In Reply to: Re: Constitutional Cult posted by PW on December 01, 2006 at 10:09:48:
I read your article with a great deal of interest and gratitude to Radio Man for posting it. When I read articles about what you've called the extremist (Christian) right, I often wonder who is being included in that group characterization and who is not. I'll have to read Sharlet to get a better handle on the separatists, and how they differ from mainstream fundamentalists.
I also questioned Radio's characterization of your article as that of a "Christian hater," because I didn't pick that up at all. You're certainly no Christian apologist, but that doesn't make your critique hateful. It only becomes hateful when a person thinks his beliefs and worldview are being characterized unfairly, and perhaps that is what Radio Man was feeling.
Something I've come to appreciate is that fundamentalist Christians are really quite diverse. If fundamentalists as a group seem to be intolerant and inflexible, this may be due to feeling like a minority group that has been marginalized by the culture of mainstream society. Bill O'Reilly's exploitative rant about the secularization of Christmas speaks volumes to a group of people who feel deeply frustrated and defensive about their exclusion from society and public life. It doesn't help that the same term -- fundamentalist -- is used to describe otherwise peaceful, law-abiding Christians and extremist, militant crackpots. I know from listening to my nonreligious friends that they can't always make the distinction. However, it only takes one encounter with Fred Phelps and the Westboro "Baptists" for nonreligious people to get confused about the difference between fundamentalists and militant extremists.
The discussion in your article about a revision or rewriting of American history by right-wing Christian extremists is fascinating. Has U.S. culture drifted far from core Judeo-Christian values that have guided the nation's public life for centuries, or have we always been a secular society and materialist culture? I believe the answer is that both/and, not either/or, and that this dichotomy of a sacred and profane is a central tension in our national conscience. There are many, many threads in the American story, but one of the oldest and most deeply embedded is that of the Puritans who founded a vision of America as the New Jerusalem. Talk about a stigmatized heritage!!! Who wants to be called "puritanical"--? No wonder the extremist Christian right talks of glorious sex within the bounds of marriage.
The tension between the secular and religious worldviews has played out on this board in various forms for a long time. I'm thankful that Radio Man provided some discussion material allowing for better communication and understanding on both sides.