6/15/2004

A DAY OF SPLEEN?

I’m in a snarky, combative mood today (long story, involving two tow trucks), so I’ve found a couple under-the-busings which are of interest. Over at Counterpunch, Joe Bageant is cautioning that those who fail to understand fundamentalism are doomed to repeat it, at least politically:

[A]s a leftist it is very clear to me these days why urban liberals not only fail to understand [fundamentalists], but do not even know they exist, other than as some general lump of ignorant, intolerant voters called “the religious right,” or the “Christian Right,” or “neocon Christians.” But until progressives come to understand what these people read, hear, are told and deeply believe, we cannot understand American politics, much less be effective. Given fundamentalist Christianity’s inherent cultural isolation, it is nearly impossible for most enlightened Americans to imagine, in honest human terms, what fundamentalist Americans believe, let alone understand why we should all care.

The whole article is well worth your time, particularly the “Establishing a Savage Eden” section.

Meanwhile, across the web at Slate, they’re jumping on the “David Brooks is wicked bad” bandwagon:

Week after week, Brooks has been dribbling out well-meaning and dreary sentiments: Let’s hear it for the “sensible majority” and “bipartisanship.” Let’s, but somewhere else.

(Brooks is the “house conservative” for the New York Times, and, as you might expect, he’s really not all that conservative; he’s just taking valuable column space away from liberal writers. Or, at least, that’s my interpretation of things. Maybe once I read Brooks’ new book On Paradise Drive I’ll feel differently.)

Posted by Mark @ 10:11 am | | Permalink
This post is filed under: Spleen

5 Comments

  1. Wow - thanks for the Bageant link….utterly fascinating reading on many levels.

    Comment by jon — 6/15/2004 @ 11:54 am

  2. Fundamentalist Xianity is “inherently culturally isolated”? Really? Has the author ever watched cable news?

    Comment by Vidiot — 6/15/2004 @ 12:00 pm

  3. Bageant works up that much of a sweat over Christian Reconstructionists? C’Mon, Mark. Hardly worth it. Clever though, of him, to lump all evangelicals and conservative Christians in as “fundamentalists.”

    Comment by Bryan — 6/15/2004 @ 2:20 pm

  4. Well, Bryan, in my experience, there are lots of people out there who agree with much of what Reconstructionists believe. And there are those who believe that the Rapture is something which can be brought about (or at least encouraged) through the political process. That, to me, was the value of the Bageant article–pointing out some of the motivation behind some of the admittedly more extreme elements of the Christian right.

    I suppose you could say that Bageant’s failure to distinguish among fundamentalists and evangelicals underscores his point that there’s plenty of ignorance out there about the disparate groups, but since he claims to be intimately familiar with that subculture, it’s probably an attempt to obfuscate.

    Comment by Mark Hasty — 6/15/2004 @ 2:30 pm

  5. I’d say it was a small minority that actually believed that the rapture could be ushered in by political means (since the U.S. isn’t even in the book of revelation). I think there are more who are looking to usher in the rapture by reaching every nation with the gospel.

    It’s tempting to point out the extreme and draw the hasty generalization to others (no pun intended), but it’s no more true of conservative Christians than it is of all liberal Christians want to have sex in the pews and celebrate Gaia along with YHWH.

    Comment by bryan — 6/15/2004 @ 6:10 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.