Fundamentalism Antithetical to Democracy
Fundamentalism and Democracy are antithetical. That’s right, antithetical; meaning ‘cannot exist in harmony because at cross-purposes.’ A Fundamentalist knows the truth and thus knows that all who do not hold the same beliefs do not know the truth. Why is this antithetical to democracy? Because democracy requires respect for dissent, a willingness to engage in a debate the outcome of which is uncertain, and compromise.
When I was educated at a Baptist Sunday School, I learned that all Catholics go to Hell and that their leader, the Pope, is the Anti-Christ. Why engage in a debate with someone who is going to Hell, or with someone who is being misled by the Devil? Why talk to them at all, unless to proselytize them into the Baptist faith, the one true Truth? If Fundamentalists truly believe then they must truly believe that non-Fundamentalists, like me, are wrong and that we are destined for a life of damnation. In short we are only non-believers waiting to be converted to the truth.
Democracy is a process and having seen the sausage made as a staffer on Capitol Hill, it is often an ugly process. But process it is, and process it requires. Truth gets in the way of process because it is not a process. Fundamentalists have the Truth, there is no need to get to it, to compromise on its behalf or even to discuss it. It exists in the Bible, and that is the end of the process. Thus the ends—personal and universal, are known, and all that needs to be done is to accept the ends. If you believe in democracy, there is no end, no final destination. Lao Tze, the ancient Chinese philosopher, believed that the point of the journey was not to arrive (translation by Neil Peart). This is democracy. By contrast, the point of the Fundamentalist’s journey is that they have already arrived. Indeed, they arrived 2,000 years ago.
This is not to say that all Christians stand against democracy. Most Christians are not Fundamentalists and many helped to guide the United States through 200 years of religious tolerance, and the maintenance of the separation between church and state. The founders of this country recognized in 1787 that universal religious Truths must be compromised lest democracy be made impossible. Rather than sanctify one Truth, they chose to leave Truth to personal discretion. But lately the United States has taken a new and frightening tack. President Bush’s attempts to provide federal funding to religious organizations, to appeal to Americans on the basis of religious intolerance, and to let religious conservatives dictate the progress and process of science are a frightening wake up call for those of us who stand for democracy. What is next? The idea that one party knows the truth and that members of the other party are going to Hell?
When I was educated at a Baptist Sunday School, I learned that all Catholics go to Hell and that their leader, the Pope, is the Anti-Christ. Why engage in a debate with someone who is going to Hell, or with someone who is being misled by the Devil? Why talk to them at all, unless to proselytize them into the Baptist faith, the one true Truth? If Fundamentalists truly believe then they must truly believe that non-Fundamentalists, like me, are wrong and that we are destined for a life of damnation. In short we are only non-believers waiting to be converted to the truth.
Democracy is a process and having seen the sausage made as a staffer on Capitol Hill, it is often an ugly process. But process it is, and process it requires. Truth gets in the way of process because it is not a process. Fundamentalists have the Truth, there is no need to get to it, to compromise on its behalf or even to discuss it. It exists in the Bible, and that is the end of the process. Thus the ends—personal and universal, are known, and all that needs to be done is to accept the ends. If you believe in democracy, there is no end, no final destination. Lao Tze, the ancient Chinese philosopher, believed that the point of the journey was not to arrive (translation by Neil Peart). This is democracy. By contrast, the point of the Fundamentalist’s journey is that they have already arrived. Indeed, they arrived 2,000 years ago.
This is not to say that all Christians stand against democracy. Most Christians are not Fundamentalists and many helped to guide the United States through 200 years of religious tolerance, and the maintenance of the separation between church and state. The founders of this country recognized in 1787 that universal religious Truths must be compromised lest democracy be made impossible. Rather than sanctify one Truth, they chose to leave Truth to personal discretion. But lately the United States has taken a new and frightening tack. President Bush’s attempts to provide federal funding to religious organizations, to appeal to Americans on the basis of religious intolerance, and to let religious conservatives dictate the progress and process of science are a frightening wake up call for those of us who stand for democracy. What is next? The idea that one party knows the truth and that members of the other party are going to Hell?
posted by Definer at 2:25 PM
3 Comments:
Aren't there a lot of qualifications you need to make? First of all, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fundamentalist". (I suggest you read Thesaurus's post below about words that discourage debate. How easy it is to dismiss someone as a "fundamentalist". Rather cowardly, isn't it?)
Do you simply mean one who believes there is such a thing as truth? If so, you seem to drastically misunderstand what a democracy is.
I believe, and I think there's some evidence for this, that at the foundation of a government, whatever the form, certain principles of governing are laid out. (I suppose you could have a look at the Constitution, and the Declaration would have some implied as well.)
After that, there are certain, less important things that are decided in the legislature. Or do you suppose that, once established, a democracy is free to change its basic principles at will?
Where does your problem with "fundamentalists" come in? (Again I emphasize your use of the word as ambiguous at best, confused at the mean, and malicious at worst.) In the mundane affairs of Congress? or in the principles of the government? Frankly I don't see how a baptist or a catholic would disagree about tax levels as a matter of religion.
But I'm guessing you're thinking more about abortion and the like. But aren't the issues of abortion precisely those that a "fundamentalist" would deal with? If, by fundamentalist, one means someone who cares about fundamentals. Because, as it appears to me, life--of the mother or the baby (fetus, if you prefer, though I could hardly believe that you'd deny that it's alive)--and the protection thereof, is a fundamental principle of government. It is, after all, one of the principles on which our government is founded. And if that doesn't make it fundamental, what does?
It would help if you were clearer about what you are trying to say. Is your problem with people who believe certain things? Because that doesn't seem to be very democratic, does it? Your very interesting definition of democracy accuses you: "Because democracy requires respect for dissent, a willingness to engage in a debate the outcome of which is uncertain, and compromise."
But again, I don't think you're getting to the point. You and I can compromise all we want about taxes, Social Security, immigration, Medicare, speed limits, drinking ages, voting ages, and the like. About the point of abortion, though, I don't think there is a compromise. It's either right or wrong, isn't it? If it's right, then the "fundamentalists" are wrong, and it shouldn't be banned. If it's wrong, then the "others" are wrong, and it should be banned. Where's the room for compromise?
I think what you mean to say is this: there is no room for fundamentally opposed philosophies of reality at the founding of a government. The principles of a government must be founded on secure and definite philosophical principles.
And then we agree. If you think liberty is more important than life, I'm not sure you and I could form a government together. And such is the debate about abortion, no?
Hmm I love the idea behind this website, very unique.
»
Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home