Winning the Battle Royal Part 2

PARALLELS AND SOLUTIONS TO THE GROWING DANGER, Part 2--14 April 2023 CE

Repeat of relevant note from last Friday:

A couple of decades ago, Kimberly Blaker wrote to ask me if I’d contribute to a book she was putting together. I did, as did several others for whom I have great respect. The book came out in 2003 and was later translated into Arabic (quite likely the only words of mine ever translated into Arabic).

Some small part of the words reprinted here are slightly dated (two decades later), but most other parts seem to me to apply pointedly well, even to be prescient, in 2023 CE. Ms. Blaker has kindly agreed to let me reprint here the chapter I wrote. There was extensive documentation of sources (footnotes) in the original, (indicated by the numbers [793]-[900] in the text below) but I’m omitting the footnotes here—any who want them can ask and I’ll send them to you—or check out the book at many libraries around the world—go to

https://www.worldcat.org

to search thousands of libraries—or buy a copy for a few bucks in the after-market. The rest of the book is well worth reading also.

Because the chapter is long enough that it would get truncated by some email programs, I only published half of it last Friday—the other half is below. (Regular Friday Freethought Perennials will resume on 21 April.)

More than a matter of life and death

What fundamentalists fail to see is that being absolute is justified only if reality is absolutely simple and if one is absolutely right. They fail to recognize that millions of past believers have been quite sure they were right and that they were carrying out God’s wishes about things current fundamentalists now reject or disagree about. They also seem not to notice that hundreds of millions of current fundamentalists worldwide disagree with each other.

Carrying out divine directives has often proven deadly. This was evidenced in the infamous Inquisition [840], the trial and horrifying execution of Michael Servetus in 1553 [841], slavery in the American South before the Civil War [842], Hitler’s holocausts [843], the persecutions of “witches,” pogroms, the Crusades, and thousands of other examples. Nor, as has been made clear throughout this book, are the dangers safely in the historical past. The recent news story of a Christian mother in Tennessee, unhappy about a Bible course being removed from a public school curriculum at a judge’s direction, provides a tiny but clear example. She declared, “Whoever took it out should be strung up.”[844] In our secular society, a fundamentalist like that is, usually, unable to act effectively on her instincts and preferences—but the danger nevertheless lurks, even if she were merely an isolated example. Unfortunately, she is not. The danger is acute for people who are personally trapped by fundamentalism. This is so whether it is their own fundamentalism or that of their parents or spouses. It is also severe for the larger society wherever fundamentalist social or political power is strong or growing.

Americans must deal with the damage caused to individuals and to society by fundamentalists’ beliefs and practices. For individuals, solutions need to be developed to help people to escape these extreme beliefs and prevent them from turning to fundamentalism again. For the broader problems, broader solutions are needed. Sociologists, psychologists, and government representatives must study this epidemic more systematically and intensely. They must seek solutions, not mere understanding; otherwise, the devastating effects of fundamentalism will continue and are bound to increase.

For fundamentalists starting to move away from their personal fundamentalism, there is some hope, although resources ebb and flow. For example, Fundamentalists Anonymous was founded in 1985 by Richard Yao and James J. D. Luce. By 1987, its membership exceeded 30,000, and it continued to rise thereafter. [845] However, there is apparently no current public telephone number, website, or address for the group. So, its continuing existence is in doubt. According to Rod Evans and Irwin Berent, there were some attempts to establish similar groups for Muslims as early as 1988.846 There is a current website, operated by the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS), http://www.secularislam.org/. It promotes rationalism and secularism within Islamic societies.

Individuals seeking alternatives and escape from fundamentalism can find help in books, on the Web, and through organizations criticizing fundamentalism. These include the Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others. There are also Web pages run by religious people eager to help fundamentalists. For example, http://home.earthlink.net/~jcmmsm/ Groups/index.html is a useful site by former Seventh Day Adventist James C. Moyers. It directs former members of restrictive religious groups to many resources, religious and secular, including books and other Web pages. A site by Jeff Van Vonderen, http://www.spiritualabuse.com/, is a conservative Christian site for Christians suffering from “spiritual abuse” by fundamentalists.

