Fundamentally Wrong
Gotta give props to Mr. "Clever Sponge" of the local snarkblog "Clever Peasantry"; he knows his Korean food.
Beyond that? Feh.
He wrote last week about my post on the ugly relationship between "fundamentalists" and the media, academy, and the left.
And wrote. And wrote.
Now, Mr. Sponge is never one to go lightly on the mildly-insulting snark (he's like a slightly-less-Calvinistic "PB"); behind that, the post includes a mildly-interesting history of the term and theology of "fundamentalism". Interesting, as far as it goes.
As a response to my own post? Not so much:
OK, on to the main point...What is so offensive about Mitch's post is that he throws out a largely undefined term (fundamentalism) as a straw man whipping boy for a political faction (lib'ruls [Could you lefties please declare a moratorium on using the term "librul" when you're at a loss for how to show contempt for conservatives? It's kinda played out - Ed.] /Hollywood/elitists) that he doesn't like.
Buncombe, of course, although one must ask if Mr. Sponge knows what "Strawman" means.
My post (read it yourself) addressed the knee-jerk prejudice that "fundamentalist" Christians receive from the usual suspects in our society; whatever the definition and history of the term and the movement, it changes nothing; "Fundies" are the object of massive bigotry from, yep, Hollywood - which is the intellectual center of gravity for the left.
Upon doing so, he immediately veers the debate away from any theological underpinnings that may or may not serve as some source of contention for disagreements between groups.
Mr. Sponge is completely off the rails, because there
is no theological disagreement between "fundies" - or any other type of Christians - and the Usual Suspects! The debate is social; Hollywood or the left or for that matter Paul Mirecki couldn't care less about the
theology of fundamentalism; I doubt you'd find among the mass of caustic, defamatory, bigoted portrayals of "fundamentalists" in the media, Hollywood and elsewhere a
single explication of the theology involved!
The debate immediately becomes about self-chosen identity and he quickly claims to be part of the group that truly holds the truth; or, as he put it, the "basics".
Now Mr. Sponge is just making stuff up. There was nothing, explicit or implied, about being "part of the group that holds the truth".
This is a game of brands; identities based on nothing more than acceptance. Laws and rituals are not required for admission. All you need to do is accept the fact that Hollywood, lib'ruls and elitists are bad and they think that "fundies" are stupid.
This is the old argument used by that group known as "everyone's first spouse";
Oh, suuuure. I AAAAAALWAYS forget to put the toilet seat down!". You don't have to "accept" that the Usual Suspects are
anything to watch TV or movies or the evening news to see the constant disparagement that "fundamentalists" receive.
Sure we use religious symbols when we frame our political desires and plans, but we never really get around to talking about theology and its implications on public policy and culture.
No,
that would be an interesting discussion.
But that's not the one I started.
Posted by Mitch at
December 21, 2005 06:33 AM
| TrackBack
OK, Mitch. If you're going to keep dredging up this "poor persecuted fundamentelist" whine then I'm going to do some solid research on why they are portrayed the way they are so often. I've got four cites here, and not one of them are fringy straw men, they're all powerful players or influential in conservative politics. I don't know how representitive they are of the average fundamentalist, but they have a lot of power and they are changing America so this is damn well relevant:
So now I'm confused. When we are talking about Christian Fundamentalists, are we talking about the non-acredited Bob Jones University, which refused to accept blacks until 1971 and banned interracial dating until 2000?
Or are we talking about the Christian Zionists who, according to Christian scholar Barbara Rossing in her book "The Rapture Exposed", look forward to "tribulation and war in the Middle East, not peace plans?"
Or are we talking about Texas-based author and preacher Michael Evans, a passionate advocate of war in the name of Christ who in a recently published book "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move-Ancient Prophecy and Modern-Day Conspiracy Collide" spells out a grand design for American global hegemony, blessed in the guise of a holy global war?
Or are we talking about Pat Robinson, who on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." in 2002 said that no Muslims should be allowed to serve either as judges in the US?
Smoke. Fire. Simple as that.
