# Are fundys (of ALL types) a threat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2001, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532 "2001-01-24T10:32:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/21 "2001-01-24T16:22:41Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. a) They are americans and this is their right. b) What basis do you have for making this assertion? If you have information, you should cite it. If you have nothing but prejudice, ignorance, and fear, you should educate yourself or refrain from making baseless assertions until you have. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/22 "2001-01-24T16:30:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \* > 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… > > 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… I agree, but if I don’t start out disagreeing with people in a post then I feel like I have missed the point of debating. The problem with this “diversity” is that it, too, becomes The One True Way for America. Perhaps I can draw an analogy. I have a friend who never gets into philosophical arguments. He hardly ever says something is “wrong” because of this, etc, etc. When pressed to the issue he’s told me, “Well, I just don’t believe in any one thing.” Aha!–I told him, but you do! The one thing you believe in is that you don’t believe in any one thing! That said, I am picking nits at your post which was, IMO, pretty darn correct. It was just incorrect as being an opposite to a One True Way. **Testy** When I entered this thread I almost expected that you would catagorize ALL fundies as ALL extremists, in any position. But, it sticks to the religious fundamentalists trying to shape your life. And that is wrong, damnit, wrong! Can I just ask you how you feel about taxation? Paying for other people’s birth control pills, roads, medicare, social security, education, etc? Did you support Clinton’s health care reform? Or are economic matters ok to be forced upon unwilling participants, just not religious ones? I say this only because of what you dislike about the fundamentalists: their extreme position on goodness for all of man, which, IMO, is exaclty what social programs decide. Just wondering… ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/23 "2001-01-24T16:43:16Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 irony of your opening two paragraphs makes me laugh through the rest of your op. Seems to me that you are a fundie yourself, and are only trying to establish your version of fundamentalism as the dominant one over the others. Mind trying to explain to me how you are any diffferent from those you claim to despise? Because to me you look the same. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/24 "2001-01-24T17:17:41Z")
Ah, one of my pet issues. First, a “fundamentalist” originally meant “one who holds steadfast to the core doctrines of Christianity.” It has evolved to mean fun stuff like Biblical literalism, a legislated morality based on their interpretation of some Scriptural passages, and all the rest of the things we love to ridicule. I see no problem with someone like **Duck Duck Goose** or myself referring to ourselves as “fundamentalists” in the original, literal meaning. **Jenkinsfan** , I believe, probably would. The additional items and the attempt to be divisive by saying, “Only if you adhere to our particular viewpoint on these issues are you a **real** Christian” is where some of us would draw the line. Now, down to some rock-bottom things that I think **all** decent people, religious or not, would oppose. My source for this is the work of Rev. Mel White, currently the leader of Soulforce, a religious protest group involved in the gay rights movement. Mr. White is gay and in a covenanted relationship with another man. Prior to coming out, he practiced denial for a long period, marrying and having a very stable relationship with his wife which included the birth of two children, one of them being the Mike White who wrote and starred in “Chuck and Buck.” Mr. White was brought up a strong right-wing Christian and became involved in the Radical Right movement as a writer and media consultant. He worked closely with Jerry Falwell, whose autobiography he ghostwrote, Pat Robertson, and others, including Billy Graham. When he came out, of course, he became anathema to them. One key point that he brings out is that the leaders of the Christian Right subscribe, in varying degrees but sincerely, to the Reconstructionist ideology and particularly to the work of the Chalcedon Foundation. See [http://www.chalcedon.edu](http://www.chalcedon.edu) for background on this. It is, I think, worth noting what they claim to support and not support – and, divested of the view (which White claims to be accurate) that they wish to convert America into a theocracy, they wish to replace our freedoms with the “freedom to live upright lives under a civil law derived from the Bible” which would not require religious conversion (though it would encourage it) but would ban “only certain socially-improper behavior.” Because people like **Wildest Bill** will support the stance of these religious leaders without examining closely where they are leading (and I don’t mean to tar Bill in particular; I’ve posted this before where he could read it, so he may have examined it and thought it through), and because most of Middle America wants a “don’t rock the boat” stable society, the net result is that the hidden agenda of these folks, as spelled out by the Chalcedon people, is IMHO a major threat to America as we know it. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/25 "2001-01-24T17:49:14Z")
