We have to quit falling

[montieg]

into the right-wing trap of using their terminology. It purely pisses me off when our own people call them "evangelicals". They chose that term because it's not as negatively connoted as is the term "fundamentalist". By now most people hear the word 'fundamentalist' they automatically think "Shi'ite". I say we hang the term Fundamentalist around their neck like a dead chicken. Like the old man said, "Nothing about them fun and damn sure nothing mental."

[NMDemDist2]

1. excellent point and it isn't "pro-life" either, it's reproductive slavery

and it's not "patriotic" it's nationalistic or jingoism

we need to call it what it is....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. or anti-choice, anti-woman

Fundamentalists of any stripe are dangerous. The Christian fundamentalists should be called that, because imho their attitudes are closer to Islamic fundamentalists than to other Christians.

[BlueManDude]

18. ANTI-CHOICE n/t

[Osamasux]

2. You are 100% right

Fundamentalist is a bad word because Fundamentalists are bad news, it does not matter what variety of extremists we are talking about. That shoe fits them like Cinderella’s slipper. We can't let them run from the title. That one word explains them so all can understand.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi Osamasux!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[eleny]

4. and not very angelic

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I've got no problem calling them 'evangelicals'. After all,

evangelicals evangelize, they make messing in other peoples business their calling.

We just need to make sure that evangelical develops the same kind of negatives that they saddled 'liberal' with.

Evangelicals want to force their god on you, and on your government.

Evangelicals are bigoted against all beliefs that are not theirs.

Evangelicals believe they are god's chosen.

Evangelicals fear democracy.

Evangelicals don't believe in the constitution.

Get the theme? We need to define them by our own terms. Right now, they are not so defined. People who aren't in their club don't recognize the differences between evangelicals, fundamentalists, dominionists and, even to a degree, mainstream Christians. We have a window of opportunity here, to define them, linking them to every corrupt and evil act committed by the so-called religious right. Every violation of tax exempt status by evangelical churches, every suspect investment by Robertson and Falwell, every televangelist found with his hand in the till or pants around his ankles, has to be hung on them all.

The good people who are taken in by the televangelist con men will flee the movement in droves. Look at the setbacks they suffered, which we didn't capitalize on, when Swaggart and Bakker fell. We can't hold back anymore, out of respect for religion, because their religion does not respect us.

We've got to get these bastards.

[juliagoolia]

8. Radical clerics and evangelicals ...always coupled

These "radical clerics, and fanatical evangelicals" are trying to mess with our rights.

These darn "cult-like evangelical fanatics and their Radical Cleric leaders" can do all the snake dancing and other thing they want to in their own circles, but as for me and mine, we still get to choose. I plan to let them know too.


Religiosity is a mental illness and I will call it that given the chance. I am a very spiritual person, but feel these people are not and they are only into imposing their cult-like fanaticism on the rest of us.

[TheFarseer]

6. you're 100% correct

We are losing the battle of termonology. They always seem to frame the debate so we look like the bad guy. Have you also noticed that even when there isn't really a debate on an "issue" because one side is totally wrong, we get stuck "defending" that side eventhough NO mainstream democrats are taking that position. Such as "should we legalize crack?" "should we ban fishing?" "should we give the PLO nuclear weapons?" I'm sick of dems getting portrayed as wackos because they always have to frame any kind of news as a debate.

[Philostopher]

7. It's not a bogus distinction, montieg.

There is a difference between fundamentalist Christians and evangelical Christians, or at least there used to be. Here's what the distinction used to be, as near as I can tell it:

Fundamentalist Christians apparently believe that God speaks directly to them. They're 'charismatics,' which is to say they believe the spirit 'takes them over' and causes them to speak in tongues, allows them to handle snakes, and gives them the power to heal each other by the laying on of hands. That's the most dramatic fundamentalists, of course -- some are less 'charismatic' than others, but they all believe God takes them over, at least when they're praying if at no other time.

Evangelical Christians, as they were when I was one, don't believe in this stuff. They believe in a conservative, strict interpretation of the bible, and that one should follow that strict interpretation if one expects heaven as a reward at the end of life. Evangelizing means going out and telling other people -- and I think fundamentalists believe this, as well -- because it's your job, as a Christian, to make sure they aren't uninformed about your beliefs. The unwashed public risks eternity in hell if not informed.

Trust me on this -- there's a reason many of us make the distinction. Now, some evangelical churches have departed from the general schtick they all seemed to follow twenty or thirty years ago. For them, that schtick included 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's,' and many of them seem to believe that which is Caesar's is now God's, but other than that, it's not simply a euphemistic distinction. There used to be a big difference, at least when I considered myself Christian; I don't know if it's as big a difference now, but I expect any evangelical Christian could easily tell you the current differences if they cared to enter a dialogue about it. I imagine there are some here on DU -- not all evangelical churches are full of Republicans.

