That all depends on what the meaning of fundamentalism is. And it’s complicated. I mean, it’s complicated within the relatively homogeneous world of Catholicism (with which I have infinitely more familiarity), and I confess I sometimes miss the nuances among various stripes of Protestants. I’m also guilty of talking about the “religious right” as a homogeneous bloc. At times, in the political sense, they are. But in the theological sense, it’s much more complicated. Here’s an interesting article deconstructing some of the more hysterical liberal worries about president Bush’s religion and its influence on our politics. Money quote:
Two points, then, should emerge: First, there are differences between evangelicalism in general and the subset called fundamentalism; and second, those differences are hard to specify because they are matters of tendency and preference rather than doctrine or belief. Basically, all evangelicals (fundamentalist or not) believe that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins; that people need to repent of our sins and “accept Jesus as Lord and Savior”; that we must preach the Gospel to those who don’t know or don’t believe; and that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. The hard part begins when we get down to asking what the Bible actually says.
For many fundamentalists, the way other evangelicals (such as myself) interpret the Bible makes us indistinguishable from liberals: when we say, for example, that the universe is more than 6,000 years old, or approve of the ordination of women, or a hundred other things. You know you’re an evangelical if the fundamentalists think you’re a liberal and the liberals think you’re a fundamentalist.
Welcome to today’s America. Everyone gets a demographic. And they’re getting narrower and narrower all the time.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Don’t equate security with numbers. If that were the case we would have won Vietnam just based on numbers – but that didn’t happen. Whether there be 130,000 troops in Iraq or half a million it wouldn’t have prevented Sadr’s calculated call for violence. Indeed, more troops and more American presence might have given his movement more followers. Furthermore, more troops mean more humvees roaming around which in turn means more easy targets for the layers of roadside bombs. We have to defang Sadr. You’re right about Sistani; he’s sitting back waiting for the coalition to come to him for help as an alternative to Sadr. Sadr’s increasing influence, while threatening to Sistani, actually could empower Sistani. We also have to get the Iraq forces involved – preferably using them to get Sadr. Putting an ‘international face’ on this is bunk – protesters attacked Spanish forces as well. We have to put an Iraqi face on this.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.
The Dish 