A reader writes:
Once again, you’ve overstepped in your denunciation of fundamentalism:
It reminds me of the fundamentalist mindset: because we are on the side of good, and our enemy is evil, we can do no wrong. The ends always justify the means.
I spent the first 21 years of my life firmly esconced in fundamentalist Christianity, and for all its faults, I must say that this mindset is something I never saw; in fact, I heard countless sermons making precisely the opposite point: "Never do evil so that good may come." Or, as that most reviled of fundamentalists, Bob Jones, once said, "It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right." During my student days–at a bastion of fundamentialism–I was a member of an intercollegiate debate team, and our topic one year was on whether violence was justified to overthrow domestic tyranny. There was much discussion as to the ethics of our even debating that topic because, while war against a tyrannical state might be justified, insurrection could never be, in light of St. Paul’s injunction that Christians submit to secular authority–even for the ultimate good of casting off tyranny.
Certainly, there are those such as Pat Robertson who fit the stereotype of the raving fundamentalist you hold dear, and certainly, the disconnect between this President’s actions and his professed Christianity has been in some cases quite jarring. But your habit of painting with such a broad brush lessens your value as a commentator on American political and religious life: you merely confirm the prejudices of your liberal readers and insult those on your right who are either theological fundamentalists or know and love those who are.
The reader has a point. Maybe it is better to say that this mindset is a fundamentalist temptation, made more likely by the certainty and absolutism that fundamentalism fosters, and the inerrancy it often requires and demands of its leaders. The brush exists. It’s just narrower than I described it.
The Dish 