How to stop the spread of fundamentalism?

[Machjo]

In the last few years it seems that fundamentalism has grown in North America, and not only in the US, but canada too, from what I keep reading all the time.
More anti-Muslim propaganda, the politicization of religion in the US, the increasingly politicized evolution debate, etc.


So what's the solution? Compulsory 'World Religions' classes? Public awareness campaigns? Public awreness of wht exactly, and how would that work? The increasing politicization of religion worries me, but I'm out of ideas.

 

[peapod]

That a very good topic, hopefully it can stay civil :wink: My own personal view is that religion does not belong in the government. And I to am very concerned about the dishonest methods creationists use. Who is at the heart of creationists? Who are the people that create this spin? and why? Who funds the discovery institute? What kind of budget are we talking about in this propaganda? Where does the money come from...I think I know where I can find out. I will let you know.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Good Topic with no easy answer. I think the first question that needs to be answered is why the rise of fundamentalism? In an era of instant communications, space travel, runaway technology and a shortening half-life for "fads", Fundamentalist Religions seem to run counter to society. Perhaps it's because our view of 'society' is modern, well-off Western Society and the 'Third World' view cannot comprehend our lives. The only problem with that theory is the rise of 'Fundamental Christianity', primarily here in affluent North America.
In short, I haven't a clue! :?

 

[Laika]

Tolerance.

 

[Jay]

Fundamentally, we don't want any fundamentalism.

Is that what were talking about?

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: How to stop the spread of fundamentalism?

Tolerance.

Tolerance is what I do to the weather in 40C heat in July!


Maybe that's one of the problems. We all stop at tolerance. We all tolerate each other! But there is a problem with tolerance; it has a limit. I can tolerate 40C heat for so long before I need to take a cool shower and get a break from the heat.

The question is, how to go beyond tolerance to friendship?

 

[Leveller]

You mention "politicization" three times in your two paragraphs, and therein lies the beginning of a discussion. I think that Christian fundamentalism in North America is not so much a religious movement as a political one. It's a kind of disguised political movement. It adds nothing new to the discourse on religion, but it makes itself felt mostly in the realm of politics, in social and fiscal policy, etc. People who worry about Christian fundamentalism worry about it more in political terms than religious terms. In terms of religion they can worship and believe in whatever way they want. The problem only comes when they try to revamp society according to their religious beliefs. To turn that around, I think that revamping society along definite lines is the key agenda for them, and that religious fundamentalism is a kind of support or justification for that agenda. It becomes politicized because the direction in which they want to revamp society goes against the interests of so many people.

If we accept that, then compulsory world religion classes and the rest will have no effect, because lack of understanding is not the problem. I don't believe that Canadians are narrow-minded. I think we are aware of and can accommodate a lot of differences without fighting or getting upset.

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Religion has always been inherently political. There are numerous definitions of 'politics', but a sort of working concept we can use is to define it as " the way in which we understand and order our social affairs". The religious and non-religious alike will always "understand" society according to their beliefs. This is politics. Whilst everybody may think about politics, it is of no significance to anybody else until people act on those thoughts, either verbally or physically, towards others. That is when it becomes political activity. The fundamentalist 'movement' that leveller mentions, is certainly a political movement, since it seeks to change the way we order our social affairs. People are entitled to their views, but the intolerance of those who actively attempt to deny others' their rights, ought to be resisted.

 

[peapod]

excellent post, it made alot of sense to me. My real concern is the attack again science. And its just not about one aspect of evolution, its the about all of evolution. It is not based on any kind of science. Its based on the supernatural. Science does not conduct itself on the supernatural. After evolution what will be next? Since they do not require real science for their claims, what field of science will they next try to undermine?

And why? whats the motivation? I believe it is fear.

 

[Machjo]

But then the question is how to keep fundamentalism (not necessarily the fundamentalists themselves) in check?

I'd assume it's through education, but using what methods? Certainly we cn teach them science in school, but we're already doing that. So they know their science, but are rejecting it. So is there anything else missing in the education system, whether it relates to intellectual, social, emotional or whatever kind of education?

 

[peapod]

The fundies also do not want sex education taught in the schools. They only want abstinence taught. Well this is not in the realm of the real world. Its crazy to assume that teenagers are not going to have sex, because you tell them its bad. Of course abstinene is the best possible answer. The trouble with that one, is it will not work. So if they are going to have sex anyway, than both should be taught.

 

[Leveller]

"My real concern is the attack again science. And its just not about one aspect of evolution, its the about all of evolution."

I don't think we can separate the attack against science from the attack in the field of politics or any other field. In the 19th century, quite a lot of good work was done in the science of evolution and this science was established in an objective way. At that time, a lot of good work was also done in the field of social science. I'm thinking for example of the work of the American scientist Morgan who lived among the Iroquois and whose observations led to a lot of interesting work in the field of the theory of social evolution. Engels writes about this in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. If we accept that humans evolve over time, and we also accept that families and forms of social organization evolve, then that means that society is not static and that we haven't reached the end of the line in terms of where we can go. It means that anything can be changed, improved, reinvented for the better. It means that our present stage of social evolution is not the highest form or the last stage. It means there is such a thing as a human movement for progress and enlightenment, however many zigzags it may take along the way. This is an exciting and interesting prospect that we shouldn't fear. But the fundamentalist attack on science is precisely an attack on this evolution in the broader sense. It is a wholesale attack on progress, to maintain the status quo. Progress has such a historical momentum that in order to halt it you actually have to try and roll back the wheel of history. So that's why we are seeing all this otherwise inexplicable medievalism.

