[lit-ideas] Re: Religious Fascism
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:51:28 -0300
1. I would appreciate a quote from any Christian fundamentalist, who leads a
national organization, who claims that "falsehoods are not only acceptable,
they are a necessity". What I have found is that Christian fundamentalists
will be quite upfront about their goals since a) faithfulness takes the
narrow road and therefore is identified, in part, by persecution and lack of
popular support, and b)the truth prevails and so faithfulness requires being
as truthful as possible. I find the claim of using falsehoods remarkably
ironic given the well-deserved reputation of Christian fundamentalists for
being loud and noisy when it comes to their beliefs. It seems to me that
one reason why no Christian fundamentalist will ever be a president is their
unwillingness to compromise their beliefs and their being quite open
regarding what they do believe.
2. If one believes that particular disagreements are not only moral in
nature but fundamental, then I don't see the reference to 'evil' as
surprising. For similar sentiments, consider those on this list who cast
their opponents under the cloak of 'bloodthirsty', 'racists', etc. Surely
those terms would fall under the category of 'evil', so, again, irony
abounds.
3. Since fundamentalists believe that disagreements are moral and
fundamental, character is necessarily an issue. Again, the personal attacks
on Lawrence and Eric on this list, and their justification on the grounds of
their holding evil beliefs, are
of a kind with what one finds amongst the Fox News crowd when the Clintons
are mentioned. One rarely finds complaints regarding the character
assassination of one's opponent, instead usually finding this described as
'telling the truth'. See here comments on this list regarding the character
of Dubya.
4. Simon wrote: "The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and
brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch
opposition of any kind." I don't know to what this refers. I will assume
that this refers to the matters covered by 2. and 3. so that I don't need to
add anything more.
It seems to me that in popular discourse, the terms 'fundamentalist' and
'Christian fundamentalist' have become, like the term 'fascist', largely
meaningless and serve a purely negative role. This is unfortunate since
these terms have, in particular circles, significant meaning that might
serve to inform popular discourse.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