A good example of a book specifically designed as a self-help work for this individual need is Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion by Australian psychologist Marlene Winell. [847] Another useful website for former Christian fundamentalists is “Walk Away,” a part of the Institute For First Amendment Studies, http://www.ifas.org/wa/index.html. The site describes itself as “a place where former fundamentalists can read the stories of other people who have left fundamentalism behind.” Also of help to former fundamentalists is “Families in Reason,” http://www.yourpreacher.com/FIR.html.

For those suffering from fundamentalism, sources like the above are helpful only if they are known. So, secularists should support a wide variety of information sources and organizations. Those groups that provide emotional support for former fundamentalists or the children or spouses who are at risk are of particular importance. As the chapter in this book on women makes clear, addressing emotions involves more than merely providing solace and comfort. Fundamentalist men succeed in oppressing fundamentalist women largely by playing on the emotional needs of the women whether consciously or unconsciously. Countering oppression requires emotional education for female victims, as well as ongoing emotional support. While the primary focus should be the more general task of establishing and maintaining a secular society, it should also be remembered education occurs at the individual level.

The plight of fundamentalists and possible solutions for them deserve and will receive more attention in this chapter. Before returning to the individual level of treatment, it is necessary to summarize the larger problem. As Kimberly Blaker pointed out, “Fundamentalism is in no way a weak or dying force in America. Although it is not always obvious at first glance, this movement is all around us and likely to continue growing.” [848]

Frederick Clarkson, in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, made clear the struggle continues and is widespread. He argued, forcefully and effectively, that “the threat posed by the Christian Right comes not from a few extreme elements but from well organized cadres, both political and paramilitary, dedicated to overthrowing democracy.” [849] Clarkson’s recommended responses in his concluding chapter, “Defending Democracy,” [850] were among the most thoughtful and well-supported approaches available, although they were mostly aimed at political activism. His wise prescriptions are not in conflict with the conclusions presented here.

The advice found in Robert Boston’s Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics was similar and equally sound. As his subtitle implied, Boston was also chiefly concerned with the threat of fundamentalists in the political arena. Like Clarkson, he recommended political activism. He also suggested research into the organizations and strategies of the politically active fundamentalists. He said a constant campaign is needed to expose and publicize fundamentalist values counter to the U.S. Constitution. The ideals that have provided the greatest strengths of American society are also necessary. His chapter, “What’s to Be Done?”[851] is especially valuable in combating the political dangers presented by fundamentalists.

The “Church of Love” versus the “Church of Law”

Not surprisingly, people who consider themselves as religious, but not fundamentalist tend to see threats from fundamentalism in a somewhat different light than do non-religious people. Religious observers often focus on fundamentalism as primarily dangerous to religion. It is likely to lead religious people astray. Karen Armstrong, author of the best-selling A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, attacked fundamentalists primarily as having oversimplified what she saw as the rich and necessary truth of religions and of God. She wrote, for example, “In all its forms, fundamentalism is a fiercely reductive faith.”[852]

Armstrong concluded History with:

Human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they willfill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning. The idols of fundamentalism are not good substitutes for God; if we are to create a vibrant new faith for the twenty-first century, we should, perhaps, ponder the history of God for some warnings and lessons.[853]

In Armstrong’s more recent book, The Battle for God, she warned, “It [fundamentalism] represents a widespread disappointment, alienation, anxiety, and rage that no government can safely ignore.” She added that, there has been little success in dealing with the problem of fundamentalism.[854] Armstrong argued the answer to this is not coercion or suppression. Such only leads to retaliation and greater extremism. “Fundamentalists see conspiracy everywhere and are sometimes possessed by a rage that seems demonic,”[855] Armstrong noted. We must keep in mind, she explained, fundamentalism and its theologies and ideologies are a result of fundamentalist fears. Secularists find excitement in the modern world, but it “seems Godless, drained of meaning, and even satanic to a fundamentalist.”[856]

