Funnily enough, the states that had those laws rarely enforced them.

And yes, I think Lawrence will be challenged. In the name of "family" and "morality" and Jesus, fundamentalists are willing to spend a lot of time, energy, and money pushing their religious agenda into the political arena.

Oh, and by the way, I can still be fired from a job, evicted, and forbidden from being guardian to children because of my orientation. Thanks to other people's religious values. Cute, eh? I also can't have a military career unless I either engage in deception or join the armed forces of another nation. It's so nice that other people's religion determines what rights I have or don't have.

 

[geetarmoore]

What is the harm? Why the hostility? Yes, there are political fights to be fought, and it should be done, but I just think that the reaction is way out of proportion to the threat. Can anyone make a case that the fundamentalists are on the verge of any victory that will likely have a significant effect on your life?

This post may have been triggered by my post today, so I'll respond very quick...

I can make one case that fundamentalists are already effecting my life without even thinking.

Stem cell research and the refusal of funding for it on grounds that are spiritual. This technology may one day save my life, or the life of a family member if research of it was allowed.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

They control the oval office I call that a threat. Few politicians can get elected without paying lip service to the god of abraham. I dont consider that insignificant.

 

[slingblade]

I think it's a matter of degree. I was part of the Fundie Christian mind-set for many years and I know that in some denominations there is a definite world-dominating attitude (best way I can put it, really). "If God is real," so it often goes, "then he wants us all to behave and believe in a certain restricted way. And if I am a 'true Christian,' I will do all I can to not only spread God's word, but also enforce it. If I truly love my fellow man, I will do all I can to save his eternal soul, whether he likes it or not. I am also offended by much of what goes on these days, and I believe the way to reconcile these offenses is to try to force people to behave in only those ways of which I, and God, approve." See Kurious_Kathy for an example of the type.

I am concerned, because I have seen this mind-set increase over the last 30 - 40 years, and grow in power. Slowly, yes; incrementally, yes. But any of us over, say 40, can remember at least the fear that was spawned by the McCarthy era, and (oh, gawd, she's actually going to say it!) Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, and Vietnam, and we know that sometimes people get carried away by their ideologies and try to take the rest of us with them. We know that's often ugly and unpleasant, at least for a time.

Another aspect to this is it is harder to see the big picture in America, because America is pretty big. It can cause one to engage in selective observation, rarely the most logical course. For example, a brand-new "big-box" warehouse church going up on the corner (it happened in my town last year), can be a worrisome thing. In my experience, those churches are mainly occupied by the wooest of Fundies. Those folks scare me because of my experience with them. I realize, however, I'm mostly looking at my area, and at selected news stories which seem to support my fears on a national level. Am I correct? Maybe, but likely not. Yet my knee jerks every time I read a story about ID, or prayer in schools, or gay-marriage protests, or any of the wit and wisdom of Pat Robertson and his ilk.

The initial public response to the Patriot Act also worried me. So many people seemed to think, at least for a while, that giving up some of our precious liberties was necessary in order to make us safe. We need laws to prevent terrorism (even though laws cannot prevent, but only penalize). It makes sense to spy on our citizens, because we have to stop terrorism (even though it's terrorism precisely because of its random and largely unpredictable nature). If you're really innocent, you won't mind if the government invades your privacy (even though if you really are innocent, they won't find anything, so why are they looking?). That so many Americans could have agreed with this distorted logic worried me greatly for a while. It seems to be turning about, now, and I hope that seeming is true. "If you're innocent, you won't mind me spying," seems to be turning into "If I'm innocent, why should I tolerate your spying?" I think I like that attitude better.

My point, however, is that these two belief systems go well together: Patriot Act thinking and Fundamentalist thinking. Obedience to authority is key, and a willingness to conform. "All loyal Americans will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect the nation," and "All good Christians will strive to enforce Christian Values to protect our children," are pretty much the same ideologies, in my 'umble .02.

In short (too late), Fundies do scare me. Where exactly is the point at which a pile of bricks becomes a solid, imprisoning wall?

 

[Pauliesonne]

Those fundies that kill abortion doctors scare the crap out of me.

