Are fundys (of ALL types) a threat?

Great Debates
1

I have a belief that religious fundamentalists (hereafter referred to as “Fundies” because it’s shorter) are a threat to Western societies and should be discouraged, derided and ignored as much as possible. This belief is based on the following:

Fundies desire to convert people to their own way of life and thinking. God tells them to do this and, after all, “it’s for your own good.”

The fastest way to gain converts is to have a state-sponsored religion. This makes it politically correct to be devout as well as giving religious authorities the ability to discourage other religions as well as anyone claiming to be an athiest.

Fundies in the US and other countries actively involve themselves in politics by either running for office or, more often, supporting various candidates in return for legislation favoring Fundy veiwpoints.

A religiously-supported government is incompatible with modern life, forbidding or discouraging freedom of speech and religion, freedom of sexual orientation, and many other aspects of daily life we take forgranted in North America and Europe.

This boils down to Fundies are actively trying to interfere in my personal life.

Anyone care to disagree?

Testy.

(Still looking for a good sig file!)

2

(WARNING: I will be generalizing in this post)

Well, look at it this way… there are Fundamentalists who believe everything in the Bible is literally true (some more, some less), then there are “Fundies” which believe that everything that ISN’T in the Bible is false. The latter are the ones to avoid, as any excessive fanaticism of that sort is bound to lead to a lack of reason and a one-sided stubborness that hinders more than it helps.

I see no reason why God can’t be reasonable. (There’s a sig line for ya!)

3

I think any assholes trying to interfere with my personal life or create a government that is not secular “should be discouraged, derided and ignored as much as possible.” As for whether they are fundamentalist Christians, I don’t really think it should matter. And I certainly don’t want to try to interfere with their lives or beliefs. I’m not going to have any opinion about fundamentalist Christians in general that is based on the actions of a few assholes that they associate with.

4

Thanks guy. (I assume.)

I agree with your classifications but don’t think it makes much difference which category the person falls into. If he believes everything in the Bible is literally true, should he really be in charge of national research policies? Or how about that fine stash of nucs the US keeps? S By being a “Fundy,” of either type, he has demonstrated a lack of reason and could also probably swallow other false-but-interesting ideas such as aliens at area 51, Loch Ness monsters, and possibly other, more consequential, items like “gays cause AIDS,” “Witches should not be allowed to live,” or maybe “Jews are in a conspiracy to take over the world.” Anyway, you get my drift, some of those could cause some serious problems. LOL And thanks to you, I’ve got a sig line! S

Regards.

Testy.

I see no reason why God can’t be reasonable.

5

I consider fundys (not necessarily Christian ones) more likely to interfere with either of our lives than say, a large corporation or the like. Having said that, I agree with you 100%! Can I get an AMEN on that! LOL

Regards.

Testy.

I see no reason why God can’t be reasonable.

6

I agree with your assessment and disagree with your prescription. You can’t block them and their activities without defining them, and once you’ve done so you’ve effectively enshrined a religion of sorts of your own, even if it is conceived of as an anti-religion (or an anti-fundamentalism). It’s sort of like trying to ban the Nazi party. In both cases, unrestricted freedom of opinion and the right to express it–even if the opinion is the opinion that other people should be allowed their opinions–is the best way to stomp out ignorance and tyranny.

7

Insert a “not” in that sentence please.

8

I agree that you can’t abolish a group without setting something worse in it’s place. After all, once you ban one thing, where does it stop? And who decides? What I had in mind was more like enhanced education with an emphasis on science and reasoning along with demonstrations that THESE TECHNIQUES WORK! Every time. If such a system were implemented, someone popping out with a fundy belief like “Yes, Moses really DID make the Red sea part so he could get across it.” would be looked upon as borderline insane, or at least mentally challenged. I believe this could be done although it would admittedly take a generation and a LOT of persistance.

Oh yes, the “NOT” was understood.

Regards.

Testy.

I see no reason why God can’t be reasonable!

9

Can you give an example of a Christian politician advocating a state sponsored religion, forbidding freedom of speech and religion, or outlawing certain sexual preferences?

10

In answer to your question, yes, I can. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I work in the Middle East and frankly don’t follow either politics or religion that closely. However, having said that, how about a few quotes from my favorite fundy, the reverend Pat Robertson?

“When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. What do you mean?' the media challenged me. You’re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?’ My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.’”
-from Pat Robertson’s “The New World Order,” page 218.

“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don’t have to be nice to them.”–Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Or how about a quote from a Mr. Randal Terry is either does or used to work for Mr. Robertson?

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”–Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

As far as my contention that fundys wish to acquire power in the government, try this quote.

“We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996.” --Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 10/26/92

I realize that Mr. Robertson is probably pretty extreme for many Christians but after all, I DON’T dislike Christians or Muslims or indeed ANY religious people. How they spend their time is certainly their business.
What I dislike are fundamentalists of any description. I dislike them even more when they attempt to gain control of my life or dictate to me in any way.