From a psychological standpoint, the paranoid and extreme thoughts of vengeance common among fundamentalists “would undoubtedly be diagnosed as [a] disturb[ance],” says Armstrong. Therefore, reasoning is an unrealistic way to resolve the fears they hold. So, solutions must start by recognizing “the depth of this neurosis. . . .”[857] Fundamentalists, she points out, preach exclusion, hatred, and sometimes violence. Yet, secularists have also played a role in the rise of fundamentalist rage by, if not secular hostility, at least a lack of respect for religion and its followers. Therefore, secularists should start by learning to empathize with fundamentalists’ needs, fears, and anxieties.[858] Empathy for and acceptance of the rights of fundamentalists are necessary and desirable. Whatever Armstrong’s views, it should not mean sitting back and watching them transform our government into a theocracy or even one that tramples the rights of others.

Randall Balmer, Professor of Religion and a “colonial historian,”[859] was raised in an evangelical household. He confessed he has neither embraced it altogether nor rejected it altogether, given what he found to be “a tradition that is at once rich in theological insights and mired in contradictions.”[860] In “Winning the Country Back: The Ironies of the Religious Right,” in his book Blessed Assurance, Balmer reported at some length on the dangers of fundamentalism and the religious right. This included in such diverse arenas as the rights of women and religious liberty.

Balmer noted that fundamentalist Baptists have turned their backs on Baptist heritage when they oppose the separation of church and state. Balmer presented an interesting conclusion why this has happened:

My only guess is that they no longer believe they can compete in the free marketplace of religion. That is, they feel so overwhelmed by the successive waves of multiculturalism the United States has seen in the twentieth century that they seek some kind of advantage.[861]

This summarizes succinctly both the need to convince fundamentalists of the value of separation of church and state and the great difficulty in so convincing them.

Bishop John Shelby Spong, the famous and controversial Episcopalian bishop, has insisted that fundamentalists are a serious threat to understanding the Bible. They are a threat, he wrote, deserving to be taken seriously, and a threat to religion itself. As Spong argued, mainline Christians must respond to fundamentalists or “the ignorance of mainline Christians will increase and the absurdity of fundamentalist Christians will reach a new crescendo.” He described the approach of fundamentalists as holding the Bible in the “clutches of a mindless literalism.” [862] Spong has consistently presented fundamentalism as a real and serious threat to sound Christianity. He has not been shy about his criticism of fundamentalism. For example, he wrote, “A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people.” [863]

Fundamentalists are a real threat to both “liberal” Christians and to any others who realize that only a secular society will be stable and protect the religious liberty of fundamentalists, mainline believers, and the nonreligious. Lloyd J. Averill described himself as “a Christian of evangelical liberal persuasion.”[864] He condemned fundamentalists as essentially unAmerican, noting fundamentalists are hostile to the genuine American political heritage even as they distort what it is. He also described fundamentalists, despite claims of being conservative in their views, as being eager in fact for radical change.[865]

Averill is a good example of an important truth. Secularists should not turn their backs on religious Christians as allies in the attempts to solve the problems fundamentalism presents. Averill did not agree with some features of separation of church and state that some strict separationists would want. Still, he argued effectively for an ongoing commitment to the basic ideal of religious liberty as quintessentially American.[866]

Liberal Episcopalian Bruce Bawer, in Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, wrote: “Behind the fundamentalists’ strident assertions of certitude was, in most cases, a grievous spiritual emptiness.”[867] “If you want to destroy the idea of a Church of Love once and for all," said Bawer, "you would target the real Jesus and attach his name instead to a vengeful, bloodthirsty monster. This is what legalistic Christianity [fundamentalism] does at its most extreme.”[868]

Bawer’s conclusions were similar to Armstrong’s. And he offered more of an impassioned plea for a return to true, loving, open-ended Christianity (the “Church of Love”) than any general solutions to fundamentalism. Still, Bawer, like Averill, Balmer, and Spong, is an example of a Christian who fundamentalists would likely target as their enemy in the “battle royal,” as much as they would target non-religious citizens.

