Fundamentalism and politics

[johnhanks]

There are, no doubt, some left-wing biblical fundamentalists, and some on the political right who regard Genesis as myth or allegory; but I would suggest that overall the correlation between fundamentalist religious views (including creationism) and right-wing political opinion is too strong to be coincidental: one is a powerful prop to the other.

The political right has a strong interest in maintaining the social status quo, including inequalities embedded in that status quo; and religious fundamentalism provides a powerful source of justification for those inequalities. In the past biblical fundamentalism has been used to justify slavery and racial inequality; more recently it has been used to justify keeping women 'in their place' as obedient home-makers, and at present it is still being invoked to justify unequal treatment of gays.

So which is the cart and which the horse in this relationship? Does a starting point in religious fundamentalism lead people to a right-wing political perspective, or vice versa? I'm inclined to think the latter: that a society with an entrenched conservative outlook, especially if it has social inequalities its upper castes will profit by preserving, will gravitate toward religious fundamentalism. The American bible belt comes to mind, as, perhaps, does the South Africa of a couple of generations ago, when apartheid was enthusiastically endorsed by the Dutch Reformed Church.

So, is the above merely a statement of the obvious? Or have I invented or exaggerated the correlation in question? All views welcome.

 

[Kerr]

and some on the political right who regard Genesis as myth or allegory

Not sure if they are extremists, but I know of a few people very far to the right who are completely atheistic and secular.

 

[johnhanks]

Not sure if they are extremists, but I know of a few people very far to the right who are completely atheistic and secular.

Yes, I'm sure. It's no part of my thesis that the correlation is 100%.

 

[Kerr]

Yes, I'm sure. It's no part of my thesis that the correlation is 100%.

Ok. Personally my instinct tells me that one shouldn´t generalize too much, depends on what right-winged group we are talking about and so I guess, but I don´t know that much about the subject.

 

[johnhanks]

Ok. Personally my instinct tells me that one shouldn´t generalize too much, depends on what right-winged group we are talking about and so I guess, but I don´t know that much about the subject.

I don't claim authority either, and I agree with you about the dangers of over-generalising. But I don't think the term 'religious right' became a cliche from nowhere, and I'm certainly not familiar with an equivalent force on the political left.

 

[Kathryn]

There's a religious right and a religious left. There are a large group of atheists or agnostics who are extremely right wing, and there are large groups of religious people who are extremely left wing.

That being said, your question was which comes first - the religious dogma or the political stance. Personally, growing up in the American South, I would say that religious dogma comes first. Most religious people grow up in a religious environment and are exposed to religious viewpoints long before they even grasp the idea that politics exist.

I think that all forms of government over the course of history have tried to use religion and religious posturing as tools to reach groups of people and to recruit those members, since they are already a cohesive group. Politicians will use any means to manipulate and entice, including posturing as members of religious groups in order to gain access and credibility with the members of those groups.

 

[Kerr]

I don't claim authority either, and I agree with you about the dangers of over-generalising. But I don't think the term 'religious right' became a cliche from nowhere, and I'm certainly not familiar with an equivalent force on the political left.

I don´t think it is a cliché either, guess it is a valid term on some right wing groups. On others it is not. But I don´t know any statistics, so I just go with my gut that tells me not to assume too much .

 

[LittleNipper]

There are, no doubt, some left-wing biblical fundamentalists, and some on the political right who regard Genesis as myth or allegory; but I would suggest that overall the correlation between fundamentalist religious views (including creationism) and right-wing political opinion is too strong to be coincidental: one is a powerful prop to the other.

The political right has a strong interest in maintaining the social status quo, including inequalities embedded in that status quo; and religious fundamentalism provides a powerful source of justification for those inequalities. In the past biblical fundamentalism has been used to justify slavery and racial inequality; more recently it has been used to justify keeping women 'in their place' as obedient home-makers, and at present it is still being invoked to justify unequal treatment of gays.

So which is the cart and which the horse in this relationship? Does a starting point in religious fundamentalism lead people to a right-wing political perspective, or vice versa? I'm inclined to think the latter: that a society with an entrenched conservative outlook, especially if it has social inequalities its upper castes will profit by preserving, will gravitate toward religious fundamentalism. The American bible belt comes to mind, as, perhaps, does the South Africa of a couple of generations ago, when apartheid was enthusiastically endorsed by the Dutch Reformed Church.

So, is the above merely a statement of the obvious? Or have I invented or exaggerated the correlation in question? All views welcome.

I do TOTALLY disagree! The Christian fundamentalist sees the cause and affect of sin. He wants to instill an understanding of responsibility for one's choices within the framework of society. He is not looking to hold to status quos that are in direct conflict with the Holy Bible's standards. If what "johnhanks" suggests were true, the Civil War would never have happened, because that war was eventually seen as a HOLY WAR against slavery. And if Fundamentalists of the South were entirely for slavery, the Underground Railroad would not have never have worked. It took people of moral convictions to promote such an undertaking.

