News-Record.com

You're dead on.

Pitts' column was horrendously inaccurate and should never have been printed. What he labels fundamentalist has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Worse still is his own hypocrisy:

The only way that works is if we inculcate respect for difference and, more to the point, respect for the laws and customs that protect difference. The Schiavo case offered an up-close and unpretty look at the sort of respect fundamentalists have for difference -- in this case, difference of opinion.

What Pitts doesn't see (or doesn't want to see) is that the "fundamentalists' " opinion needs to be respected as well.

I've got to say, I think Pitts is dead on. "Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with political issues." Merriam-Webster gives the definition of "fundamentalism" as "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching[emphasis mine]." By this definition it is perfectly fair to say that believing literally in Genesis and opposition to evolution is a characteristic if fundamentalism.

I agree that such things do not amount to the fundamentals of Christian faith, especially not mine. However, I don't think Pitts can be faulted for using a definition straight from the dictionary.

Incidentally, I do think it is a pretty horrible thing to be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. What kind of travesty is it to be forced to pledge loyalty to a piece of fabric? I do think it ironic though that many of the people who do want to require the Pledge in classrooms also want the Ten Commandments in them. Perhaps they should look at the first two.

I think the links to the so-called fundamentalists and politics are very strong. There were pro-Bush religious videos distributed to churches during the campaign. Telling teachers what to teach based on religion is happening in many parts of the country, and that is a political issue. Pharmacists being allowed to deny customers medication is also quite alarming. And only one US Senator suggested that unmarried pregnant women should be allowed to teach, but another suggested capital punishment for doctors who have performed abortions. I think there is a growing trend of religious extremism in politics, and I agree it is alarming.

People can differ over the meaning of "fundamentalist," just as y'all have, but there is no denying Pitts' larger point, which is that a certain subset of socially conservative Christians has gained control over the Republican Party and, by extension, the country. This advance is more pronounced in some areas than others, but it is unmistakable to anyone believing his/her own lyin' eyes, and it threatens the future of our country as a constitutional republic.

When a lawyer can stand up in a gathering of prominent Republicans in our nation's capital and call with impunity for not just an end to an independent judiciary but also the deaths of judges with whose rulings he disagrees, as happened just last week, this country is in deep trouble.

But what do I know? I'm just a lifelong Christian and a Republican since 1978.

I don't see how the fact that socially conservative Christians have gained control over the Republican Party threatens the future of the country and its roots. Last time I checked, the U.S. is still a democracy (sort of), which as we all learned in second grade means -- all together now -- rule by the people.

I certainly can understand concern, worry and even fear, but not a sense that the political fabric is tearing. Quite the contrary. This shows that democracy is working. The voters are expressing their wishes at the polls.

I admit it's worrisome to hear the proposals of a few radical conservatives (who I'd be hard-pressed to call Christians, although only God knows), but that's a fact of life no matter what side you're on. I'm sure some liberal, atheist Democrat has proposed making pigs eligible to hold office (because pigs are people, too). I don't mean to make light of some serious, threatening proposals, but again, democracy works because 99.99999 percent of people (including conservative Christians) would never approve the death of dissenting judges.

Thanks for the responses. Good debate.

I have to agree with Jason. I don't see much of a threat to constitutional rule here, despite the rantings of a few extremists.

If these radicals HAVE taken over the country, they're remarkably ineffective at actually enacting their agenda. But the truth is there are enough moderating influences in both parties, and certainly in mainstream America, to check the worst impulses of some.

No one is forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Judges aren't being impeached, let alone strung up, for their liberal rulings. The worst that Republican senators are trying to do is confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.

Bush played to conservative churches? So what? Didn't Kerry campaign in black churches every Sunday for several weeks before Election Day? I don't think either candidate triggered a constitutional crisis.

Of course, my original point was that fundamentalist Christians - granted, by my definition - aren't necessarily tied in to any of these political movements.

Lex, I've belonged to and quit both political parties.

And, in case Rusty is reading, I'm not going to join yours, either. But thanks if you were going to ask.

Incidentally, I do think it is a pretty horrible thing to be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. What kind of travesty is it to be forced to pledge loyalty to a piece of fabric?

Andrew,
No one forces you to say the Pledge of Allegiance. To be able to say the pledge is not a travesty but an honor and a privilege.

That "piece of fabric" as you call it is more than a piece of fabric. It is a symbol of what this country is all about. Evidently they no longer teach about patriotism in school or even history from what I have seen in the recent text books.