Another Christian writer, the Roman Catholic Lorene Duquin, stressed that fundamentalism is emotional and difficult for Catholics, even Catholic leaders, to contend with. She complained fundamentalists are so rigid and pre-programmed that arguing with them verges on being useless. Rage and emotional considerations cloud fundamentalists’ judgment and rationality.[869]

She quoted a “Msgr. William Gallagher” as saying:

I have all the answers to the things that the Fundamentalists preach . . . but in most cases I’m not dealing with people who are open to exploration of the truth. They have been trained to believe standard answers and criticism. They won’t move from it. You can say anything you want, but it doesn’t do a bit of good because they don’t enter into the discussion with openness and good will.[870]

Some may find the Monsignor’s complaint ironic. It is not difficult to argue that Catholics also, “have been trained to believe standard answers and criticism.” But his complaint summed up a major difficulty for all who want to counter fundamentalism.

Humanist perspectives

A variety of solutions or analyses of the difficulties of finding solutions for the threats from fundamentalism was included among the essays in Neo-Fundamentalism: The Humanist Response.[871] Vern Bullough’s essay on Islamic fundamentalism in this work was written at least a dozen years ago. But it accurately predicted the great difficulty secularists would have contending with Islamic fundamentalists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. He predicted then that secularists would find Islamic fundamentalism especially hostile to religious liberty. And the problems generated would be thereby intractable.[872]

In the same collection, Alberto Hidalgo Tuñon also expressed pessimism about countering fundamentalism. He explained:

philosophical and scientific criticism can do little to erode the great social influence of fundamentalism supported by powerful pressure groups—sometimes entire churches and political parties—by the sympathy of the mass media and, particularly, by popular gullibility.[873]

Philosopher Paul Kurtz, in the opening essay of Neo-Fundamentalism, provided the broadest prescriptions for solving the threats of fundamentalism of all sorts. It is advice that still deserves to be followed. He implored:

I believe that it is important that we embark on a major educational outreach worldwide, but especially in the third world—Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We cannot remain content to espouse our principles politely in the quiet cloisters of our own societies, but must meet head on the massive challenges in the developing countries of the world.[874]

He added that secularists should refuse to “mute their strong critiques of the Bible, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and other so-called sacred documents.” Secularists should not hesitate to proselytize against the proselytizers.[875] Wrote Kurtz:

We need to make sense out of the universe in which we live. But we can do so only by testing our hypotheses and theories by the rigorous methods of science. We can only do so if we recognize that the high priests of the past are inadequate to the task. It is not the theologians or mystics who will point the way, but the astrophysicists and astronomers.[876]

Gerald A. Larue stressed, in that same collection, secularists must be committed to genuine education in the broadest sense—not limited to what happens in schools, but education across all the institutions of society. He urged defeating the “ultra-right-wing efforts” of fundamentalists. By spreading sound information and analysis as widely as possible, this can be done. Such an effort should include information on the methods by which secular conclusions are reached, analyses of our ethical understanding, a constant awareness of fundamentalist threats, and consistent refusal to give in to fundamentalist pressures.[877]

The solution to the dangers of fundamentalism many would like best to see is universal rationality. Thus, universal rejection of fundamentalism of all stripes should be sought. As Kurtz has quipped, “Religion is all right, so long as you don’t take it too seriously.”[878] Fundamentalists are precisely those who do take it too seriously. Trying to convince them not to can play directly into the hands of fundamentalist leaders. Many tell their followers any opposition is the work of the devil. If universal rationality is ever to be achieved, education in the broadest possible sense is what will make it happen, as both Kurtz and Larue have argued.

