Two Fundamentalisms

How is this distinguishable from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s brand of Christianity?

Allah has struck New York and the capital city Washington by an earthquake as a punishment for their disbelief.

Falwell and Robertson on the 9/11 attacks, remember:

Full text:
I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians, who’re actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle… all of them, who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their faces and say, “you helped this happen.”
We need to stop making apologizes for types of fundamentalism, and call their political allies to account for helping Christian fundamentalists cling to relevance.
Advertisements

26 comments

  1. “We need to stop making apologizes for types of fundamentalism, and call their political allies to account for helping Christian fundamentalists cling to relevance.”

    Translation:

    “I would like to use this opportunity not to discuss the specific comments I linked to but instead to blame Republicans for giving Christian fundamentalism a louder voice in American society.”

  2. Well, it’s not a bad point, is it?

  3. It’s really not relevant unless it is a slow day for anti-Republican fodder. Curious, I have a brother that looks for liberal media bias in every story he reads. Do you look for opportunities to bash the Right in every story you come across?

  4. Now you’re not a fan of the religious right either. How do you, as a moderate Republican, make peace with the weird alliance they have with your party.

  5. The same way ( I assume) you make peace with the Code Pink and Greenpeace types on the Left.

    But again, not my point. My point is your unending search for angles to bash the Right.

  6. So you think Greenpeace and Code Pink have the same level of influence and control with the left that fundamentalists have with the right? If so, this would tee up an important question: is your belief based on sophistry, or willful blindness?

  7. Fundamentalists don’t actually affect me at all. Greenpeace and PETA, on the other hand, are a pin in my ass.

    The real question is, When is it impossible to ignore a specific sub-group within a larger political movement? Or, when does a blogger become so petty and laser-focused on the object of their hatred that it is no longer fun to visit their site?

    I know the answer to at least one of those questions.

  8. Why are Greenpeace and PETA “a pin in [your] ass,” if they literally have no influence whatsoever?

    And I’ve given the subject a lot of attention lately, sure. But isn’t that proper, since this is a Republican primary, and newspapers worldwide agree that fundamentalism, and the fight over its importance, is a central theme for the primaries?

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/republican-nomination-0

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/ron-paul-and-michele-bachmann

    http://www.economist.com/node/21526349

    By your standard, the Economist’s American page sounds like a hate-driven screed too…

    1. You’re not a hunter. Believe me, they have plenty of influence, especially in state government.

      Fundamentalism is only relevant if you think Bachman or Perry have a shot at the nomination. I don’t.

      And don’t fool yourself. There is only one theme for the upcoming election. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

  9. Haha, fine, but no influence on the national discourse. Like, period.

    On the flipside, do you think fundamentalists only have a national influence because of Bachmann and Perry? And I’d BET Perry wins this primary. Guarantee.

    Also, no election has only one theme.

  10. “Also, no election has only one theme.”

    By all means – please, oh please, keep believing that.

  11. HAH! Okay. Also, dodging the other questions is very helpful, as it shows where we stand.

  12. Fundamentalists have a national influence because some of their message resonates with voters on BOTH sides of the aisle. Some politicians try to tap into that, some don’t. This isn’t rocket science.

  13. Sigh. Left-wing fundamentalists? You’re shading into denialism.

    1. I’m pretty sure there’s left-wing fundamentalists, except their fundamentalism is geared towards left-wing ideological causes rather than a deitic religion.

      1. Ames really only has a problem with Christian fundamentalists and only then because they don’t like The Gays. He’s fairly transparent on that front.

      2. Nope. My problem is that they don’t live in a reality-based world, ignore the Constitution, and insist that we join them in both delusions.

        1. You’ll have to elaborate on the ‘reality-based world’ part. Is that a theological observation or something else?

  14. You have clearly never been to a black church then. Or a Southern Baptist church. Half of my coworkers are pro-union fundamentalists that vote blue.

    You’ve been in NYC too long Ames.

  15. Granted. Hurricane Irene agrees. But how would you characterize the fundamentalist presence on the national stage? Left-leaning or right-leaning?

    1. The white fundamentalists are right-leaning only in that Republicans are the only ones that listen to them on the national level (this changes dramtically when you get out in the states). The movement is simply going with the group they think will pursue their wishes.

  16. So these fundamentalists may actually be liberals. But Republicans are the only ones that listen to them, and give them a voice on the national stage only to the extent that they’re useful for beating up on The Gays.

    So — to get this straight — fundamentalists occur in all shapes and sizes! But it’s the DEMOCRATS’ fault for not listening to them. THAT’S why we get all this crazy social conservative shit. Damn those Democrats!

    1. Who said anything about fault? You asked me for my assesment of whether fundamentalists were left-leaning or right-leaning and I explained which and why.

      Assuming that you would like to have their vote, it’s pretty easy. Just offer them something more appealing than the GOP. It’s all about priorities. Blacks in general are pretty socially conservative but Democrats promise them the moon on domestic programs so that trumps their fundamentalism. Good proof of this is when there is a referendum vote and there isn’t an elected office on the line. Then they vote their social conservatism (see Prop 8).

      White fundamentalist apparently don’t see the Left offering them anything that trumps the promises made by the GOP.

      Now of course if you don’t want those votes, proceed as normal.

  17. A key difference is that The Earthquake!!!!!!!! didn’t kill anybody.

    1. Also, The Holy Fuck It’s An Earthquake! wasn’t man-made whereas those attacks were deliberate actions by humans. Thinking people have influence over natural events is superstitious idiocy, but it’s superstitious idiocy with a history as old as civilization (“Wind’s not blowing us to Troy, better kill Iphigenia”). Blaming millions of people for the actions of a few different people is an entirely different sort of idiocy.

  18. […] Equating the influence of Code Pink and Greenpeace on the left and Democrats with the influence of P… […]

%d bloggers like this: