Are Fundamentalists Getting Worse?

[twhite35]

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. I did this chore in anticipation of the movie's effect on the election. It was as bad as I expected.

Not that the movie isn't a new phenomenon in our culture: it was the most undignified leftist propaganda I have ever seen, of much lower intellectual caliber, for example, than such thoroughly leftist movies as "Wall Street" or "Primary Colors".

But I already knew that the liberals have been in intellectual free fall since at least the aftermath of WWII (the intellectual and existential failure of socialism, to the 60's, to the environmentalists/multiculturalists, etc). And I have directly witnessed this downward slide in the last two and half decades. So I expected the movie to be a new low for the liberals, and it was.

Earlier, I had seen The Passion of the Christ. I heard the standard complaints about the movie, but I was sympathetic to it before I saw it. How could the priests who brought Jesus up on charges and had him killed be portrayed positively? How can a movie about a man being nailed to a cross not be violent? And what's the big deal about another Biblical movie, anyway? One does not have to be religious to get some value out of a Biblical movie, as literary history, if nothing else. So I went to see the movie almost in a spirit of cultural defiance.

I was wrong. It was _not_ just another Biblical movie. Its purpose was to dull the conceptual faculty by means of guilt. Like Fahrenheit 9/11, this movie was a new low, but for the religious conservatives, rather than the secular liberals. Only this new low I didn't anticipate.

The reason for the difference is that I know all about the liberals, oftentimes more than I wish I did; but the fundamentalists, on the other hand, I have mostly ignored, simply because they are mostly locked out of (and mocked by) the mainstream culture, and why pay attention to a corruption if it's out of the mainstream of the culture?

So my question is: has Christian fundamentalism itself been on the decline, along with the liberals and everything else in the last half century? The Passion of the Christ would make it seem so, since there hasn't been a Biblical movie this bad before.

But I haven't followed fundamentalism closely enough to gather empirical evidence. Anyone have data or opinions on this?

[dark_stranger]

Could it be that the two sides are just getting increasingly polarized? A sort of ideological arms race? Each side trying to display its core values with more fervor? Since the ends justify the means for these people, I suspect that is at least part of it.

d_s

[MisterSwig]

So my question is: has Christian fundamentalism itself been on the decline, along with the liberals and everything else in the last half century? The Passion of the Christ would make it seem so, since there hasn't been a Biblical movie this bad before.

But I haven't followed fundamentalism closely enough to gather empirical evidence. Anyone have data or opinions on this?

I think Christian fundamentalism has gotten worse recently. For awhile now I've suspected that the modern surge in Christian fundamentalism has a lot to do with the Mormons.

Mormonism is the fourth-largest and fastest growing religion in America--soon to overstep the Methodists. They call themselves Christians. They believe that Jesus visited Joseph Smith in New York. They believe it is their duty to tend to the flock in the latter-days before the Second Coming. They believe that they are the one true Church of God. But most importantly, they believe in not two, but--count'em--three religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Book of Mormon.

In the Christian marketplace, Mormons are the innovators; they have a New Religious Book for a New Religous World; they are the fresh, good-looking new boys and girls on the block. You are probably familiar with their vast pro-active missionary endeavor around the world.

Mormons are threatening the classical notion of Jesus Christ. Unlike traditional Christian belief, in Mormonism Jesus Christ is his own personage, separate from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. In fact, they believe there is also a Heavenly Mother, who is the sidekick to the Heavenly Father. Mormons have created a modest Heavenly pantheon, yet still claim to be monotheists.

Mormonism is fundamentally unique in the Christian world, and thus highly intriguing to the more abstract (perhaps brighter and hungrier) religious minds.

Traditional Christians, at some level, tend to be aware of the Mormon trend and often express bitter hatred for Mormons, saying they are not really Christians or worse. Many traditionalists probably fear that Mormonism will ultimately supplant traditional Christian beliefs. This may be a just fear, because Mormons are very strong now and only getting stronger. The Mormon movement is spreading very rapidly.

This kind of direct threat to the existence of traditional Christianity is, I suspect, the primary cause in the rise of outspoken, cross-worshipping, Passion of Christ-type Christianity. After all, there is a major--perhaps irreconcilable--difference between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. On top of not believing in the Trinity, Mormons focus on Christ's Resurrection and human salvation--not Christ's Crucifixion and human suffering, as fundamentalists tend to do.

Mormonism threatens to replace traditional Christian theology, and I think this has a lot to do with the rise in Christian fundamentalism in general. We are witnessing a competition for dominance in the world of the Christian religion. On one side are the fundamental Christians (Catholics, Baptists, Methodists). They don't have much new to offer and have fundamental beliefs about Christ in common. And on the other side are the progressive Christians (Mormons), who have a sparkling new faith in Christ, wrapped up in a pretty new box that says "Made in America."

[F*ckCommunism]

as a former mormon, i must say, yes...

the mormon beliefs are layed out and presented by specially trained (altho young) missionaries... everything appears to be logical and reasonable and most of all to many impressionable, searching minds, appears rational... but the longer you are a mormon, the harder it can be to 'get out' even when you see the contradictions and irrationalities.

i like to think of a recent south park episode where a mormon family moves into south park. hilarity ensues...

[jedymastyr]

Mormonism is the fourth-largest and fastest growing religion in America--soon to overstep the Methodists. They call themselves Christians. They believe that Jesus visited Joseph Smith in New York. They believe it is their duty to tend to the flock in the latter-days before the Second Coming. They believe that they are the one true Church of God. But most importantly, they believe in not two, but--count'em--three religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Book of Mormon.

...

Tell me about it..since moving to a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona (the suburb I live in, I've heard from several different sources, is approximately half Mormon) I've lost more than one friend to it.

I think you left out what I've considered to be the most annoying aspect of the church. This is from second hand accounts, but I believe it to be accurate. After reading their Book of Mormon, you are supposed to pray and ask if the book is true or not. Then, if you read it and asked honestly, searching for the truth, you are supposed to get a sign. If you don't, of course, you weren't honest. It is a test of your character to receive a personal revelation.

On a side note, I asked one of my friends who was converting if he felt this. He claimed he felt a burning in his chest when he prayed about it. When I questioned, he refused to comment on why God would come to him in the form of pain.

[MisterSwig]

As for Fahrenheit 9/11, I think it lacks an ideology of its own. To call it an example of liberal fundamentalism would be wrong, unless you consider "hatred for Bush" a strong ideology.

I think The Day After Tomorrow, which grossed $181 million, is a better representative of the fundamentalist liberal movement. That movie actually offers more than a mere hatred for Bush. It offers a metaphysical worldview message: "global warming is real and we need to stop it or suffer the consequences."

[Areactor]

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie, and when they ask my opinion, I choke! I become speechless like a spell has taken over me. And that worries me because people honestly like to hear my opinon and even take consideration. But this Moore stuff has gotten me in a jiffy...

[pvtmorriscsa]

On a side note, I asked one of my friends who was converting if he felt this.  He claimed he felt a burning in his chest when he prayed about it.  When I questioned, he refused to comment on why God would come to him in the form of pain.

You should have offered your friend an antacid, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[F*ckCommunism]

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie,

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie,

i have lots of pals who think moore is a genius... i myself think he is funny, altho seriously misled... but i think thebiggest thing to reply with is that even moore has admitted this is not really a traditional documentary at all, its an opinion peice...

and like many op-ed peices, the truth has been stretched to fit his perception, instead of the actual facts...

[F*ckCommunism]

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie,

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie,

i have lots of pals who think moore is a genius... i myself think he is funny, altho seriously misled... but i think thebiggest thing to reply with is that even moore has admitted this is not really a traditional documentary at all, its an opinion peice...

and like many op-ed peices, the truth has been stretched to fit his perception, instead of the actual facts...

