Why Fundamentalism is bad for American democracy

Sauron · Jun 16, 2002

Heartbreaking. No wonder that the Founding Fathers wanted to restrict the right of voting to the landed gentry. They were less susceptible to religious-based nonsense.

http://msnbc.com/news/767581.asp

Scientific illiteracy is no joke

Educators say public lacks the knowledge to keep up with
key issues

NEW YORK, June 15 Can a nation debate the merits of cloning when fewer than half its adults can give decent definition of DNA? Can it render good judgment on genetically engineered food when only a quarter can define a molecule? And can Americans assess competing medical claims when only a third show a good understanding of the scientific process? Experts see cause for concern in the latest report card on American scientific understanding. But they arent surprised.

Defender of the Faith 777 · Jun 16, 2002

Um... our founding fathers sorta WERE fundamentalists: born-again Christians, Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Protestants; we've got so many names now.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Founded on "Fundamentalist" beliefs.

RufusAtticus · Jun 16, 2002

Umm, Defender, I do not know of a single Founding Father who would qualify as a Fundementalist, Evangelical, or Born-Again by today's standards. I could be wrong though. Could you (or anyone else) tell me who you're thinking of?

Sauron · Jun 16, 2002

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
Um... our founding fathers sorta WERE fundamentalists: born-again Christians, Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Protestants; we've got so many names now.

No. They were not. They were primarily Deists.

Here's a hint for you: Rhode Island. Study the history.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Founded on "Fundamentalist" beliefs.

Click to expand...

Again, wrong. It was founded on principles of the Enlightenment, and the economic desire of a class of people to get out from underneath direct monarchial control.

RufusAtticus · Jun 16, 2002

From the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:

Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Full text available here.

Defender of the Faith 777 · Jun 16, 2002

Not the denomination of that, but they had the same principles as far as I've known. When I say that this country was based on Judeo-Christian principles, perahps a look at the constitution would work. It has so many allusions and inspirations from the Bible. When I say that they were Bible Christians, I mean that at the time, they were simply just called Christians.

I'll check the text.

The Enlightenment came about with Transcendentalism, in the early-mid 1800's.

It was trying to get out of monarchial control, religiosly.

Defender of the Faith 777 · Jun 16, 2002

I didn't say that it was grounded in the Christian religion, or that it was a theocracy. I said it was based and alluded to Christian principles.

Sauron · Jun 16, 2002

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
Not the denomination of that, but they had the same principles as far as I've known. When I say that this country was based on Judeo-Christian principles, perahps a look at the constitution would work.

You might also try the texts of Madison and Jefferson, who were the two individuals most influential on the Constitution. You'll find that neither one wanted a religious-based government.

It has so many allusions and inspirations from the Bible.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does not.

When I say that they were Bible Christians, I mean that at the time, they were simply just called Christians.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean very much. In the mid-1700s, almost everyone identified themselves as christians, regardless of their beliefs or how sincere their practice was. It was *unthinkable* to identify yourself as anything else. Saying you were *christian* meant that you were civilized and westernized. You need to peer a couple of more levels deeper, to see exactly what the person thought and how they acted on a daily basis.

I'll check the text.

Click to expand...

Good.

The Enlightenment came about with Transcendentalism, in the early-mid 1800's.

Click to expand...

No, it did not. It started in the 1700s. Both Franklin and Jefferson were followers of Enlightenment thinking. In fact, it was ideas of teh Enlightenment that contributed to the French Revolution of 1789 - obviously impossible, if the Enlightenment didn't occur until the 1800s.

Britannica:

Enlightenment, French SIÈCLE DE LUMIÈRES ("Age of the Enlightened"), German AUFKLÄRUNG, a European intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries in which ideas concerning God, reason, nature, and man were synthesized into a worldview that gained wide assent and that instigated revolutionary developments in art, philosophy, and politics. Central to Enlightenment thought were the use and the celebration of reason, the power by which man understands the universe and improves his own condition. The goals of rational man were considered to be knowledge, freedom, and happiness.

Click to expand...

It was trying to get out of monarchial control, religiosly.

Click to expand...

No. Religion was never the chief concern. Economic independence was far more important.

RufusAtticus · Jun 16, 2002

Defender,

Are you thinking in generic terms, or do you have some founding fathers in mind?

I think some of (Protestant) Christianity did influnce the founding of our country, but there were many other influences too. I doubt anyone could make an argument that Christianity provided the overall major principles on which we were founded.

Brimshack · Jun 16, 2002

There was an evangelical movement that flourished in the colonies during the 1760s and early 70s, but I don't think many of the founding fathers were influenced by it. Most of them were intellectuals, which would have meant either that they were influenced by more established church principles or by the Enlightenment, or (mud in all our eyes) by both. But the evangelism of the day was not highly respected by the intellectual elites, which would have included the so-called founding fathers.

I don't think the majority were Deists either, but several of the most important founders were (Jefferson, Madison, and Paine, for example), and much of the cutting edge philosophy of the day was Deistic. So, even the Theists would have been influenced by deistic thought, even though the two schools had not yet been fused into the general shoulder shrug version of religion tht refuses to see the difference today.

