I found this article on another forum, called "The Fundamentalist Agenda", written by a Unitarian Universalist minister. It's well written, and focuses on the commonalities of fundamentalism in religions, vs. the liberal agenda.
http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html
Quote: "
But there are far more fundamental things to understand about fundamentalism, especially in this age of terrorism. An adequate understanding also includes some inescapable and uncomfortable critiques of America's cultural liberalism of the last four decades. The attacks on September 11, 2001, provided us a rare revelation about fundamentalism that arrived in two installments.
First, we became vividly aware of the things some Muslim fundamentalists hate about our culture:
The surprise second installment came just a few days after 9 / 11 in that remarkably unguarded interview on The 700 Club when the Rev. Jerry Falwell told Pat Robertson, I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Wayall of them who have tried to secularize AmericaI point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' These men are so media-savvy it's amazing they would say such things on the air. But it's also remarkable because in their list of causes of the 9 / 11 attacks, we heard almost exactly the same hate list:
I would also venture to say that in the Hindu religion and culture, fundamentalism in some aspects places women "behind" the men socially; they are seen as a weaker vessel.
Before you jump down my throat, the article does posit weaknesses in the liberal agenda, which I also agree with. But most of all, what the article is trying to do is to establish that fundamentalism as a rule seeks to limit natural behaviors of personality and sexuality (and I am not talking about crime) while at the same time permit a natural selection to take place that displaces those who cannot compete in a social Darwinistic world of dog eat dog.
Based on the previous discussions of the main commonalities of fundamentalisms, regardless of faith, such as being against women being socially and economically on the same level as men, being against homosexuality, being against other religions being practiced in a said society, is fundamentalism a viable societal goal, knowing that the "cat is out of the bag", so to speak?
Do supporters of a Christian fundamentalist government feel that their ideal government should model after say, the Saudi or Iranian style of theocratic government, in which women cannot vote, are limited to where they can work, cannot drive, are penalized for adultery, etc.?
If you feel, for example, that in a potential Christian government, that abortion should be outlawed, as well as homosexuality and adultery, like in Saudi Arabia, should womens' roles be limited too, to foment a more stable, family-based society? Please express yourself plainly, honestly with practical examples.
http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html
Quote: "
But there are far more fundamental things to understand about fundamentalism, especially in this age of terrorism. An adequate understanding also includes some inescapable and uncomfortable critiques of America's cultural liberalism of the last four decades. The attacks on September 11, 2001, provided us a rare revelation about fundamentalism that arrived in two installments.
First, we became vividly aware of the things some Muslim fundamentalists hate about our culture:
- They hate liberated women and all that symbolizes them. They hate it when women compete with men in the workplace, when they decide when or whether they will bear children, when they show the independence of getting abortions. They hate changes in laws that previously gave men more power over women.
- They hate the wide range of sexual orientations and lifestyles that have always characterized human societies. They hate homosexuality.
- They hate individual freedoms that allow people to stray from the rigid sort of truth they want to constrain all people. They hate individual rights that let others slough off their simple certainties.
The surprise second installment came just a few days after 9 / 11 in that remarkably unguarded interview on The 700 Club when the Rev. Jerry Falwell told Pat Robertson, I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Wayall of them who have tried to secularize AmericaI point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' These men are so media-savvy it's amazing they would say such things on the air. But it's also remarkable because in their list of causes of the 9 / 11 attacks, we heard almost exactly the same hate list:
- They hate liberated women who don't follow orders, who get abortions when they want them, who threaten or laugh at some men's arrogant pretensions to rule them.
- They hate the wide range of sexual orientations that have always characterized human societies. They would force the country to conform to a fantasy image of two married heterosexual parents where the husband works and the wife stays home with the childreneven when that describes fewer than 25 percent of current American families.
- They hate individual freedoms that let people stray from the one simple set of truths they want imposed on all in our country. Robertson has been on record for a long time saying that democracy isn't a fit form of government unless it is run by his kind of fundamentalist Christians.
I would also venture to say that in the Hindu religion and culture, fundamentalism in some aspects places women "behind" the men socially; they are seen as a weaker vessel.
Before you jump down my throat, the article does posit weaknesses in the liberal agenda, which I also agree with. But most of all, what the article is trying to do is to establish that fundamentalism as a rule seeks to limit natural behaviors of personality and sexuality (and I am not talking about crime) while at the same time permit a natural selection to take place that displaces those who cannot compete in a social Darwinistic world of dog eat dog.
Based on the previous discussions of the main commonalities of fundamentalisms, regardless of faith, such as being against women being socially and economically on the same level as men, being against homosexuality, being against other religions being practiced in a said society, is fundamentalism a viable societal goal, knowing that the "cat is out of the bag", so to speak?
Do supporters of a Christian fundamentalist government feel that their ideal government should model after say, the Saudi or Iranian style of theocratic government, in which women cannot vote, are limited to where they can work, cannot drive, are penalized for adultery, etc.?
If you feel, for example, that in a potential Christian government, that abortion should be outlawed, as well as homosexuality and adultery, like in Saudi Arabia, should womens' roles be limited too, to foment a more stable, family-based society? Please express yourself plainly, honestly with practical examples.