Best Regards.

Testy.

11

The quotes you cited state that if Mr Robertson were elected he would seek to bring other like minded Christians or Jews into government. Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable of course ,but he is not advocating a state-religion, curtailment of first amendment freedoms or outlawing of certain sexual preferences.

12

Puddleglum, I think you’re only arguing degree, not intent.

Basic problem, IMHO, is when a person believes that there is only ONE way of living, applicable to everyone, and that all other ways are inherently wrong.

American society is founded upon diversity:

  • laws enabling freedom of speech and freedom of religion, etc
  • laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and national origin.
  • citizenship available to (almost) everyone
  • a society largely founded on immigrants, from everywhere in the world
  • Etc etc

It therefore seems to me that a “fundamentalist” prescribing one way of correct living, and only one way, has a basic conflict with the diversity of American society.

Note that I have no problem with someone saying there’s only one lifestyle for him/herself, or for his/her family or small group. The problem is when that lifestyle is taken to be the RIGHT WAY for everyone. Fundamentalist groups like the Amish, or Hasidic Jews, for example, don’t try to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Fundies like Pat Robertson are, in fact, out to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Or fundies like Irani Muslims who aim to convert by the sword or kill the infidels, those are the dangerous ones.

13

Afterthought: it has always seemed the height of hubris, to me, to limit God by thinking there is only one path, one way, to reach God. Surely God is not so restricted, so limited, so bureaucratic that He would allow only one path to him.

14

Do you have a cite for this? He ran for President in 1988, he has a daily TV show, and has written several books. There should be a quote form him or another politician that says after our election we will impose a state sponsored religion, curtail the first amendment, or outlaw certain sexual preferences.
The previous quotes from him suggest that he wantspeople who agree with him on issues to be elected, which hardly sounds sinister.

15

Well puddle, ya got me. I admit that he never said he would outlaw any religions. He simply mentioned disenfranchising them, preventing them from participation in government. Or, in other words, making anyone of a different faith a second class citizen. While I admit that there are differences between outlawing a belief and simply dis-enfranchising them, the differences effectively amount to zero in the end.

As far as Pat the Fundy wishing to outlaw sexual orientations other than once a week in the missionary position with the lights off:

(talking about Planned Parenthood) “It is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism-everything that the Bible condemns.”–Pat Robertson, “The 700 Club,” 4/9/91

or this one:

“How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?”–Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227

While I will admit that this is not exactly outlawing any kind of gay lifestyle, it seems fairly certain that Pat isn’t in favor of it either. Given the chance, can you believe that he wouldn’t outlaw those activities or lifestyles? After all, “The Bible condemns them.”

I would like to do a better job on the cites and references but unfortunately, I’m living in a country that is what I believe Pat Robertson and the rest of the fundy crown would like to turn the US into. It’s a gloomy and generally dismal place where anything not mandatory is more-or-less forbidden. This includes the net access, heavily filtered on just about every topic.

Best regards.

Testy.

16

Robertson may desire to do such a thing, but his chances of being elected were nil. If he HAD been elected, you honestly believe that he would get away with such a thing? He’d be impaled on a rail faster than you can say Preparation H!

It’s like, “I may not agree with your views, but I will fight to the death for you to be allowed to have them,” or something like that…

17

You accused Robertson and others of trying to accomplish specific things and then when asked provided no cites for any of them. It is obvious that Robertson does not like homosexuals and finds their influence over Government nefarious but that is totally different than trying to outlaw that particular sexual preference.
You have defamed a large group of americans based on nothing other than prejudice. I suggest you educate yourself and try to base your assertions on facts.

18

LOL I love the quote, but I don’t think Pat would care for it. I’d also be happy to help cut the rail. S Yeah, I agree that he didn’t have a snowball’s chance of being elected BUT, he doesn’t have to be elected himself to get what he wants. All he has to do is be able to deliver sufficient votes, or even make a credible promise.

My point is that fundys have WAY too much influence in government and are actively trying to acquire more. I suppose it’s their priviledge but it frankly gives me the willies. The guy wants the North American continent to revert to the 19th century or preferably earlier.

All the best.

Testy.

19

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

20

PuddleGlum.

Thank you so much for the correction. I hope you’ve noticed that I scrupulously avoided categorizing either christians or religious people in general in a negative way. Actually, I don’t even dislike fundys as long as they aren’t out trying to change MY life. As far as homosexuals “Influencing the government,” as far as I know, they have NEVER tried to outlaw heterosexual relations or even gone on a recruiting drive. And there is the difference.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not have access to the web and other resources that I would like but I feel that the cites I gave you should be sufficient to make two points:

A) Pat Robertson and other fundy groups would like political power and actively try to acquire it.

B) After acquiring such power a fundy group would at least attempt to make radical changes in what people are, and are not, allowed to do.

I personally do not care for the “born again” agenda and feel that these people are a menace.

Best regards.

Testy.