While there is much to disagree with on the site that was linked to above I still find no evidence that these people are trying to set up a theocracy, establish a state-sponsored religion, curtail first amendment freedoms or outlaw certain sexual preferences. Here are some quotes from that site: > [@](#): > > No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God’ sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society > [@](#): > > Let us note that man’s property, broadly defined, includes man’s God-given freedom and ability to hold his own opinions, to act on those opinions in his own and his family’s self-interest. In short, man has a property right to conduct his affairs without interference from other entities in society-- even from the various levels of civil authority-- as long as his actions do not unjustly harm another person or another person’s property. I still have not heard any evidence that these people are trying to do anything other than exercise their constitutional rights to have their views represented. Secret religous societies intent on controlling the world are not a threat to our society whether they be "fundies’ or elders of zion. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/26 "2001-01-24T19:36:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to “spring” Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. > The Bible does not permit the state to persecute or suppress any religious belief, only certain dangerous, socially destructive practices. > > Two quotes from: “Setting the Record Straight: What Chalcedon Really Believes” by Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin I certainly do not want to misrepresent anybody, even those whom I consider to be perverting my chosen faith. However, I am quite inclined to believe a man who worked closely with public figures for the same objectives, and who later changed his mind about those objectives, as to what those public figures really think. I believe the Rev. Mr. White qualifies here. And you will note in the quotations above that they believe that “the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law” by which one may reasonably assume reference to the Mosaic code’s “moral” portions and some use of St. Paul’s and Jesus’s how-to-do-it admonitions. While their examples of “certain socially destructive _practices_” were ones most people would agree with, such as murder and robbery, it takes very little effort to establish that sexual promiscuity, gay sex, the conduct of Wiccan rituals, etc., would be seen in the context of a Christian commonwealth as being “socially destructive.” In support of that assertion, I point to threads over the last few months that have effectively accused **Esprix** of setting out to single-handedly destroy the moral fabric of American culture, a tough task even for him. (Granted that based on his MPSIMS thread on his San Diego sex life, he does seem to be giving it his best shot! ;)) In sum, whatever they may protest about their high and lofty intentions, what they want to do is to so influence the legal apparatus of this country as to make it a representation of what they consider Christian moral standards, and what we liberal Christians and most others unite in considering Pharasaic legalism in unnecessarily regulating the behavior of others to meet one’s own views of what is “proper behavior.” At least Martha Stewart doesn’t lobby Congress! ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/27 "2001-01-24T19:50:51Z")
There is a great leap from “biblical civil law” to what you accuse them of wanting. Their own site explicitly denies they want what you say they do. I would think they know more about their goals than you do. Their site describes their political beliefs as “Christian Libertarianism”. Can you provide a quote in which they or any one else advocate using positions of power in the government to establish a state sponsored religion, curtailment of first amendment rights, or outlawing certain sexual preferences? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/28 "2001-01-24T21:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > Can you provide a quote in which they or any one else advocate using positions of power in the government to establish a state sponsored religion, curtailment of first amendment rights, or outlawing certain sexual preferences? Yes. Please re-read the quotation provided by **Polycarp**. 1. Establishment - The institution of Biblical civil law **is** the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. It enshrines in law the religious beliefs of one group, and enforces those religious beliefs on the rest of society. 2) They wish to establish a “Christian state”. Christianity, last I checked, is a religion. Hence, if the state endorses and enforces Christianity and its beliefs, it is a state-sponsored religion. You seem to have an incorrectly narrow definition of “establishment of a state sponsored religion.” Establishment does not simply mean “giving money to a particular church”. 