[Nate_S]

You should have offered your friend an antacid, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[Pericles(MBA)]

So my question is: has Christian fundamentalism itself been on the decline, along with the liberals and everything else in the last half century? The Passion of the Christ would make it seem so, since there hasn't been a Biblical movie this bad before.

I would say that Christian Fundamentalism is holding even. It changes itself to keep current (Mormonism and Unitarianism), but is still out there.

Lots of Objectivists have mentioned how the state of our public schools make religion a possible influence in the lives of young people. If the parents were religious and introduce it, then the children may adopt it implicitly. Once they reach adulthood and discover that they still can't function as adults, they "find God" to help them live.

F*ck Communism wrote:

as a former mormon, i must say, yes...

I'm a former Jehovahs Witness, and have met a few people struggling to overcome a Fundamentalist past. One problem for me when I discovered Objectivism was understanding that morality was not really such a big deal.

Once I learned that reality came first, and morality second, then things got a lot easier.

As Objectivism spreads it is very likely that there will be many more former fundamentalists who deal with similar issues.

[AshRyan]

...But most importantly, they believe in not two, but--count'em--three religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Book of Mormon.

Just as a factual correction, they believe in not three, but--count'em--five religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Of these, the D&C is the most interesting, in that it consists of "modern-day" revelations to Joseph Smith and a few subsequent "prophets" of the Mormon church.

I'm not sure if I agree that this is the most important aspect of the religion, though.

[AshRyan]

I'm a former Jehovahs Witness, and have met a few people struggling to overcome a Fundamentalist past. One problem for me when I discovered Objectivism was understanding that morality was not really such a big deal.

Once I learned that reality came first, and morality second, then things got a lot easier.

There is something about the way you put this that bothers me a bit. If you just mean that ethics is a consequence based on more fundamental metaphysical and epistemological ideas, fine. But that doesn't mean that there is some kind of dichotomy between reality and morality, or that morality isn't "such a big deal" in Objectivism. In fact, ethics is the core of Objectivism, since it is about how to live a good, happy life, and Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth."

[Pericles(MBA)]

Hmmm....

AshRyan wrote:

In fact, ethics is the core of Objectivism, since it is about how to live a good, happy life, and Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth."

I agree that ethics is important within Objectivism.

You clearly were not raised religious.

In religion, ethics matters more than life. Life is inconsequential compared to whether or not you are being ethical. As a hierarchy it would be:

Religious Ethics -> Life

And all the other things that Objectivists consider in coming to understand their philosophy, like epistemology, are completely heretical to religion. The core thing in religion is whether or not you are being moral. How you come to an understanding of morality is inconsequential and discouraged. I suppose I could have said that I had to learn that "Christian morality" is not such a big deal, and that would have been more accurate. Or that the Christian ban on epistemological thinking is wrong, and has to be overcome.

[AshRyan]

You clearly were not raised religious.

I'll take that as a compliment. Actually, I was raised Mormon and practiced it seriously until I was about nineteen (just three years ago).

I agree that ethics is important within Objectivism...In religion, ethics matters more than life.  Life is inconsequential compared to whether or not you are being ethical.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you meant.

[individualistchick]

Just a fast question ... but how exactly can fundamentalists get worse?

If fundamentalism as such is completely taking an idea (or set of them) consistently, then they can't become "more consistent" than that - right?

[AshRyan]

Perhaps he meant, is fundamentalism getting worse? As in more common.

[MisterSwig]

Just as a factual correction, they believe in not three, but--count'em--five religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.  Of these, the D&C is the most interesting, in that it consists of "modern-day" revelations to Joseph Smith and a few subsequent "prophets" of the Mormon church.

I'm not sure if I agree that this is the most important aspect of the religion, though.

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew there were other texts that Mormons used. But I wasn't sure about their relative importance.