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Those fundies that kill abortion doctors scare the crap out of me.

I was just about to mention the abortion clinic firebombings as well. How long 'til some fundamentalist groups expand this approach to other activities that are considered a sin, like homosexuality or divorce? I wouldn't be surprised if "honor killings" start to occur at some point.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Damn terrorists!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I was just about to mention the abortion clinic firebombings as well. How long 'til some fundamentalist groups expand this approach to other activities that are considered a sin, like homosexuality or divorce?

Eric Rudolph targetted both abortion clinics and gay bars. I don't think Divorce Court is in any jeopardy, though: for some reason, the sanctity of marriage people seem to get divorced and remarried just as much as everyone else.

 

[Pauliesonne]

I remember something in "The root of all evil?" about Dawkins interviewing a friend of someone who killed an abortion doctor - but for the life of me I can't remember his name...

 

[Tony]

Let's look at some of the battleground issues where I have seen this subject brought up. Abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design, and school prayer all come to mind. In every case, the fundamentalists, if they won, would take us back to a place we were forty years ago.

I think it has more to do with their anti-personal freedom/pro-religious paternalist disposition.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think it has more to do with their anti-personal freedom/pro-religious paternalist disposition.

Exactly. It's not enough for them to not have porn, or swearing, or sex, or stem cells, or abortions, or evolution. They want to make sure you can't have any of those things, either. The solution to things they don't like is to forbid them, rather than let people chose to do or not do them for themselves.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

From my discussions with fundamentalist christians at hannity.com I can say that their ideas about creation are a threat to science.

They use their religion to gather supporters who really have little idea what the argument is all about. People will join their side because they are religious people, not because they understand their arguments about science. This then has the knock on effect of eroding peoples confidence in science, giving the idea that scientists are lying to us, that they have an anti-religion agenda.

I find it scary that will only accept the literal word of genesis as the truth of the origin of the Earth. Radiometric dating has proved the age of the Earth to be in the order of billions of years old, so they come up with half-baked ideas that decay rates used to be faster, or that the techniques are based on wild assumptions or that the geologists are just picking the results that suit them. Evolution is dismissed as false as it contradicts the idea that we were created by God, individually, and also on the grounds that we are related to animals, rather than being on a special pedestal that places us closer to God.

People read creationist literature and accept the science as they think it was written by godly people who only tell the truth. I'm still hearing the argument that evolution is only a theory. People pick up buzzwords and sound bites but don't learn or investigate the science behind them, so it just grows into an autonomous monster that flatly rejects whatever facts and evidence you give them, because you are scientific and therefore anti-religious.

Even Christian scientists have a hard time convincing them, as they are seen to be rejecting the word of God in the Bible, and so are not true Christians.

I asked for examples of creationist experiments, and I got directed to creationist interpretations of unrelated tests, where they pick and choose the facts that suit their cause, and ignore the ones that don't. This again gives a poor view of the real evidence and support for creation "science". One such article gave an example of an isotope that had had its half-life reduced from something in the giga-annums to a mere 33 years. This was hailed as proof that decay rates could have been greater in the past, giving the appearance of an old Earth. The article completely ignored the fact that the isotope had been fully ionised, so the energy required to do such in a 6 day creation week would have vaporised the planet.

Fundamentalist creation "science" is wholly negative. It only acts to dismiss and counter real science. It produces no new theories of its own, only ones that refute existing knowledge. It carries out no experiments save those which could prove a young Earth. I pity the children that grow up in these households, subjected to a crippled, hateful version of science, instead of the beautiful thing it should be, that provides the only true objective insight into the nature of our planet, our universe, and ourselves.

 

[Pauliesonne]

I'm still hearing the argument that evolution is only a theory.

That always seems to me to be the stupidest argument of them all.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

That always seems to me to be the stupidest argument of them all.

It is, but people will still use it because fundamentalists are still telling them that it is the equivalent of an unproven hypothesis.