1. Curtailment of first amendment rights - If the law is Biblical civil law, it will deny the right of non-Christians to engage in practices that are not in accord with the law as set down in the Bible. 2. Outlawing certain sexual preferences - I admit that they do not explicitly mention homosexuality in this quotation, but what “certain dangerous, socially destructive practices” do **you** think they are referring to? As I have heard Falwell, Robertson, and the like state that homosexuality and homosexual practice are dangerous and socially destructive, I believe it is a wholly logical assumption that they are referring to homosexuality, and intend to outlaw it. 3. “Their own site explicitly denies they want what you say they do.” So? If I say that “all them [insert minority here] are ignorant and criminal, but I’m not a bigot”, does that mean I’m not a bigot? After all, I explicitly denied it. If Rev. Sandlin truly believes that their intent is not to “persecute or suppress any religious belief”, they haven’t read the rest of what he wrote. Sua ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/29 "2001-01-24T22:12:49Z")
You are presuming to know what “biblical civil law” is better than the people who are trying to achieve it. What evidence do you have that the establishment of a state religion. They seem to believe that what ever “biblical civil law” is, it does not mean imposition of beliefs on other people. The site is obviously intended for supporters, why would they lie to their supporters as to what they want? They seem to me short on specifics as to what they do want, but they specifically deny they want what you say they do. ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/30 "2001-01-24T22:40:11Z")
WRT the OP - In the end, I think it is not **fundamentalists** that are the problem. It is **fanatics** who cause the unrest and who seem to want to force everyone else to follow their way - or else. from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com): > [@](#): > > fa·nat·ic n. > A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. > > Synonyms: fanatic, zealot. > > These nouns denote persons who are ardently and usually excessively devoted to a particular cause, subject, or activity. Fanatic implies the pursuit of a given interest to inordinate and even irrational lengths, often to the exclusion of all other interests: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject” (Winston S. Churchill). A zealot is immoderately devoted to a cause or goal and seeks to advance it with passionate fervor: “those furious zealots who blow the bellows of faction until the whole furnace of politics is red-hot” (Washington Irving). It is this “unreasoning” and “immoderate” “excessive devotion” that causes the problems the OP perceives. At least, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/31 "2001-01-24T22:58:10Z")
Testy\_ I still do not think that you answered Puddle’s query. He asked for a POLITICIAN that expoused those beliefs, and all you could come up with is Robertson- who is, at best: a “wanna-be politician”. See, folks with those kinds of beliefs are very rarely elected to any postion of power. Next- “I do not think that word means what you think it does”. There are millions of Fundamentalists who have no desire to force or coerce others to beleive the way they beleive- in fact- most of them. As CKdex pointed out- the Hasidic & the Amish- both extreme “fundie” groups- have no desire to make others convert. You are not ranting about “Fundies” you are ranting about “radical extremists”, or as Dogsbody just put it “fanatics”. And, yes- any group of extremists/fanatics, either religous or political can be dangerous. There are legit, non-violent “pro-life” groups- and there are the one whos assasinate Doctors & bomb clinics. There are environmentalist orgs to whom the world owes much- and then there are the ones who “monkeywrench” & bomb. There are peaceful political groups in Eire who work towards unificatiopn- and then there are the cowardly terrorists who bomb schoolbuses. Comparing all “Fundies” to those who desire to coerce or force others to accept their beleifs- is like comparing the Nature Conservancy to one of the terrorist environmental groups. Those who accept a “Fundamental” or “Literal” meaning of the Bible or other work are not dangerous. Those who desire to force or coerce others to beleive the way they do- are. Even if their belief is political, not religous. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/32 "2001-01-24T23:13:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > You are presuming to know what “biblical civil law” is better than the people who are trying to achieve it. > **[Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/)** > > The dictionary by Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation. #wordsmatter Main Entry: bib·li·cal Pronunciation: 'bi-bli-k&l Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin biblicus, from biblia Date: circa 1775 1 : of, relating to, or being in accord with the Bible 2 : suggestive of the Bible or Bible times > **[Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/)** > > The dictionary by Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation. #wordsmatter Main Entry: bi·bleMain Entry: bi·ble Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported Date: 14th century 1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism) Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported Date: 14th century 1 _capitalized_ a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism) Hence, “biblical civil law” is “civil law of, relating to, or being in accord with the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament.” As I can read, I know what biblical civil law is. > [@](#): > > What evidence do you have that the establishment of a state religion. “we believe that the **Bible should apply to all of life, including the state** ; and because we believe that **the Christian state** should enforce Biblical civil law” – “Setting the Record Straight: What Chalcedon Really Believes” by Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin > **[Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/)** > > The dictionary by Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation. #wordsmatter Main Entry: 2Christian Function: adjective Date: 1553 1 a : of or relating to Christianity \ b : based on or conforming with Christianity \ Hence, a Christian state “is a government based on or conforming with Christianity”. As I informed you in my last post, Christianity is a religion. Hence, the intent of Rev. Sandlin is the establishment of a state religion. > [@](#): > > They seem to believe that what ever “biblical civil law” is, it does not mean imposition of beliefs on other people. If the law of the land is based upon a religion, it imposes those beliefs on people who do not belong to that religion. _Res ipsa loquitur_. > [@](#): > > The site is obviously intended for supporters, why would they lie to their supporters as to what they want? 1. The site is obviously not intended for just its supporters; it is just as obviously intended to gain new supporters. 2. I’m not accusing them of lying - in fact I have made no judgments whatsoever about their ideals, goals, etc. And, in point of fact, there is a distinct possibility that their goals, if enacted, would fall short of their definition of “state religion”. It would not, however, fall short of Merriam-Webster’s definition. > [@](#): > > They specifically deny they want what you say they do. And Clinton specifically denied having sexual relations with that woman. And I am firmly convinced that to know me is to love me, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, I’m not accusing Rev. Sandlin of lying - he may firmly believe what he is saying. But the imposition of religion-based law on non-believers is, by definition, the imposition of the religion’s beliefs on non-believers and, as such, is enshrining in law that religion over other religions. **Puddlegum** , once you get past this utterly silly denial that the Chalcedon want to establish a Christian state (and again, they use **that very phrase** ), we can start having an actual debate on the following issues: 1. Can they achieve this?; and 2. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Shall we _please_ go onto the debate now, **Puddle**? Sua ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/33 "2001-01-24T23:13:44Z")
OK, important fact: Pat Robertson is not a politician. He is a religious figure who once ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche ran for president too, that doesn’t make him a politician. You’re only a politician if you WIN. So, John Ashcroft who was a senator just a few months ago could be called a politician. Hell, even Jesse Jackson in his capacity as non-voting representative from DC could be stretched to be a politician. But Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Ozzy Osbourne, Marilyn Manson, and Charles Dickens are not politicians even if they advocate political beliefs. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/34 "2001-01-24T23:27:56Z")
Um, these people bother me! > [@](#): > > A Christian Reconstructionist is a Theonomist. Theonomy means “God’s law.” A Christian Reconstructionist believes God’s law is found in the Bible. It has not been abolished as a standard of > righteousness. It no longer accuses the Christian, since Christ bore its penalty on the cross for him. But the law is a description of God’s righteous character. It cannot change any more than God > can change. God’s law is used for three main purposes: First, to drive the sinner to trust in Christ alone, the only perfect law-keeper. Second, to provide a standard of obedience for the Christian, > by which he may judge his progress in sanctification. And third, to maintain order in society, restraining and arresting civil evil. So what happened to loving your enemy and not restraining those who do evil? And since it doesn’t “accuse” the Christian, I suppose only non-Christians would be “restrained and arrested.” Very very disturbing! Not to be confused with Christianity. Although, they go on to say they don’t believe in using force to get their way: > [@](#): > > [The Christian Reconstrutionalist] has infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs, he has the invincible Spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail. So they’d have cops without guns and they’d quote scriptures at you until you gave up!! They’d never take me alive! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/35 "2001-01-25T05:49:28Z")