I consider the Book of Mormon to be important, because it is what most concretely distinguishes Mormonism from traditional Christianity--just as The New Testament distinguishes Christianity from Judaism.

Having a religious text of substance and craft is important in that it concretizes the belief system and makes it permanent. For many people, it is harder to deny the arbitrary when it has been eloquently written down in a long book, cross-referenced with other books, placed in hotel rooms across the nation, and sold by the millions in bookstores.

I'd be interested to know what you think is the most important aspect of the religion.

[F*ckCommunism]

I'd be interested to know what you think is the most important aspect of the religion.

Swallowing your reason and logic, handing your individuality over to the herd, numbing the voices inside that tell you the whole thing is crazy...

heheh

I've been thinking about this since i 'broke free'...

[Jamesj]

As for Fahrenheit 9/11, I think it lacks an ideology of its own. To call it an example of liberal fundamentalism would be wrong, unless you consider "hatred for Bush" a strong ideology.

I think The Day After Tomorrow, which grossed $181 million, is a better representative of the fundamentalist liberal movement.

I agree. Michael Moore is just the Leni Riefenstahl of the Fundementalist Liberal set.

The war of the Mystic vs. Skeptic has definatly intensified since the 2000 election. At work, in the media, in my friends, it's everywhere. It's not even as though there's a wrestle for balance, this is out-and-out power lusting.

Maybe it's just location. Living in Seattle, which is an extremist city, I here political rhetoric everywhere. Coffee shops, signs on houses, constant activism on corners of streets, etc.

I wonder if fundementalism getting worse, is a matter of the constant protection of ideological flanks we have to go through on a daily basis?

[janie]

MisterSwig

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew there were other texts that Mormons used. But I wasn't sure about their relative importance.

Very important actuallly. The Doctrine and Covenants is especially important because it is supposed to be a series of revelations given Joseph Smith and outlines the structure of the Church, it also sets out all of the rules and regulations that so clearly set Momonism apart from other forms of Christianity (no drink, no smoke, funny underwear, baptisms for the dead, etc). The Book of Mormon reads like another form of the New Testament, but D&C is where stuff gets really weird.

Also, anything that the modern day prophets say (Gordon B. Hinckley right now) is considered scripture, because they receive "direct revelation". It is a very adaptable religion.

BTW, I was raised very strictly Mormon.

I'd be interested to know what you think is the most important aspect of the religion.

This is kind of a hard question to answer. You ask a Mormon and they will basically regurgitate the Articles of Faith at you. There is a link to them below.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Ask me and I will tell you that it is all about control, and they do it more effectivley than any other religion I have seen, or heard of. They also preach socialism very srongly. Before I left the Church (I still have seven practicing brothers and sisters) I was attending church meetings 8 times a week, and was greatly encouraged to spend time with only other Mormon kids. The church literally controlled every aspect of my life, including where my money went. They have a tithe of 10% of your income, and if you don't pay it, you don't get into the Temple, so, you can't join God in the afterlife. I could go on and on about how they recruit and control, but you probably get the basic gist of it.

Also, the greatest sin a person can commit is the sin of Pride. I don't know how many times I heard this as a child, at least every day. It was taught that the reason people fail in life is because of their pride, and if you remain humble in spirit and love your neighbor, you will be blessed.

I hope this at least partially answered your question.

[MisterSwig]

The Doctrine and Covenants is especially important because it is supposed to be a series of revelations given Joseph Smith ... The Book of Mormon reads like another form of the New Testament, but D&C is where stuff gets really weird.

I found this passage in Section 130: 14-17 of the D & C:

"I [Joseph Smith] was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

That "revelation" came in 1843. Smith was murdered the very next year, when he was only thirty-eight years old. I guess God forgot to mention to Smith that he had no prayer of living to eighty-five.

I think it's funny that the one thing God wouldn't tell Smith was the time of the Second Coming. Here we are, 161 years after that "revelation", and still no Jesus. How long are these "latter-days" supposed to last, anyway?