A GLASS DARKLY
W/ PHILLIP COLLINSBy
Phillip Collins and
Paul CollinsRaidersNewsNetwork.comCriminalizing Christianity: The Anti-Concept of "Fundamentalism"With the recent Ted Haggard scandal, the same old anti-Christian stigmas have resurfaced. In particular, media pundits and talking heads have been liberally tossing about the term "fundamentalism." The very invocation of this term usually stifles all meaningful discourse regarding Christianity and its fundamental precepts. "Fundamentalism" has come to be associated with either "cultural retrograde" or "extremism." The kind of "cultural retrograde" inferred by the term "fundamentalism" is an unwillingness to accept social changes (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc.) because they are irreconcilable with the principles of an indigenous belief system. Bear in mind that the proponents of such social changes seldom ever demonstrate how their reforms would constitute a cultural advancement. The kind of "extremism" inferred by the term "fundamentalism" is violent political activism and terrorism. Bear in mind that the opponents of such "extremism" seldom ever condemn radicals who share their own ideological propensities. It is this nebulous criterion for "fundamentalism’s" application that betrays the stigma’s true purpose.
The most common recipients of this stigma have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims that exhibit a passionate adherence to the fundamentals of their respective belief systems. Ironically, terrorist organizations that parasitically attach themselves to one of these faiths typically bowdlerize the fundamentals of the host belief system. Thus, they cannot be characterized as genuine "fundamentalists." If anything, they represent hideous aberrations, conceptually and philosophically antithetical to the fundamentals of the belief systems they co-opt. However, seldom are such distinctions made. As a result, all of the adherents of the traditional Abrahamic faiths are vilified. The term "fundamentalism" qualifies as what philosopher Ayn Rand calls an "anti-concept." Rand defines the anti-concept as:
an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace or obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a "package-deal" of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a "package deal" whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. (176)
"Fundamentalism" is an anti-concept designed to confuse Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths with cultural retrograde or, at worst, terrorism. Predictably, most audiences that hear the term make such unfounded correlations. Yet, as it is invoked, the term "fundamentalism" is virtually meaningless. "Fundamentalism" connotes an unwavering adherence to the "fundamentals" of a belief system. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines a "fundamental" as "one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is" (no pagination). For all practical purposes, anybody and everybody qualifies as some sort of fundamentalist. A physicist accepts the "fundamentals" of physics. A mathematician accepts the "fundamentals" of mathematics. Likewise, a Christian accepts the "fundamentals" of Christianity. Without these "fundamentals," Christianity would not be what it is. Yet, that is precisely what detractors who invoke the term "fundamentalist" want. They want the faithful to abandon the fundamentals of their faith, thereby eviscerating Christianity. Any Christian who refuses to abandon his or her beliefs and convictions is deemed a "fundamentalist." Of course, the bestowal of this anti-concept precedes the subject’s stigmatization and disenfranchisement. This is precisely the purpose for which the anti-concept of "fundamentalism" was designed.
The most insidious correlation that the term "fundamentalism" makes is the association of deeply held principles with "extremism." "Extremism" itself is an anti-concept. Rand states:
This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil. (182)
"Fundamentalism" and its anti-conceptual correlative, "extremism," are merely the semantic weapons of moral relativism. The nebulous criterion for the invocation of these stigmas betrays the nihilistic proclivities of those who use them. Rand eloquently synopsizes:
There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.
If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth—any man of integrity. (182)
The Ted Haggard scandal has made it easier to smear men of integrity. Any Christian who genuinely embraces his or her faith is a "fundamentalist" and, therefore, qualifies as an "extremist." Of course, "extremists" are typically criminals. Thus, Christianity itself must be criminalized. The crusade to abolish all faiths and theistic Weltanschauungs has been edified. No doubt, Haggard will join Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart in the litany of "cases in point" cited by secular progressives. Ironically, left-wing critics have a deviation from "fundamentals" to thank for the Ted Haggard scandal. Moreover, it was the bowdlerization of Christian principles that resulted in the aberrations of Dominionism and the CNP. Neoconservativism, which is closely aligned with these two aberrations, is another instance where the so-called "political right" has practiced what the political left preaches. These evils stem from a disregard for "fundamentals." Yet, it is precisely such disregard that leftists encourage. Herein is one of the most frustrating paradoxes surrounding Dominionism, the CNP, and the Ted Haggard affair. However, there is little chance that such a paradox will ever be recognized by the masses. With the anti-concept of "fundamentalism" deluging public forums, further deviation from principles is guaranteed and another Ted Haggard waits to fall.
In the tenth installment of this ongoing investigation, we shall examine how the culture war has been transformed into a breeding ground for Hegelian activism.
Sources Cited
All sources will be presented in the twelfth and final installment of this series.
Link To Part 8VISIT MY WEBSITE:
Syndicate your Blog or Podcast with FeedBurner
Check me out!
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
In my last entry I concluded with the obvious, that the end of the Bush administration was accompanied by public desperation for "hope" amidst widespread messianic fervor surrounding the election of America’s current president, Barack Hussein Obama. Bush’s Angel in the Whirlwind administration was thus prophetic in that it resulted in "universal entreaty for an inspirational and political demigod—a savior—to arise on the global scene promising a New World Order." It is entirely possible that Bush’s understanding of his calling as the catalyst of these end-times events was a revelation that grew on him over time. In the beginning, much of his ties to evangelical Christianity appear to have simply been for the purpose of producing political advantages. While still in his second term as governor, Bush actually hired influence peddler Karl Rove to help strategize how he might endear himself to the fundamentalist base in anticipation of a presidential run. Not long after, the highest-ranking members of the nation’s politically enthused church leaders were summoned to the governor’s mansion where the handpicked movers and shakers, selected for their proven power to sway religious voters, were encouraged to conduct a "laying on of hands" to anoint the future president. As the executive mantle was vicariously conferred on Bush, he surprised the group by suddenly evoking the prophetic commissions of the prophets, telling the attendees that he had been "called" (by God) to become the presidential candidate.
Posts