Do the Christian Reconstructionists want to establish a theocracy in which religious liberty would be annihilated? Yes. Without a doubt. > [@](#): > > Deuteronomy 13 cites three cases of instigation to idolatry, _first_, in vv. 1-5, by the false prophet; _second_, in vv. 6-11, by a private individual; and, _third_, by a city, vv. 12-18. The penalty in every case is death without mercy…Biblical law can no more permit the propagation of idolatry than Marxism can permit counter-revolution, or monarchy a move to execute the king, or a republic an attempt to destroy the republic and create a dictatorship. – R.J. Rushdoony, _The Institutes of Biblical Law_, (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 38-39. > [@](#): > > All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They > have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They are thus idolaters, and are, in our generation, when our world is idolatrous and our states also, to be objects of missionary activity. – R.J. Rushdoony, “Idolatry and the Law,” _Law and Society: Volume II of The Institutes of Biblical Law_, (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), p. 468. > [@](#): > > _Q._ Looking now at some specifics of the law, perhaps people find it easier to accept the death penalty for murder and rape, and certain other crimes, but then Scripture seems to teach that the death penalty applies to idolatry – for example, Ex. 22:20, besides other places. How would you see that law’s application today? > > _A._…When someone comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man) – when some one tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state – then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate… – [“An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen”](http://www.cmfnow.com/cgi-bin/nextpg?cmd=NextPg!52108&dir=s7!articles&tpl=PE179.htm) > [@](#): > > Everyone talks about religious liberty, but no one believes it. So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. – Gary North, [“The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right”, _The Failure of the American Baptist Culture_](http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21ce_47e.htm), [p. 25](http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/cc_1/CC_1-40.html) I have a more extensive collection of quotations from a wide variety of theocratically-inclined ultra-fundamentalists (including some non-Christians) on the web page [Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation](http://www.church-state.org/alts.htm). It should be noted that I’m mainly talking here about the _intent_ of Christian Reconstructionists (and the others I quote on that page), and not necessarily their actual _capacity_ to put their views into effect. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/36 "2001-01-25T05:55:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you provide a quote in which they or any one else advocate using positions of power in the government to establish a state sponsored religion, curtailment of first amendment rights, or outlawing certain sexual preferences? Puddlegum, you really need to go to [Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation](http://www.church-state.org/alts.htm). There you will find quotes by various authors explicitly calling for the establishment of Christianity as the state religion; the curtailment of first amendment rights; and the death penalty for homosexual acts. Wherever possible I have links from that page to the web sites of the original authors, and full bibliographic citations where that isn’t possible. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/37 "2001-01-25T07:05:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \* > > 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… > > > > 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… > > I agree, but if I don’t start out disagreeing with people in a post then I feel like I have missed the point of debating. > The problem with this “diversity” is that it, too, becomes The One True Way for America. > > Perhaps I can draw an analogy. I have a friend who never gets into philosophical arguments. He hardly ever says something is “wrong” because of this, etc, etc. When pressed to the issue he’s told me, “Well, I just don’t believe in any one thing.” Aha!