However, it is irrational, alas, to believe all humans will adopt rational, fulfilling lives any time in the near future. Real, practical antidotes are needed for the very painful dangers that fundamentalism presents. Therefore, solutions must be more limited than attempting to achieve complete universal rationality, even while striving for something close to it. Americans must not sell themselves and society short. Goals must be quite broad, while recognizing they will be far from easy to effect and sustain.

The solutions that have worked, moderately well, are still the best ones available; they are a secular society and religious freedom. But these solutions are under great pressure. They cannot be expected to persist as solutions unless ongoing efforts to maintain and strengthen them are continued. A secular society, with religious freedom for all, will persist, but only one way. It must be secured by a consensus and a constitution demanding religious neutrality from the government at all levels. The emotional power of religion, for good or ill, must be scrupulously kept separate from the great practical power of government. Only then can fundamentalism be prevented from ruining humanity.

Views from other windows (anthropologists, philosophers, demographers, and former fundamentalists)

The great popular anthropology writer, Marvin Harris, in Our Kind: Who We Are, Where We Came From, Where We Are Going, denies all things about religion are so far understandable in anthropological terms. He holds out hope, however, for eventually explaining all the workings of religion.[879] In addition, he summarizes much of what is now understood in ways that suggest possible insights about fundamentalists. He argues, for example, human understanding of and development of religion, while always complex, has always involved exchanges. It has not merely been obedience to the perceived directives from supernatural beings.

According to Harris:

one impulse has been salient since the beginning of animistic thought [the first stage of what Harris identified as religion rather than mere superstition]. Our kind has always wanted gods and other spirit beings to provide us with certain kinds of benefits. . . . Most frequently, the sought-after benefits have been quite tangible and mundane: recovery from illness, success in trading ventures, rains to water parched crops, victory on the battlefield. Requests for immortality, resurrection, and eternal bliss in heaven may seem less crass, but they nonetheless involve the gods in the delivery of goods and services. Even when sought-after benefits consist of nothing more than help in acting and thinking in conformitywith the wishes of the deity or in achieving inner peace, however lofty our motives, it is a service that we seek. Has there ever been a religion that did not ask what the gods could do for the humans as well as what the humans could do for the gods? I don’t think so.[880]

To persuade a fundamentalist to give up his absolutism, for the sake and freedom of others, there has to be a powerful exchange available. Emotional needs must be addressed as well. If fundamentalists are to be persuaded to limit the ways in which they do “battle royal,” secularists must at least find ways to engage them in real debate. They and their allies will not change nor be deterred. That is, unless exchanges of ideas can occur. Philosopher Keith Parsons has remarked, in Why I Am Not A Christian (his title intentionally echoed the earlier famous book by the same title by Bertrand Russell), on the difficulty of such debate:

Can belief argue with unbelief or only preach to it? When worldviews clash, is rational debate possible, or only a hostile exchange of epithets and rhetoric? Positions too far apart cannot find enough shared ground even to begin a debate, and there is no question that believers and unbelievers often simply talk past one another.[881]

Parsons concludes, “fruitful communication is possible.” Although he adds, with a parenthetical qualification: “I think that Christians and nonbelievers share enough background beliefs, values, and standards to engage in fruitful debate . . . (though some of the wilder effusions of creationists and fundamentalists tempt me into doubt).”[882] Parsons’ comments about believers and Christians apply equally well to the needs for and the difficulties of exchanges between fundamentalists and secularists.

The state of religion in the world and in the U.S. is complex, and there is every indication that the complexity—and the dangers—will only increase. Toby Lester noted, in an essay, that the religious landscape is changing. In fact, so much so that “what is now dismissed as a fundamentalist sect, a fanatical cult, or a mushy New Age fad could be the next big thing.”[883] Lester quoted David Barrett, editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia. Barrett concluded there are “nine thousand and nine hundred distinct and separate religions in the world. And they are increasing by two or three new religions every day.”[884]

Lester also noted what British sociologist Colin Campbell wrote many years ago about fundamentalist growth. Campbell said secularization itself could well be an important force in generating hardier varieties of fundamentalist religions to flourish. This could result from reduced influences of “established” religions.[885]

The number of religions continue to increase, and fundamentalists gain more power worldwide. Therefore, the problems caused by fundamentalism will increase, and the difficulties in solving those problems will expand. City University of New York staff Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar carried out a recent study, “American Religious Identification Survey 2001.” Their findings suggested that only sixteen percent “described their outlook as secular or somewhat secular.”[886] The context was, however, to ask respondents to choose between being religious and secular—not between fundamentalism and secularism as defined in this book.