Try watching this video on evolution from the point of fundamentalists. They ask people in the street to explain evolution, but then when they don't have all the answers, they use this as evidence that proper scientists don't have all the answers. They phone up airlines to see if they can take an orangutan on board, as he is a "relative according to darwinism". They still use old arguments that have been answered, like the lack of transitional fossils. It's quite painful to watch at times, and it's 30 mins long, so I wouldn't blame you if you didn't stick through all of it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8047087636458478893&q=way+of+the+master+21

(I think I got this link from somewhere else on this forum, but I can't for the life of me remember where, so thanks, whoever you are.)

 

[Bone_Vulture]

(I think I got this link from somewhere else on this forum, but I can't for the life of me remember where, so thanks, whoever you are.)

From this thread, perhaps?

 

[Johnny Pixels]

From this thread, perhaps?

Aha! Thanks!

 

[Iacchus]

I have read on this forum some commentary that there are Christian fundamentalists who are a real threat to American life. Do people agree with that?

If it was a matter of passing legislation so that everyone had to go to Sunday School and listen to Pat Robertson, I can't see that. Besides, that's an obvious breech of church and state.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fundies everywhere are scary, especially when they have a big army at their disposal. Purely hypothetically, how would Dubya have handled the Cuban crises compared to JFK?

 

[ceo_esq]

I have read on this forum some commentary that there are Christian fundamentalists who are a real threat to American life. Do people agree with that?

Frankly, some of it sounds like paranoia to me. I look at what is going on in America, and I don't see a huge wave of fundamentalists about to take away our liberties and impose theocracy on us.

...

What is the harm? Why the hostility? Yes, there are political fights to be fought, and it should be done, but I just think that the reaction is way out of proportion to the threat. Can anyone make a case that the fundamentalists are on the verge of any victory that will likely have a significant effect on your life?

I raised a similar question in the "Slouching toward theocracy?" thread. I'm more or less inclined to agree with you.

If the new Supreme Court overturns Lawrence v Texas, then yes. It will once more become illegal, in my state and many others, to have consensual sex with an adult of the same sex. Of course, on the same grounds of letting states decide which sexual behavior is permissable and which is prosecuted, the states could also outlaw any kind of heterosexual behavior as well.

Yet overturning Lawrence v. Texas would do no more than return us to the status quo ante of June 2003, when we were not exactly living under a theocracy either.

Oh, and by the way, I can still be fired from a job, evicted, and forbidden from being guardian to children because of my orientation. Thanks to other people's religious values.

With respect to eviction, a landlord who tries to break your lease on a discriminatory basis would have trouble doing so even if you live in a city or state without express protections against sexual orientation discrimination. I'm not sure what kind of "eviction" you're talking about.

At any rate, I don't want to generalize too broadly, but at least in the first two instances, it's to a great extent thanks to other people's constitutional freedoms, not their religious values per se, that these things can happen.

I also can't have a military career unless I either engage in deception or join the armed forces of another nation. It's so nice that other people's religion determines what rights I have or don't have.

Can this actually be shown to be due to other people's religion?

I can make one case that fundamentalists are already effecting my life without even thinking.

Stem cell research and the refusal of funding for it on grounds that are spiritual. This technology may one day save my life, or the life of a family member if research of it was allowed.

Of course, it's much too soon to say whether this has affected your life. But embryonic stem cell research is neither illegal nor unfunded by the federal government, and quite a bit of it is currently going on in the United States. I'm under the impression that the amount of federal funding going to stem cell research has increased significantly every year since 2000, when it was zero. And only a minority of people opposed to expanding the boundaries of embryonic stem cell research cite religious objections, which makes one question whether laying the blame (if there is any blame) at the foot of religion is warranted.

They control the oval office I call that a threat.

Who are they?

Few politicians can get elected without paying lip service to the god of abraham. I dont consider that insignificant.

Yet if you're right, since "lip service" is by definition unaccompanied by real conviction or action, then isn't its significance likewise limited by definition?

Those fundies that kill abortion doctors scare the crap out of me.

Yes, but there were only ever four or five such people in this country - at least one of whom was pretty clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - and they are all dead or behind bars. It's such an aberration, albeit a tragic one, that it doesn't seem as justifiably worrisome as, say, the prospect of being struck by lightning, or killed by terrorists who are fundamentalists of the non-Christian variety.