–I told him, but you do! The one thing you believe in is that you don’t believe in any one thing! > > That said, I am picking nits at your post which was, IMO, pretty darn correct. It was just incorrect as being an opposite to a One True Way. > > **Testy** > When I entered this thread I almost expected that you would catagorize ALL fundies as ALL extremists, in any position. But, it sticks to the religious fundamentalists trying to shape your life. And that is wrong, damnit, wrong! > > Can I just ask you how you feel about taxation? Paying for other people’s birth control pills, roads, medicare, social security, education, etc? Did you support Clinton’s health care reform? Or are economic matters ok to be forced upon unwilling participants, just not religious ones? > > I say this only because of what you dislike about the fundamentalists: their extreme position on goodness for all of man, which, IMO, is exaclty what social programs decide. > > Just wondering… \*\* Thanks for noticing that I tried to avoid a global slam on all fundamentalists. In answer to your question, I have a serious dislike of almost ANYONE trying to run my life, take money which I earned without my consent, or organize me in any other way. It especially irks me when someone tells me that “it’s for my own good.” That IMHO is adding insult to injury. Having said all of that, there are certain things which obviously have to be paid for in common, roads are one of the things you mentioned, a military is another and there many other examples that a few minutes thought will provide. One of the few things that makes a politician even remotely tolerable is that at least he can’t claim moral superiority or that “God says this is what we should do based on MY interpretation of the Bible/Koran/whatever.” Or worse yet, “I’m here because God _WANTS_ me to be here,” with the obvious but unspoken addendum that if you disagree you are, in effect, arguing with God. Hope this clarifies where I’m coming from. What’s your opinion on people taking money off of you for the items you mentioned? Thanks and all the best to you. Testy ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/38 "2001-01-25T07:06:59Z")
puddleglum, what exactly do you think you’re proving? You ask for proof of a claim that the OP never made, and every time someone posts evidence, you dismiss it as not being explicit enough. What do expect, a signed declaration from President Bush declaring “I am a Christian Fundamentalist in all senses of the word, and I wish to oppress, in every sense of the word, every non-Christian. Everything that Testy has said or implied is true. puddleglum is wrong.”? Do you really think that you can find quotes from fundamentalists saying that they don’t want to oppress non-Christians proves anything? They’re **fundamentalists**. They’ll say anything that is convenient. That’s part of being a fundamentalist/fanatic. If you can’t see the manifest truth of the statement “Christian fundamentalists are a serious threat to our relgious liberties” already, then I don’t think that any evidence will convince you, any more than any evidence will convince a fundamentalist that the Bible is wrong. You also have an annoying habit of using the word “you” as if there were only one other poster in this thread. If you wish to address a comment to a specific person, the intelligent thing to do is to preface the comment with the person’s name. You also repeatedly have accused people of making claims that they have not supported, but not citing any such claims. If you see a claim that you believe has not been supported, then quote it and then ask for evidence. Your practice of saying such things as “but they specifically deny they want what you say they do.” “There is a great leap from ‘biblical civil law’ to what you accuse them of wanting.” “What basis do you have for making this assertion?” [preceded by multiple quoted assertions] “You accused Robertson and others of trying to accomplish specific things” makes it very difficult to tell just what claims you are challenging. I don’t know. Maybe that’s you intent: to simply confuse your opponents as to what you disagree with, so that they can’t argue against you. While this may make you able to come away feeling like you won, it doesn’t really accomplish anything beyond that. Lemur866 > [@](#): > > OK, important fact: Pat Robertson is not a politician. He is a religious figure who once ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche ran for president too, that doesn’t make him a politician. You’re only a politician if you WIN. You have a strange definition of “fact”. Apparently it refers to whatever helps your case. Politician: 1a One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics. If the definition of “politician” were to exclude Robertson, that would make the matter of whether or not someone is a politician irrelevant anyway, since people like Robertson do cause significant harm, and it is the harm that these people cause, and not the actual positions that they hold, that matters. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/39 "2001-01-25T08:05:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Ah, one of my pet issues. > > First, a “fundamentalist” originally meant “one who holds steadfast to the core doctrines of Christianity.” It has evolved to mean fun stuff like Biblical literalism, a legislated morality based on their interpretation of some Scriptural passages, and all the rest of the things we love to ridicule. > > I see no problem with someone like **Duck Duck Goose** or myself referring to ourselves as “fundamentalists” in the original, literal meaning. **Jenkinsfan** , I believe, probably would. The additional items and the attempt to be divisive by saying, “Only if you adhere to our particular viewpoint on these issues are you a **real** Christian” is where some of us would draw the line. > > Now, down to some rock-bottom things that I think **all** decent people, religious or