Their study did not measure the number or percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be fundamentalists. But it seems reasonable to conclude the number is no higher than thirty-seven percent. That is the figure who reported themselves as “religious” as opposed to “somewhat religious” (thirty-eight percent), “somewhat secular” (six percent), or “secular” (ten percent). Another nine percent were tabulated as “Don’t Know” or “Refused.”[887] Respondents were also asked for identification with specific religions in this survey. In response to this item, 14.1 percent identified themselves as having “No Religion.” A small proportion of these chose a label such as “atheist,” “agnostic,” or “humanist.” Another 5.4 percent surveyed refused to answer. [888]

The transition of moving away from fundamentalism can be emotional and difficult. Several collections of essays have made this clear. Dan Barker, a leader of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, started his career as a fundamentalist preacher well before he was an adult. Many of the essays in his Losing Faith in Faith[889] described the sometimes painful trip away from the fundamentalist life. In Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists[890]. Edward Babinski presented more than thirty personal tales of former fundamentalists, including Barker, who then became liberal religionists or non-believers. And Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion[891] described transitions both towards and away from fundamentalism as well as other religious worldviews. A slightly oversimplified summary of the thesis of the latter would be that moving to religion is more likely to be based on emotion. On the other hand, leaving religion, especially fundamentalist religion, is more likely to be an intellectual, rational journey.[892]

The detailed testimonies of former fundamentalists show the paths leading them away from fundamentalism were quite diverse. Idiosyncratic aspects were seen throughout. No summary of those stories can really do justice to the depth and richness found in books like Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists or Losing Faith in Faith. The reader who wants the full story must go to those sources. However, there were some commonalities. They included the authors’ fears as they faced up to what just did not, in the end, make good sense. Many grappled with the need for social support, which was sometimes available from unexpected sources. Other times it was painfully denied from sources they had expected to be able to rely on. Usually, there was also real relief and a sense of self-empowerment from the realization that escape was possible.[893]

Two examples from Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists will at least suggest some of the complexities of these transitions for individuals. David Montoya went from being a fundamentalist Baptist to being a Baptist pastor of a different sort in Kansas. His struggles with fundamentalism were quite personal and painful, both for him and for his wife. This was not unlike most of the others offering testimonies. But Montoya also experienced a different order of difficulty. There was backbiting, vicious politics in the Southern Baptist Convention. It was all done in the name of Jesus and of defending the Bible by fundamentalists. Montoya is still worried about fundamentalism. He wrote of:

the creeping darkness that seems to be enveloping America and the rest of the world, a darkness that is becoming ever more diabolical as it seeks to merge its religious-political system with the political system of secular government.[894]

Another example of a former fundamentalist is Farrell Till, who testified in Babinski’s book. Till was a fundamentalist Church of Christ preacher, a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible, but also a serious student of the Bible. He continued to study the Bible while he represented his church as a missionary in France, to “free people there from the heresy of Catholicism.” This led him, after a long struggle, to realize that Biblical inerrancy is in fact not defensible. He left Christianity and his church and became an agnostic. Still, he continued to study the Bible diligently and is now editor of The Skeptical Review, a journal devoted exclusively to examining Biblical literalism. Till is probably the nation’s leading expert on the impossibility of maintaining that the Bible is literally inerrant. He shared:

I became concerned about the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism and the trend in government to curry its favor. Events in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries demonstrate what can happen once religious fundamentalists gain political control.[895]

All of these transition testimonies and analyses suggest that leaving fundamentalism behind will be difficult for individuals and societies. All of them also strongly support solutions including education and social support networks. Finally, they support a spirited defense of the separation of church and state at every turn.