Governments try to maintain the status quo. That is how they stay in power. They are not spiritual. People can be spiritual. People can change the minds of those in power through prayer and supplication. That is what has happened as the United States matured, from a secular coloney of the Old World, into a secular moral presense which was somewhat to highly motivated by Christian spiritual ideal virtue rather than human secular vices.

 

[johnhanks]

There's a religious right and a religious left. There are a large group of atheists or agnostics who are extremely right wing, and there are large groups of religious people who are extremely left wing.

No doubt, but is their religion fundamentalist in nature? I was particularly interested in the relationship not just between politics and religion, but what I perceive as a link between right-wing politics and a particular kind of religious view - the kind we would label fundamentalist or literalist. (My question is not meant rhetorically - I'd be interested to know.)

That being said, your question was which comes first - the religious dogma or the political stance. Personally, growing up in the American South, I would say that religious dogma comes first. Most religious people grow up in a religious environment and are exposed to religious viewpoints long before they even grasp the idea that politics exist.

At an individual level I don't doubt you're right; my query is really directed at the cultural/societal level. Does a society which is predominantly politically conservative gravitate toward widespread biblical literalism, is it the other way round, or is there no relationship? Travelling as a foreigner in Louisiana a few years ago I had the impression of an overwhelmingly politically conservative culture which was also strongly fundamentalist in its religion. If my impression was wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected, but from here it still looks as though the majority of, say, Sarah Palin's supporters have religious views that match their political ones.

I think that all forms of government over the course of history have tried to use religion and religious posturing as tools to reach groups of people and to recruit those members, since they are already a cohesive group. Politicians will use any means to manipulate and entice, including posturing as members of religious groups in order to gain access and credibility with the members of those groups.

I'd go further than you on this one and say that throughout history religion has been a powerful tool for the imposition of secular authority. Claiming divine sanction for your rule is a good way of lifting yourself and your actions beyond answerability.

 

[fantome profane]

So which is the cart and which the horse in this relationship? Does a starting point in religious fundamentalism lead people to a right-wing political perspective, or vice versa?

I would say that it is neither. Rather that fundamentalist literalism and political conservatism are both being pulled by a strong commitment to authoritarianism.

 

[johnhanks]

I do TOTALLY disagree! The Christian fundamentalist sees the cause and affect of sin. He wants to instill an understanding of responsibility for one's choices within the framework of society. He is not looking to hold to status quos that are in direct conflict with the Holy Bible's standards.

Thank you: you illustrate my point superbly. Christian fundamentalists are keen to apply what they present as biblical standards to uphold the kind of society they think right; this is hardly ever done from a left-wing perspective, but instead is used to argue against causes such as feminism, gay rights etc.

It goes without saying that the 'Holy Bible's standards' with which fundamentalists wish society to conform are carefully selected: Leviticus 18:22 is trotted out with great regularity, but I don't see many Kansas farmers paying attention to 19:9.

If what "johnhanks" suggests were true, the Civil War would never have happened, because that war was eventually seen as a HOLY WAR against slavery. And if Fundamentalists of the South were entirely for slavery, the Underground Railroad would not have never have worked. It took people of moral convictions to promote such an undertaking.

Indeed it did; and how typical were they of their society?

 

[Kathryn]

No doubt, but is their religion fundamentalist in nature? I was particularly interested in the relationship not just between politics and religion, but what I perceive as a link between right-wing politics and a particular kind of religious view - the kind we would label fundamentalist or literalist. (My question is not meant rhetorically - I'd be interested to know.)
At an individual level I don't doubt you're right; my query is really directed at the cultural/societal level. Does a society which is predominantly politically conservative gravitate toward widespread biblical literalism, is it the other way round, or is there no relationship? Travelling as a foreigner in Louisiana a few years ago I had the impression of an overwhelmingly politically conservative culture which was also strongly fundamentalist in its religion. If my impression was wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected, but from here it still looks as though the majority of, say, Sarah Palin's supporters have religious views that match their political ones.
I'd go further than you on this one and say that throughout history religion has been a powerful tool for the imposition of secular authority. Claiming divine sanction for your rule is a good way of lifting yourself and your actions beyond answerability.

Right wing politics in the US uses religious traditionalists shamelessly on some levels. Just as left wing politics use other groups shamelessly.

However, like it or not, some of the right wing platform does mirror the RELIGIOUS views of conservative American Protestants (and some Catholics) - perceived views on abortion, work ethic, marriage and sexuality, a sense of duty to one's family and - the extension of the family, community and country.

Not sure of your religious background. But I can speak from my religious background and my upbringing in the American South. Faith is an integral part of that background. Church and the community surrounding the church is ever present - and that's often a good thing. Some of my fondest childhood memories revolve around church and religious events. These events were absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - devoid of political content.

When a person instilled with strong values based in faith and religious doctrine is faced with a set of beliefs that apparently despises, ridicules, and disdains those core beliefs, that person is immediately put on the defensive. They want to defend their family, their community, the lifestyle and belief system that they hold dear.

Who wouldn't? I think that's a natural tendency, regardless of religious affiliation.