not, would oppose. My source for this is the work of Rev. Mel White, currently the leader of Soulforce, a religious protest group involved in the gay rights movement. Mr. White is gay and in a covenanted relationship with another man. Prior to coming out, he practiced denial for a long period, marrying and having a very stable relationship with his wife which included the birth of two children, one of them being the Mike White who wrote and starred in “Chuck and Buck.” Mr. White was brought up a strong right-wing Christian and became involved in the Radical Right movement as a writer and media consultant. He worked closely with Jerry Falwell, whose autobiography he ghostwrote, Pat Robertson, and others, including Billy Graham. When he came out, of course, he became anathema to them. > > One key point that he brings out is that the leaders of the Christian Right subscribe, in varying degrees but sincerely, to the Reconstructionist ideology and particularly to the work of the Chalcedon Foundation. See > [http://www.chalcedon.edu](http://www.chalcedon.edu) for background on this. It is, I think, worth noting what they claim to support and not support – and, divested of the view (which White claims to be accurate) that they wish to convert America into a theocracy, they wish to replace our freedoms with the “freedom to live upright lives under a civil law derived from the Bible” which would not require religious conversion (though it would encourage it) but would ban “only certain socially-improper behavior.” > > Because people like **Wildest Bill** will support the stance of these religious leaders without examining closely where they are leading (and I don’t mean to tar Bill in particular; I’ve posted this before where he could read it, so he may have examined it and thought it through), and because most of Middle America wants a “don’t rock the boat” stable society, the net result is that the hidden agenda of these folks, as spelled out by the Chalcedon people, is IMHO a major threat to America as we know it. > > \*\* Thank you for that, you’ve obviously studied the matter in great depth. I have no dislike of religious people in general, even fundamentalists as you define them. My remarks about “fundies” are strictly pointed at the other type, the ones wishing to legislate my country into a 21st century version of the dark ages. My own background is one of extreme religious fundamentalism, son of a hell-fire & brimstone Baptist preacher, lived in West Kentucky, etc. so I understand these folks quite well. The “Legislated Morality” you mention gives me the willies. As I mentioned in a previous post, I live in a theocracy at the moment and it is unpleasant to say the least. Oddly enough, it is even MORE unpleasant for moderate believers of the dominant faith here. As a “foreign infidel” I miss out on many of the worst aspects of the legal oppression practiced here. Mr. White has my sympathy for what that’s worth. Having been on the inside of the fundamentalist crowd I believe that, short of renouncing his sexual orientation, he will NEVER be accepted by that crowd. After all, his lifestyle is defined as “evil” by the revealed word of God as inerpreted by various “spiritual leaders.” The “blind-faith” aspect of religious fandamentalism is something that bothers me. Uncritical acceptance of an argument from authority seems a short road to a pitiful existance. So, what to do about the threat that such people pose? I believe that the answer to this is education. An emphasis on logic and the requirement for proof to back up a statement. Fundies oppose such education bitterly and are having an alarming degree of degree of success. An example would be the teaching of creationist science in Arkansas. Now, people can make jokes about Arkansas being a nest of rednecks or say the average IQ has dropped due to serious inbreeding or something but that’s not the case. The reason IMO that such legislation passed is that the people who opposed it were unable to come forward for fear of being defined as “evil,” “an East-Coast-Liberal” or, God save us, even a supporter of Carl Sagan. _S_ Anyway, thanks again and best regards. Testy. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532/40 "2001-01-25T08:11:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > a) They are americans and this is their right. > b) What basis do you have for making this assertion? If you have information, you should cite it. If you have nothing but prejudice, ignorance, and fear, you should educate yourself or refrain from making baseless assertions until you have. > \*\* I did give you a direct quote from Pat Robertson saying he wanted the Republican party in fundamentalist hands by a certain date. To me at least, it logically follows that he and his friends would make changes favorable to Christian fundamentalist agenda. Why else would they bother? After all, politics is a hard game. I think you are correct in asserting that it is their right to attempt to sway the political process if they can. It is also my right, and possibly even a duty, to stand up and disagree. To attempt to block them if I can and persuade others to do the same. Regards Testy [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundys-of-all-types-a-threat/51532.md?page=3)