Is fundamentalism the problem?
Here’s how the debate goes.
A. Someone like Garry Wills argues in the New York Times that religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, is a threat to enlightened government/“liberalism” in the classical sense/etc. That the victory of George Bush, with the help of religious conservatives, is a triumph of "belief over reason."
B. Someone like the National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford counterargues that (watch this logic) people like Garry Wills are the problem because really, Islamic fundamentalists are the problem because they kill people. The implication here is either that a critique of our current leadership from Wills’ perspective weakens our ability to combat violent Islamic fundamentalism abroad, or that we should not be concerned about Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. because it does not inspire violence as Islamic fundamentalism has.
The Willses of the world may very well be overstating their case. In fact, as one who grew up among fundamentalist Christians, many of whom are quite socially liberal and even “enlightened,” I would argue that this is so. However, that does not change fact that Stuttaford’s logic is very flawed.
Stuttaford, synopsized: “Wills and co. say that fundamentalists in the U.S. are dangerous to Western civilization. Well, if you want to see fundamentalists that are dangerous to Western civilization, look no further than Amsterdam, where documentarian Theo van Gogh was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists.”
Problem: Diversionary. Does not respond to Wills’s argument that Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. could threaten classical liberal values. Just because Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to art/science/rationality does not mean that U.S. Christian fundamentalism is not also a threat to these things.
Some Islamic fundamentalist murdered Theo van Gogh because of the political ideas expressed in his most recent film. A less bloody, but just as significant, death of reason and art will occur if the Bush administration obeys its mandate from the religious right.
A. Someone like Garry Wills argues in the New York Times that religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, is a threat to enlightened government/“liberalism” in the classical sense/etc. That the victory of George Bush, with the help of religious conservatives, is a triumph of "belief over reason."
B. Someone like the National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford counterargues that (watch this logic) people like Garry Wills are the problem because really, Islamic fundamentalists are the problem because they kill people. The implication here is either that a critique of our current leadership from Wills’ perspective weakens our ability to combat violent Islamic fundamentalism abroad, or that we should not be concerned about Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. because it does not inspire violence as Islamic fundamentalism has.
The Willses of the world may very well be overstating their case. In fact, as one who grew up among fundamentalist Christians, many of whom are quite socially liberal and even “enlightened,” I would argue that this is so. However, that does not change fact that Stuttaford’s logic is very flawed.
Stuttaford, synopsized: “Wills and co. say that fundamentalists in the U.S. are dangerous to Western civilization. Well, if you want to see fundamentalists that are dangerous to Western civilization, look no further than Amsterdam, where documentarian Theo van Gogh was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists.”
Problem: Diversionary. Does not respond to Wills’s argument that Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. could threaten classical liberal values. Just because Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to art/science/rationality does not mean that U.S. Christian fundamentalism is not also a threat to these things.
Some Islamic fundamentalist murdered Theo van Gogh because of the political ideas expressed in his most recent film. A less bloody, but just as significant, death of reason and art will occur if the Bush administration obeys its mandate from the religious right.
posted by Waage on Saturday, November 13, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home