American Southerners in general (and I am making very broad generalizations here, so I apologize in advance for that), realize that they have a lot of strengths and that there are many qualities of life they enjoy and hold dear - qualities that they would gladly share with others. They also realize that they are ridiculed and disdained by other groups of people who do not understand or even try to understand their perspective.

So to answer your question - I think that religious fundamentalists (or conservatives - not always the same thing by the way) generally put their religion FIRST and politics a distant third - after their family/community. But when they feel that the tenets of their faith - which is first and foremost - are attacked by a political party or person, they will gravitate toward and support the party or person who they believe will offer the most protection for their belief system and their community.

I think that's common human nature by the way. I believe that, for example, gay people will do the same thing. Who wouldn't?

 

[Father Heathen]

Who wouldn't?

Personally, I wouldn't support limiting the rights and liberty of other people, even if I do disagree with what they do or say.

 

[Kathryn]

Father Heathen,

That's nice. Me either. Many Christians feel that they are fighting to protect their own lifestyles though - and the rights of others. It is frustrating when they realize that so many others are insisting that they are intolerant and refusing to see that they believe in protecting the rights of other people as well. It's as if other parties refuse to acknowledge that they are concerned for human rights as well.

 

[Father Heathen]

Father Heathen,

That's nice. Me either. Many Christians feel that they are fighting to protect their own lifestyles though - and the rights of others. It is frustrating when they realize that so many others are insisting that they are intolerant and refusing to see that they believe in protecting the rights of other people as well. It's as if other parties refuse to acknowledge that they are concerned for human rights as well.

Protecting what from what though?

 

[Kathryn]

I'll give you an example. Personally, I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. On a societal level, I don't care what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. I don't care what they call it, I don't care if they do it.

But I don't want my children to be taught, using my tax dollars, that sex outside of marriage is OK and that all sorts of alternative lifestyles are equally as "moral" as marriage between the two sexes. I want my kids to learn about birth control. I want my kids to learn the science of procreation and sexuality - but I don't want them to be force fed a MORAL stand on that by the public school system. I don't want the moral values that I try to instill in my children to be undermined by a public education system or government entity.

I do however, want the school system or government system to uphold the concept of respect for others, and the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness regardless of ideology. That is, after all, how I raised my kids and that's another ideal that I don't want undermined by any sort of system - be it government or private.

 

[johnhanks]

Not sure of your religious background. But I can speak from my religious background and my upbringing in the American South. Faith is an integral part of that background. Church and the community surrounding the church is ever present - and that's often a good thing. Some of my fondest childhood memories revolve around church and religious events. These events were absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - devoid of political content.

Yes, I don't doubt it; but from over here it appears that your political events - especially those on the right - are rarely devoid of religious content; and that is the way I see the relationship working: essentially sociopolitical aims shored up by appeal to religious doctrines.

I will not press the point any more strongly, if only because I am observing from several thousand miles away whilst you are on the spot. I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous responses.

 

[Kathryn]

And I deeply appreciate your civil tone as well, johnhanks. I only wish that more people would earnestly seek understanding of other points of view, rather than just judging via kneejerk.

I don't mind your sincere questions and will continue to answer any that you have. If you are looking for answers from an American Southerner who is also a Christian, I do fit that description. However, I am not a fundamentalist and I am not a Republican. I am a civil libertarian and an independent voter. If I had to say what type of group I most relate to - it would have to be a more Texan than deep south sort of outlook, because Texans in general are more independent minded and seem to appreciate individuality a bit more than your average Southern Baptist Republican (those scare the hell out of me, by the way!).

 

[LittleNipper]

Thank you: you illustrate my point superbly. Christian fundamentalists are keen to apply what they present as biblical standards to uphold the kind of society they think right; this is hardly ever done from a left-wing perspective, but instead is used to argue against causes such as feminism, gay rights etc.

It goes without saying that the 'Holy Bible's standards' with which fundamentalists wish society to conform are carefully selected: Leviticus 18:22 is trotted out with great regularity, but I don't see many Kansas farmers paying attention to 19:9.
Indeed it did; and how typical were they of their society?

What you may not fully understand is that the Bible presents two types of LAW. One type is moral (love thy neighbor, love GOD, do not murder). The other LAW was ritual in nature (do not mix seeds, materials in cloth, etc.). Its purpose was strictly to demonstrate/illustrate GOD's purity. The Hebrews were/are a nation set apart by GOD to be an illustration of GOD's divine power and order.

Unfortunately, Israel did whatever they wished and GOD punished them again and again and again for their presumptions (the Bible is very clear on that point)! The Jew was the end result. They placed their faith and trust in keeping the letter of the LAW without concern for it's untimate intent. That intent being that they couldn't in fact keep the LAW. They needed a Messiah/SAVIOR. The JEW merely wanted a new king over Israel.

Today, the JEW doesn't keep the LAW. If he did, they'd be sacrificing various animals in the Temple. This they have not done for over 2000 years. They can now only admit that GOD must somehow have mercy for this indiscression.

 

[sandandfoam]

All views welcome.

Your title made me think of the Green Party and SWP