It saddens me to think that I have given over half my years honoring, protecting and loving what the "piece of fabric" stands for and that I have fought, bled and dang near died for all the rights that that "piece of fabric" stands only to have someone show such disdain for the flag of this country. Be grateful Andrew that I and millions of others did defend this "piece of fabric" and all that it stands for in order that you may have to right to your opinion, even the right to be wrong.

Thank you for once again spitting in my face and the faces of all those who have gone before and are still going in order to keep this "piece of fabric" flying over this nation of ours.

May God have mercy upon this nation if you are representative of what is being brought up in this country with expectations of leadership. We will not stand long if this is true.

mrproduce,

Thanks for joining in, and for your service to our country. I don't think Andrew meant to belittle that at all.

While he has not been in the military, he will be serving his country as a Peace Corps volunteer beginning later this year. His two-year commitment will require a great deal of personal sacrifice but hopefully help build goodwill for the United States in a Third World country.

There are many ways to put our nation's ideals into practice. Some Americans defend them on the battlefield. Others demonstrate our national character of generosity by extending a hand to the world's less fortunate. In order to remain the greatest nation on earth, we must maintain our traditions of strength and compassion.

Andrew,
Are you suggesting that fundamentalist Christians are deifying the American flag? Don't you think the is a bit of an extreme exaggeration? Mr Produce is right - it's not the flag, but what it stands for that is important. Knowing the history of this country as well as you do, and knowing about all the hardships and suffering that brought about the freedoms we have, I find it hard to believe that the flag and all it represents doesn't mean more to you than it sounds like it does. I'd like to think that it once did.

Mr. Produce-
Thank you for your service to this country. I do think your response to my brother was a bit harsh. As my dad mentioned, he will be an ambassador to this nation, and the world is a better place for it. I just think he's a bit disgusted with today's government. He's more liberal in his view points than I am.

Doug, you did a great job of tackling this issue. And I don't think Pitts was necessarily feeling bound by dictionary definitions when he wrote his column.

The use of the word fundamentalism in the public square is intended to castigate people who bring a more conservative religious worldview to the political process. Liberal religious worldviews are entirely unthreatening, and are therefore exceedingly welcome.

But folks like Pitts do not understand there is a wide continuum in the Christian community with regard to the degree to which people feel they must adhere to Biblical truth and belief. (A similar continuum exists in Judaism and Islam). What percentage of this continuum is Pitts trying to stigmatize? The use of the word fundamentalism is a false identifier, because there are many points along the continuum.

Doug, Kenny,

"In order to remain the greatest nation on earth, we must maintain our traditions of strength and compassion." Doug is not the flag of this nation one of the great traditions?

Andrews,remarks about the flag of this nation is an insult whether you see it as that or not. As I said in my post, the flag, while it may be "a piece of fabric" stands for all this nation is about. It stands for the honor, the sacrifice, the liberty(yes even the liberty to belittle it). It is more than just a "piece of fabric".
To me the flag is like your last name in a way. It is your heritage. Your last name should stand for something that you are proud of and I am sure you are proud of your name. I am sure if someone insulted your name, your heritage, you would be just as offended as I.

I hope that Andrew can represent his country as well in the Peace Corp as I and many others have in the military and government service of our country. However with his attitude about the symbols of this country, of this great nation, I can have reason to doubt that he will be a good ambassador of this nation.

One can not on one hand degrade something as special as the symbol that represents this nation and on the other hand be a true representative of the country.

An ambassador is described as one who represents the "king" in the court of another. When that ambassador goes forth he carries all the dignity, the honor of that country. If he fails to honor the symbols of his country , he can not truly be an ambassador.

I am sorry that you felt you needed to come forth and defend your son and your brother. He evidently can not find it in himself to defend his callousness. It seems he has done the same thing on other post when confronted.

No Kenny, I don't think I was too harsh on your brother. I would say the same thing to my own child if he/she had made the same remark. Of course it would have been much harsher in that case. My daughter and I differ on some things politically but when it comes to Country and what it stands for, God help the one who would insult it. She has a proud heritage. On her mothers side of the family they have a total of 140 plus years of combined military service in just the last generation and this one. Then she has her Dad to look to and respect for his service and duty. She would eat Andrews breakfast for such statements. She had a reputation for handling young men at SWG. She took her general orders seriously. Especially the one that says, I will walk my post from flank to flank and take no crap from any rank" (very loose translation but it expresses the point.)