 

[Jay]

The fundies also do not want sex education taught in the schools.

So what?

The parents pay for it, and sex hasn't got f all to do with the state, so the state can stay out of the bedrooms of the parants and the kids.


You don't want to force your morallity on others do you?

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Re: RE: How to stop the spread of fundamentalism?

But then the question is how to keep fundamentalism (not necessarily the fundamentalists themselves) in check?

I'd assume it's through education, but using what methods? Certainly we cn teach them science in school, but we're already doing that. So they know their science, but are rejecting it. So is there anything else missing in the education system, whether it relates to intellectual, social, emotional or whatever kind of education?

Well, that's a good question, Machjo. Education is important, and can open new windows or trains of thought, but we get our world view from a number of sources, such as our peers, the home, media and local communities. It's interesting that the christian fundamentalist movement - and I take it that's our focus here - is a largely North American phenomena and, further, tends to be concentrated in certain, typically insular communities. I see religion as not so much binding humans to gods, but humans to humans - i.e. belief systems provide tribal or ethnic or social soldarity, a nd define one group against another. This process is obviously stronger in close-knit, less homogeneous communites, hence religious belief is stronger here.

As for what is to be done; the vast majority of people who live in these communities, and by these beliefs, do so by choice (albeit, in my view, a very narrow choice). If that's how they want to live, that's their prerogative, and I defend their right to do so. But they should accept that others, in other communities, want to and do live differently. And what we should never see is their more extreme views given legitimacy and, indeed, authority, because some politician wants to buy their votes.

(Sorry Pea/leveller - I'm busy with other stuff, so a bit behind with the debate :lol: )

 

[Wetcoast40]

The fundies also do not want sex education taught in the schools.

So what?
The parents pay for it, and sex hasn't got f all to do with the state, so the state can stay out of the bedrooms of the parants and the kids.
You don't want to force your morallity on others do you?

I take it you think that no information on sex education belongs in a school curiculum? If so, who should decide what is taught and what is not? School Boards? Provincial Government? Mom and Dad? Church Leaders?

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

I think people get a little hung up by the term "sex education". I'm sure they think it means teaching kids how to have sex, rather than teaching them about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy etc. It strikes me as nothing but a good thing.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Newbie, I think you are right; the rise of Right Wing Religious Fundamentalism is a new form of political party. It's a way to get power without having the untidiness of having to get elected.

 

[SirKevin]

The parents pay for it, and sex hasn't got f all to do with the state, so the state can stay out of the bedrooms of the parants and the kids.

He said sex education, dear. Not sex morality; education. No noe sponsors having schools say "yeah, go have all the promiscuous sex you want, here are the condoms." But the reality is given the demographics of state-funded schools (adolescents) they need to be taught the safest ways to go about doing the inevietable.

And FYI abstinence still is and always has been taught as the only 100 % way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

You don't want to force your morallity on others do you?

Pretty damn hard to do that when both sides of the story are being given and nothing moral is being taught.

And yes sex ed/teaching safe sex is the state's business because failure to do so leads to unstable parenting situations, abortion demand, strain of the healthcare system and so forth.

 

[peapod]

Jay its not about morality, can you not understand that. You cannot impose morality onto others, this has been tried over and over again in history. This is about educating teenagers about sex that they are going to have, even if we don't want them to.

If they are not educated about it, then there will be nothing but misery. You cannot force morality on to people. It does not work. So teach both, so at least the teenager is equiped to deal with sex. They are going to have it, and no amount of fundies is ever going to stop that. So why not approach it with common sense.

 

[Jay]

The fundies also do not want sex education taught in the schools.

So what?
The parents pay for it, and sex hasn't got f all to do with the state, so the state can stay out of the bedrooms of the parants and the kids.
You don't want to force your morallity on others do you?

I take it you think that no information on sex education belongs in a school curiculum? If so, who should decide what is taught and what is not? School Boards? Provincial Government? Mom and Dad? Church Leaders?

Isn't it hard to leave sex ED out of the classroom, when we teach biology? (I hope so)

Tell you what, if any of you have problems figuring out sex and its consequences because it was left out of your school, PM me and I would be happy to discuss it with you.


I think I put it nicely. If the state has no place in the bedrooms of adults why should they expect to have space in the bedrooms of our children?



I believe it is the duty of parents to educate their children about sex. The parents above all others will have a better understanding of when the children are ready to hear about it, and understand it. I would hope children would be able to approach their parents with questions if they have any, but regardless, leaving it up to the school to teach sex reduces the act to mechanics and medical inquiry, rather than its spiritual and/or psychological function


There’s a couple of answer to your questions.