Secularism as solution: the American way

Anthropologists believe religion seems to be a basic human need. Thus, it is not easy to rationally question or change religiously-based beliefs. Philosophers advise of the great difficulty of even being able to hold a useful exchange between fundamentalists and rationalists. Those converted tell of the wrenching emotional journeys to change.“Mainstream” or “liberal” believers seem to be at a loss for solutions to fundamentalism. Journalists, demographers, and religious historians say religiosity, especially fundamentalist religion, is exploding, rather than fading. It certainly is, at least as compared to other, calmer periods in our history.

From every quarter it is learned that fundamentalism is likely to persist and probably even likely to flourish. Even those who fear it the most and are most eager for solutions agree that no solution may be available, certainly no simple one. Yet, what makes turning away from fundamentalism so difficult? The social pressure of family and friends plays a crucial role. It may reach hysteria because of a certainty that “the backslider” will be doomed to hell following death. There is also the painful upheaval that can often result. Because of the supreme importance fundamentalists place on their religious views, the person fleeing fundamentalism may be forced into moving his home or even divorcing a fundamentalist spouse. There is also the need to find all new interests and friends. Formerly, as a fundamentalist, those interests had likely revolved almost exclusively around church activities and members.[896]

Reiterated, the solutions, though difficult to achieve, will come only by defending a secular society. That defense must consist of a whole series of related approaches. Secularists must engage politically and must be willing to pay attention to and actively commit to political solutions. Public education, from kindergarten through college, has to have active support. And secularists must expose the consistent opposition of fundamentalists to public schools. As noted in earlier chapters, opposition to public education is widespread. It is yet another example of the anti-American nature of fundamentalism. General, ongoing education of the public must include effective use of the broadcast media by secularists. It is specifically necessary to counter the extensive use of these media by fundamentalist organizations.

Genuine science, unfettered by religious barriers or anyone’s insistence on predetermined conclusions, has to be supported. Serious, sustained efforts to increase the public’s respect for science and for reason must be undertaken. As a part of that, critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism have to be championed and encouraged. This is both in schools and in the media. And, finally, violations of church-state separation must be effectively held in check.

We cannot forget that human beings, including fundamentalists, have complex emotional and social needs. These needs must be met. Respect for religious liberty demands respect and freedom for those who hold fundamentalist ideas even as we combat their beliefs. This, also, must be remembered.

For secularism to succeed, a commitment has to be made to broaden educational efforts of all kinds—formal and informal, institutional and society-wide. Secularization cannot be maintained if all the elements above are not understood and acted on.

It is well worth noting, as described in the earlier chapter on social implications, that fundamentalist organizations themselves commonly declare their devotion to “religious liberty.” Many of these organizations are quite simply using a sort of double-speak. Their only interest in and commitment to religious liberty is on behalf of those who agree with them, their fellow fundamentalists. Their loud concerns about religious liberty are most often thinly-disguised efforts to use government power to defend their own religious ideas. As covered in an earlier chapter, many fundamentalist leaders repeatedly claim conservative Christians’ liberties have been violated. But they never manage to show actual evidence of such.

Logic and experience indicate that all humans tend to believe they are right about their religious views. Even agnostics are often sure they are right about the impossibility of anyone knowing; as one bumper sticker put it, “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either!” The key question is therefore not who is right about religion. Nor is it how to succeed in persuading others who is right. Rather the question is how to live with each other in disagreement. It may not be necessary to persuade a fundamentalist to give up most of his fundamental religious beliefs. It may only be necessary to persuade him or her to join everyone else in agreeing on a prior value: liberty. But this borders on being an unattainable goal. Fundamentalists are often convinced it is sacrilege even to talk of a value higher than being fierce defenders of the fundamentals. Those imbued with the absolute certainty of their conclusions and the belief those conclusions come from God will never be easy to persuade of the importance of liberty for all.