Kenny,
While I don't think the flag is being intentionally deified by anyone, I think it would appear that way to someone looking on from outside. I do also know that no one is forced to say the pledge, but I do think it would be a bad thing if they were.

mrproduce,
I in no way meant any disrespect to this country, which I am proud of. However, if we were forced to swear allegiance to the flag, I do think this would be a horrible thing. If our country is worth honoring, as it is, we wouldn't need to force people to do it. I personally find the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance somewhat strange. It does say that "I pledge allegiance to the flag..." To take the metaphor to Christianity, Christians don't, or at least I don't, pledge loyalty to symbol of Christianity such as a cross, but with what it represents. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but I see it as an important difference. mrproduce, I appreciate your service as much as anyone, as I do everyone else's, including that of one of my best friends who was wounded in Iraq. I do have lots of reverence for this country, though I may not have as much as some people for symbols of this country.

I am joining the Peace Corps and it is to serve my country, but I admit it is primarily to serve the people where I am sent. I do want to do good for this country, but I want to do good for the world as a whole more. Does that make me a worse American? Maybe, but I hope not. Like anyone I have several loyalties. As a Christian I am loyal to God and the other people of this world, and I am loyal to family and country. I'm hoping to be able to use my life to improve the world and this country, but I'm not going to get upset if someone doesn't feel the need or desire to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else, but it's just as offensive to me to be called ungrateful or callous just because I think it's a bad idea to force people to recite a loyalty oath to the flag of a country that is supposed to stand for freedom.

I'm sorry if my response wasn't prompt enough. If I knew I was being accused of being a threat to the future of this country, I would have responded sooner. Reverence for the past achievements of this country is an important part of patriotism, but I believe striving to continue the noble traditions while trying to stop those that aren't as noble is as well.

Jason and Doug: You may not see the threat, but it's there. Recently, and particularly in the context of the Terri Schiavo case, there have been many attacks on the concept of an independent judiciary -- attacks that suggest a contempt for working within the system. Rather than, say, calling for amending the Constitution to alter the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government, prominent Republicans, conservative Christians in particular, have been calling for the impeachment of judges solely on the basis of how they have decided particular cases. And at the conference I referred to, it wasn't just a few lone wackos; it was a prominent GOP lawyer and writer addressing prominent Republicans and those who have their ear, suggesting that judges with whose opinions he disagrees should be killed.

Also, you both should learn more about Christian Reconstructionism and how widely shared its aims are among prominent Republicans.

I think alarm in response to this trend is the only rational response. I like my Constitution just the way it is, thank you, and I'm old-school: When a public official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, I expect him/her to do it or to follow the established process for amending it, at least while still in office, rather than working to subvert it and/or passing laws that violate it.

Lest we forget that lawmakers have a lot of good ideas and do a lot of good things for their constituents ...

Idaho has submitted a bill praising the surprise hit Napoleon Dynamite.

Some choice excerpts:

WHEREAS, tater tots figure prominently in this film thus promoting Idaho's most famous export; and
WHEREAS, the friendship between Napoleon and Pedro has furthered multiethnic relationships; and ...
WHEREAS, Napoleon's tetherball dexterity emphasizes the importance of physical education in Idaho public schools; and ...
WHEREAS, any members of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Legislature of the State of Idaho who choose to vote "Nay" on this concurrent resolution are "FREAKIN' IDIOTS!" and run the risk of having the "Worst Day of Their Lives!"

Good times. Good times.

Biggest thing in Idaho since Evel Knievel's Snake River fiasco?

Thank you Andrew for your responce.
It was not your objection to forcing the Pledge to be said that I took offence with. It was the reference to the Flag as "just a piece of fabric" and seeming not showing the respect for what it stands for. As the pledge says, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and (here is the important part)and to the Republic for which it stands........... Perhaps taking only the I pledge allegiance to the flag... out of context and concentrating on this alone would be reason to object to it. However when you add the remainder it takes on a different meaning. No longer is it just a "piece of fabric" but it becomes representative of this nation.

I have very strong feelings Andrew about my country and my flag. I boil when I see someone desecrate it by burning it or wearing it as a sign of protest or other disrespectful ways.

I am glad that you are a Christian. I commend you for saying that outloud and in public. Too many of our young people don't do that today.

I do hope that you get over whatever anger you have toward this country or it's leaders. I can remember a time that I also was a very angry young man.(War and times of war often bring forth anger to all of us) I would love to tell you about it sometime and perhaps it would help us both in understanding our differences and help you in your journey forth into a world where we are not always loved.
Perhaps through the wisdom of the old and the exuberance of the young that our nation can become one again.

"Idaho has submitted a bill praising the surprise hit Napoleon Dynamite."

And that could be considered the "most ridiculous item of the day."