Posted by: Bill Haverberg at December 21, 2005 08:07 AM"...not one of them are fringy straw men..."
Bill, they may not be straw men (because they actually exist), but they sure as hell ARE "fringy."
Every group has 10% (note: number pulled out of ass) of weirdos in their midst, and you just found citations from several groups within that minority.
I have to assume that people who think that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians are intent on converting people by the sword have never actually met, talked to, or attended church with them.
Until about 7 years ago, I was right there with you in believing those examples as the mainstream of evangelical/fundamentalist thought, but I was very wrong.
(I am tempted to make an argument that Pat Robertson is a walking straw man, but that would mean I'd actually have to read what that loon said.)
Posted by: Steve G. at December 21, 2005 10:05 AMOK, since folks want to use the term "fundamentalist" I have some questions for you:
What is the Fundamentalist doctrines on:
1) Baptism
2) The Lord's Supper
3) The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
4) Predestination
If you can answer those cogently, continue to use the term, if not find another one to deal with the vague group of religious people you hate.
Posted by: billhedrick at December 21, 2005 12:29 PMBill Hedrick queried:
"OK, since folks want to use the term "fundamentalist" I have some questions for you:
What is the Fundamentalist doctrines on:
1) Baptism
2) The Lord's Supper
3) The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
4) Predestination"
That they constitute the only permissible topics for high school science textbooks?
Do I win anything?
Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 01:07 PM"OK, since folks want to use the term "fundamentalist" I have some questions for you:
What is the Fundamentalist doctrines on:
1) Baptism
2) The Lord's Supper
3) The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
4) Predestination"
OK, the answer is "There isn't AN answer." You must be thinking of fundamentalist as a single group. It isn't that way. You won't mind a single answer to any of those questions that is applicable to all fundamentalists. Nor will you find them all of a single polictical party. Fundementalists are not clones of each other.
Posted by: Ron W at December 21, 2005 01:57 PM"That they constitute the only permissible topics for high school science textbooks?"...Do I win anything?"
A day pass on the MTA!
(Expires at midnight tonight).
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: mitch at December 21, 2005 02:19 PMIf that includes all the rats I can catch, I call that a good deal!
Posted by: angryclown at December 21, 2005 02:24 PMYou misunderstand, I wanted a discussion of the fundamentalist positions on these issues. But that being said their _is_ a clear doctrinal position for the Lord's Supper espoused by fundamentalists. I will give you a clue, the Catholic position is transubstantiation, the Lutheran position is "real presence" the fundamentalist position is that of the Reformed. Baptism has some debate, as does Predestination, the authorship of Hebrews does not have debate within fundamentalism. If you don't understand the nuances of these positions then you don't understand fundamentalism. I wonder if many "fundamentalists" understand their own doctrines.
Posted by: billhedrick at December 21, 2005 02:54 PMTo elaborate, "fundamentalism" is by it's very nature adherence to a fundamental set of beliefs. If you don't know what defines those beliefs in Christian Fundamentalism, you don't understand what Chrostian Fundamentalism is. A person who uses terms he does not understand is at best a fool.
Posted by: billhedrick at December 21, 2005 02:57 PMDid you get the chance to eat at Kings? If so, it's pretty damn good, ain't it? If you didn't eat the Bi Bim Bap with the dol'sot bowl, we recommend that you make a second visit. It is the tastiest dish of all time...in the history of mankind. While we were stationed in Korea, we hitchhiked out to the eastern part of Korea where they are famous for their bi bim bap. We have yet to find a meal as good as we had during that long weekend. If we ever go to death row, we know what we will request (along with a hummingbird steak).
We appreciate your response. Since we are traffic whores, we love getting pushed over 500 visitors/day. ;) We can't wait for our 1st google check.
Anywho, here is our reply:
http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/12/mr-berg-responds.html
Posted by: cleversponge at December 21, 2005 08:31 PMhttp://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/12/comments-on-mirecki-post-commenter.html
What's the story about the first spouse and the toilet seat? What does that have to do with fundementalism?
Posted by: Eva Young at December 21, 2005 11:47 PM