[NMDemDist2]

9. hubby says that in the new testament Jesus says something about

it being prideful to loudly proclaim your righteousness, it is a sin of pride and that worship should be done in private

[Philostopher]

12. And the church I attended had much the same attitude.

But evangelizing -- going out and talking to people about your beliefs -- is different from either praying in public or what evangelicals are doing now, via our government, in their attempts at 'moral engineering' of America.

I'm in no way either deriding or defending them, when I try to articulate distinctions -- just trying to clarify that there is, or at least used to be, a difference between one kind of religion and another.

[montieg]

15. True, every word, IMO

but I still think we are on a slippery slope ... becoming too 'nuanced', if you will. And as a nominal Presbyterian, I run the risk of tarring some of my church, but I think for us to reclaim our ground, we use their own weapons (words) against them, and the term fundamentalist fits the bill.

[CJCRANE]

21. Is it true that Fundamentalist Christians

do not believe in good "deeds"?

I used to post on the BBC Religion board and the resident fundie there basically said that fundamentalist christians are chosen by the "grace" of God, that there is nothing you can do to be chosen, it just happens mysteriously because of "grace". By the same token he seemed to imply that people who do good deeds but are not chosen are worthless, and that those who are "chosen" don't need to do good deeds.

It didn't really seem like a particulary fair system to me, i.e. that only a few people are chosen and those that aren't chosen can't do much about it except wait for it to happen and if it doesn't then tough luck.

[montieg]

24. Man, you are hitting at the

basis of Calvinism, here. And it gets very sticky! I live in west Texas where the closest Unitarian church is 70 miles away, so I go to the most 'liberal' church in town--Presbyterian. You want to see Calvinism in its rawest form--look at the roots of Presbyterianism. What you are speaking of is 'predestination': God chooses who HE will to save. Others can do good works, but it won't help them in any way, shape or form.

[Kahuna]

10. Agreed. That is how the repukes get to define the issues..

and arguments. When we use their terminology we are accepting their premise and giving validity to their point of view.

[juliagoolia]

11. wikipedia on fundamentalism and evangelical nutjobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

[blackangrydem]

13. I wonder why they keep changing their name.

During the Reagan years it was the "Moral Majority"

During the Clinton years it was the "Christian Coalition"

Now they are just, "evangelicals".

Same folks.

[quiet.american]

14. You're right

We're all too willing to use the self-named terms of the opposition.

If a person is a bona-fide Bushco supporter, to me they are the following:

Fundamentalist/Evangelical= Fanatic
Conservative= Corporatist
Conservative= Kool-Aid Drinker
Conservative= Anti-Democracy Fanatic
Religious Right= Fanatic
The Right= Kool-Aid Drinkers
Pro-life= Anti-Choice

Thanks for bringing up this subject.

[BeFree]

16. Religious extremists

Abortion and gay issues, sad to say, only serve to unify the religious extremists with moderates to form a large enough minority to sway elections.

This country was founded by folks opposed to any religious involvement by the government. They had had enough of religious extremists in Europe and most of the whites who came here wanted to be free from any government sponsored religion. Separation of church and state, ya know?


The simplest term is usually the best, and using the term "Religious Extremists" hearkens to the historic nature of this country and expresses the one true freedom that made America what it is: Freedom from religious extremists.

[tavalon]

19. Lol

As a failed fundamentalist (they got me too late - see my post called Blame, Shame and Train), that last sentence hits the nail on the head.

[BlueManDude]

20. and once and for all it's the DEMOCRAT-IC PARTY not the

Democrat Party. Got it?

[montieg]

23. Hell YES!

That's the one that pisses me off the worst. Especially when I see it in newspapers or hear it on NPR/PBS. It also gets me when they use 'liberal' in a context such that it would exchange for 'traitor'.

[lawladyprof]

22. There are liberal evangelicals

Think Sojourners today (I believe there is a magazine of that name) and the Social Gospel of the early 1900s. Theologically, they tend toward the literal interpretation of the Bible and the necessity of evangelizing (the Great Commission to spread Christ's word). Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelical Christianity. Again, literalists, evangelizing, but much more rigid, dogmatic, judgmental, formalistic, and very, very socially conservative. Think Calvinist.
Fundamentalists despise Charismatics (the speaking in tongues, snake handling, and spiritual healing people) and vice versa. The theological difference lies in whether one believes that miracles of the Spirit can occur (descend into/become manifest through a believer) in the modern world or whether they ended with Jesus. Another twist is whether you are a pre- or post-millennialist.

[montieg]

25. First paragraph, agree 100%

but second--it doesn't play out that way where I am.
"Fundamentalists despise Charismatics and vice versa. "
Yes, the fundies and charies here disagree over the Spitit and its manifestations, but far from hating each other, seem to.... I guess, ignore is the word, until speaking of modernists, then wham! Bam! It's us agin' them!
But you are dead on with your subject line. Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers immediately come to mind. Google "Sister Joan Chittister + NOW"
for a great interview. Another idea for our framing comes from her: "They're not 'pro-life. They're pro-birth."
And here is the link to Sojourners:
http://www.sojo.net/