The Enlightenment began well begore the 1800s, and had a profound impact on the political thinking of the founders.

Defender, I think you are thinking more about the Declaration of Independance when you look for a document that includes a number of direct references to God. Remember that document is not the plan for American government, however, it is simpply a document (largely rhetorical) announcing the separation of the 13 colonies from Britain. The Constitution itself does not contain those themes. This is a common trick used by those who want to assert that America is a Christian country, to cite the Declaration and ignore the Constitution. They do this knowing that for most Americans the two documents are essentially part of the same fuzzy memory of their high school history lesons. It's a deliberate deception, and a highly successful one at that.

I don't know that the landed gentry would have been less susceptible to religious nonsense, particularly since they were also likely to have key church positions. That wasn't the idea at the time Sauron, though I share your impatience with some contemporary religious rhetoric.

The Founding Fathers may not have had the same range of different beliefs as we have in American today, but they certainly were not part of a Judeo-Christian mindset, and certainly didn't advocate a judeo-Christian ethic. Remember, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews did not get along very well in those days. It hadn't been that long since people were openly killing each other over precisely those differences. The notion of a common Judeo-Christian heritage is largely a post-WW II phenomenon.

Oh, and I suppos the original point here is that creationists take advantage of all this ignorance to promote junk science? Well, I'm not going to challenge that one, but I thought the main point should be spelled out. Did I get it right?

Lanakila · Jun 16, 2002

The title of this thread is offensive, and the posts that follow do not show that fundamentalism is bad for the American Republic (we aren't really a democracy if you didn't know that). Every viewpoint is important in America including the view of the fundamentalist. We are a free country after all, right? I believe in separation of church and state too, the way the founding fathers meant though, not the way it has been construed today. They intended the state to stay out of the church business, and they respected the right of freedom of religion. (not freedom from religion) I am so glad I don't have to pay taxes to a state church, this was what the founding fathers opposed by the way.

RufusAtticus · Jun 16, 2002

Lanakila,

You cannot separate freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Atheists have just as much right to not have the government tell them they should worship some generic deiety as you have to have the government tell you that you should obey the Pope.

It is a major flaw in fundamentalism to assume that freedom of religion only applies to them.

I do agree however that the title of the thread doesn't really fit with the contents here in.

lisa03wilson · Jun 16, 2002

I don't see how the article relates to fundamentalism at all. I would consider myself a fundamentalist and I knew the answers the everything discussed in that article. I took the little quiz and got one wrong, but I'm still in 11th grade. The reason Americans are stupid is because they don't care enough to learn. I may not agree with every scientific thing they teach in school, but I take the time to learn about them so I can discuss them without sounding like an idiot. Fundamentalism does not discourage learning about scientific things in any way, and I think the attempt to relate the two is strange and not well thought out.

Jerry Smith · Jun 16, 2002

Originally posted by lisa03wilson
I don't see how the article relates to fundamentalism at all. I would consider myself a fundamentalist and I knew the answers the everything discussed in that article. I took the little quiz and got one wrong, but I'm still in 11th grade. The reason Americans are stupid is because they don't care enough to learn. I may not agree with every scientific thing they teach in school, but I take the time to learn about them so I can discuss them without sounding like an idiot. Fundamentalism does not discourage learning about scientific things in any way, and I think the attempt to relate the two is strange and not well thought out.

Amen, great post lisa. I think the reason Sauron started this thread (with this title) has to do with the perception he has drawn of fundamentalists from the creationists among them. Just reading through the threads on this board, you can see how certain elements within fundamentalism can give the rest a bad name.

Then I'm sure that he probably resents some of the political and social challenges that come from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

I have a family full of fundamentalists, and I can vouch that some of you guys are honest-to-goodness good people, and highly intelligent as well. I don't agree with some of their positions, but they are very bright and very good people.

Bear in mind though - there are people out there who only know fundamentalism from the rotten fruits that certain adherents of it sometimes bear.

Sauron is good people too.. I suspect that he has known too many of the bad apples, and not enough of the good ones.

RufusAtticus · Jun 16, 2002

Lisa,

In my experience and that of my fundamentalist friends, fundamentalism does have an anti-intellectual movement in it. However, you can be anti-intellectual and not be fundamentalist and be fundamentalist and not be anit-intellectual. I am not a sociologist or a historian, so I really can't say why that tendency is there.

That is why I have a problem with the title of the thread. It assumes that fundamentalism equals anti-intellectual and doesn't qualify that.

Oh yeah. Congrats on the 100%.

Late_Cretaceous · Jun 16, 2002

Quote: "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Founded on "Fundamentalist" beliefs."

Oh really Defender.

Lets see, who send "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21) - in otherwords 'pay your taxes and obey the laws". It was, ummm, oh yeah! Jesus who said that. He never even qualified it by saying you had to be democratically represented or that the laws have to be fair and just.