Just for the record I was using this"most.... way back in 1962 on a college radio station.

mrproduce,
I never did express any anger toward this country in my previous posts, just that I would be angry if a people were forced to say the pledge. It's all well and good if people want to, but if not that's their business. It was a statement written by someone to express their feelings to flag and country, and it may not express the feelings of some people well, even some who are patriotic. I personally am dubious of pledging my loyalty to anything and prefer to let my actions speak. I also tend to be someone who doesn't put too much stock in symbols. I guess I view patriotism like I do religion. If people feel it and want to express it great, but if not that's fine with me and they shouldn't be forced to.

As far as any anger I do feel to this country over war and neglect of the poor, etc. goes, I wouldn't be angry at all if I didn't hold this country to a high standard.

What Lex said. We're not dealing with the fundamentals of Christianity here, or at least not in any form that its founders would recognize. The people Pitts is talking about were well represented at this conference, which posits that America's judiciary is attacking people of faith, are Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists. Their conference was well attended by Republican Congressmen. It was put together by Dr. Rick Scarborough, an admirer of RJ Rushdoony - the father of Reconstructionism.

They will not be satisfied until there is a theocracy here in America. I call that treason, frankly, and I certainly don't call it Christian.

I never did express any anger toward this country in my previous posts

Guess I took what little brother said as what you had said. My mistake.
Oh yea I was angry too because I loved my country and held it in high regard and to high standards.
So on that we can agree

"They will not be satisfied until there is a theocracy here in America. I call that treason, frankly, and I certainly don't call it Christian"

And some will not be satisfied until America is totally socialist. I call that treason and certainly not Christian.

You've got fringes on the far right and on the far left and all have conferences with people attending who are in positions of power. So far the other 80% of us have been able to keep this country on even keel even though we may dip and plunge occassionaly in the storms of lunacy and panic brought on by the ignorant and misguided.

"And some will not be satisfied until America is totally socialist. I call that treason and certainly not Christian."

I don't see making America totally socialist on the same level as making it a theocracy. Neither is a good idea, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to be capitalist. There is something forbidding state sponsored religion though.

As for whether or not it's Christian, that's an interesting argument. To play devil's advocate, there have been Christian socialists, like Tolstoy, and the early Christians of Acts lived in what can best be described as a communist society (see Acts 4:32-37). In fact, it's quite a small step from this passage to Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Note to anyone who may flip out: I am not advocating a communist America, just a little food for thought.

One other fact to ponder, mrproduce: Those who would not rest until America is totally socialist are on the fringes of society. The radicals at the other extreme are well represented in the majority parties in Congress and in the executive branch, the courts and other influential institutions. Both are dangerous, in my opinion, but which is the clearer and more present danger? There's no comparison.

Both are dangerous, in my opinion, but which is the clearer and more present danger? There's no comparison.

I take Both are dangerous and leave it at that.

/Back to the Hillary thing. I received this from a long standing friend of mine who happens to be a yellow dog Democrat.

Hillary's first night as President .......YEAR 2008

Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in the White House. She has waited so long.....

The ghost of George Washington appears, and Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Washington says, "Never tell a lie."
"Ouch!" Says Hillary, "I don't know about that."

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears...
Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Jefferson says, "Listen to the people."
"Ohhh! I really don't want to do that."

On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears...
Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Lincoln says,(you fill in the blank of what you think Linoln said)

Sorry, but on the 140th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination, that's not real funny.

Doug,
First of all I did this for two reasons. One was to see who was paying attention to topics, thus my intro:/Back to the Hillary thing. The next was to evoke responses. I used this in a group discussion which happened to be on fundamentalist. I received many different responses. Most were one way or the other on what Lincolns advice would have been, (don't go to the theater or go to the theater,) and were taken lightly. One person was offended that perhaps I was suggesting something ill befall Hillary which I certainly was not. As I told her the point of this was not to offend anyone but to show how our preceptions cause us to form an opinion.(Your response is one example)

My point was no matter the response, it is the perception of the individual hearing the response as to which side of the fundamentalist isle one would be placed.

In some ways all opinions are based on some fundamental belief so in essense we are all fundamentalist.

mrproduce,

Sorry if I overreacted. It's just a bad day to make light of Lincoln's murder. I'm still upset about it.

My post or Lincoln's murder?

I suppose would one could say that JW Booth was a fundamentalist extremist. Of course there are some who would take exception to that statement and others would applauded it.

I do apologize if I offended you Doug. It certainly was not my intention at all. I had to do the same thing last night in a class that I facilitated with the lady who was seemingly offended. Thankfully later she was able to laugh at the folly of the entire thing.

I'm still mourning Lincoln. Your posts aren't lethal.

Glad to hear my post aren't lethal.

Seems that some of the folks on some of these blogs would differ with you.