And the USA was founded on, um lets see. Oh yeah, a tax revolt.
Now how does that NOT contradict Matthew 22:21?

p.s. I do not have anything at all against the USA. In fact I think it is a great nation. I simply do not see its existance or inception as ever having been based on the teachings of Jesus.

Sauron · Jun 16, 2002

Originally posted by Lanakila
The title of this thread is offensive, and the posts that follow do not show that fundamentalism is bad for the American Republic (we aren't really a democracy if you didn't know that). Every viewpoint is important in America including the view of the fundamentalist. We are a free country after all, right?

I remember one of my Poli Sci professors remarking once upon a time. "All people are equal. But all opinions are not. If you cannot substantiate your opinion, then don't expect a warm reception in my class."

That's kind of how society works. Everyone has an opinion. So what.

The ones that have facts to back them up are better and more valid than the rest. And that applies whether we are talking about taxation, science, or how to build roads and bridges. There's no such thing as equality of viewpoint - nor should there be.

I believe in separation of church and state too, the way the founding fathers meant though, not the way it has been construed today. They intended the state to stay out of the church business, and they respected the right of freedom of religion. (not freedom from religion) I am so glad I don't have to pay taxes to a state church, this was what the founding fathers opposed by the way.

That is part of what they wanted.

But they also wanted the government to be totally out of the business of supporting, subsidizing, or assisting people to exercise their religious views.

Which means no tax money for religious activities, and no endorsement of religion by the govt or by govt officials.

Sauron · Jun 17, 2002

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Lisa,

In my experience and that of my fundamentalist friends, fundamentalism does have an anti-intellectual movement in it. However, you can be anti-intellectual and not be fundamentalist and be fundamentalist and not be anit-intellectual. I am not a sociologist or a historian, so I really can't say why that tendency is there.

That is why I have a problem with the title of the thread. It assumes that fundamentalism equals anti-intellectual and doesn't qualify that.

Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. That was precisely my point.

Now of course there are fundamentalists who, in spite of their upbringing, are very bright and well-educated.

But fundamentalism, ***as a religious position and as a guide for conducting one's life*** is in opposition to education/learning, and distrusts it. There has been too much American history where science and education have been slowly eroding fundamentalism's grip on the popular mind. Fundamentalism considers itself under attack by the educational institutions and by science, especially in this country.

And in the USA - the one country that holds more patents and more innovations than any other five coutnries in the world - fundamentalism is the reason that we have such a strong creationist movement here. Indeed, there is often a sort of folksy pride in not being well-educated; sort of a Will Rogers attitude that masks the insecurity that is felt by such people. And it's that kind of attitude that explains a lot about why our national scientific education is so poor.

Maybe that explains my position more fully.

RufusAtticus · Jun 17, 2002

"But fundamentalism, ***as a religious position and as a guide for conducting one's life*** is in opposition to education/learning, and distrusts it."

Alright, Sauron. List the tenants of Fundamentalism and lets see if we can find one that discourages the persuit of knowledge.

I think there is a major correlation of Fundamentalism with anti-intellecualism. (Is that even a word? ) But I find it persumptious to equate to two out of hand.

Sauron · Jun 17, 2002

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
"But fundamentalism, ***as a religious position and as a guide for conducting one's life*** is in opposition to education/learning, and distrusts it."

Alright, Sauron. List the tenants of Fundamentalism and lets see if we can find one that discourages the persuit of knowledge.

How about this?

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

Origin of the Concept: The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

Click to expand...

You'll also find similar statements at the home pages for the Southern Baptist Convention, the various Churches of God, Pentacostal churches, Missionary Baptists, etc.

In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest fundamentalist body in the USA. Let's see what their Mission Statement has to say about education:

XII. Education

Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore, a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge. Moreover, the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal support of the churches. An adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ's people.

In Christian education there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.
[i/]

Click to expand...

The second paragraph clearly sublimates the intellectual pursuit of truth and knowledge, to the "pre-eminence of Jesus Christ and the authoritative nature of scriptures".

I think there is a major correlation of Fundamentalism with anti-intellecualism. (Is that even a word? ) But I find it persumptious to equate to two out of hand.

Click to expand...

Here's an example, from another thread, of precisely what I was talking about. Celandine Baggins said the following:

l, I obviously made a mistake posting in this forum. m a Christian, nothing is going to change my mind. I do not believe in evolution and I DO NOT want to know about it. You people can debate about evolution and the big bang and stuff all you want. I'm through until I have something interesting to talk about in this forum. In my opinion, science just gets in the way of God.I mean, God is much more comforting than the thought of evolving from something else. I like to think that something extremely powerful created me specially according to his perfect plan. I like to think that he knows how many hairs I have on my head. I like to think that he knows where I am at all times. I like to know that he loves me for who I am, who he made me. Much more comforting!

Click to expand...

Now can someone tell me: why doesn't bolding and italicization work all the time?

Why Fundamentalism is bad for American democracy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PopGen Grad Student

Well-Known Member

PopGen Grad Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PopGen Grad Student

Well-Known Member

Not responsible for the changes here.

PopGen Grad Student

Active Member

Fish out of water

PopGen Grad Student

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PopGen Grad Student

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g