Persuasion and education are, however, the only solutions with a chance to succeed. Where changes of mind cannot be accomplished, it is crucial that laws defending separation of church and state be enforced. Religious fundamentalists, like members of any other group, must be made to understand, preferably through education, that religious liberty is either for all or for none. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, nearly 200 years ago, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”[897] Every member of society must be educated about the truth and importance of Jefferson’s statement. This is important whether one is a fundamentalist or a thorough secularist.

For individual fundamentalists who are suffering because of their beliefs, there are answers if the sufferers are willing to seek them. There is a more general solution for many of the dangers posed by fundamentalism that can work even for most fundamentalists while they remain fundamentalists. It is the great American solution of which President John Adams wrote:

Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America. . . . [i]t will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.[898]

The United States established the first significant secular government designed to lead the first truly secular society in history. In spite of this, many of its citizens and leaders, then as now, were religious individuals. Being so diplomatic that basic truth is avoided cannot be afforded. Those who are unswervingly devoted to fundamentalism are hostile to democracy. Thus they are literally un-American.

Reaching individual victims of fundamentalism, such as women trapped in abusive marriages, or children who cannot protect themselves, will never be easy. Yet, in a firmly defended secular society that strongly supports education in critical thinking, even those victims will have a chance. The exact reasons the U.S. came under attack in September 2001 may never be known. But it is likely at least part of the reason is that the U.S. is a secular nation. It is a modern nation and therefore perceived to be a direct threat to fundamentalist Islam. A less likely but still possible reason may be the inaccurate perception, despite Christian fundamentalist claims, that the U.S. is a “Christian nation.”

A secular government that does not make religious decisions for its citizens is one based on ideas like those of Thomas Jefferson as he acknowledged:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[899]

As Michael Buckner wrote, in “The UnChristian Roots of the Fourth of July:”

The theory of government presented in the Declaration of Independence . . . represents a radical break with Judeo-Christian traditions that went back thousands of years. Government, it asserts, derives its powers not from the will of God but from the consent of the governed. From being an instrument of God’s wrath, government is demoted to an invention of human beings, to be altered at the will of its creators. Our Constitution goes even further than the Declaration in its godlessness, not even bothering with a ceremonial invocation of God or ‘Divine Providence’ in vesting ultimate authority in ‘We, the people.’”[900]

This solution, a secular society with an insistence on honoring the rights and beliefs of religious fundamentalists along with those of everyone else, is the American value most worth defending, bragging about, and spreading. The idea belongs to no religion, but it benefits all except those who insist on utter absolutism. It tolerates all except those who will tolerate no disagreement whatever.

So, is the solution to persuade fundamentalists to give up their religion? Well, it would help. It is difficult to imagine, after all, secular humanists killing those who disagree. But, no, it is certainly not that simple. Most modern Christians do not take the Bible seriously or literally when it says that nonbelievers should be destroyed. Many Muslims, likewise, do not take their sacred texts that seriously or simplistically. Fanaticism can be inspired by ideas other than religion—leaders as diverse as Stalin and Pol Pot proved that—but mass murderers have one thing in common: certainty. It is a blind fanatical devotion to ideas, devotion so strong the fanatics are willing to kill and die for them.

America’s power and strength is first in its people, but it is also in the inventing of and persisting in devotion to a secular government, one where all can take religion or irreligion as seriously as they wish, short of enlisting the government on one’s side or killing those who disagree. A secular society is not one where no religion is allowed; it must be instead one where all religions and philosophies have to compete in the marketplace of ideas for individual support.

A secular society, not a fundamentalist society, is the only kind where religious freedom is available for all or secure for any. All who are in the majority at any particular historical moment should share in a commitment to minority rights, if only because tomorrow they may no longer be in the majority. Secular means neutral regarding religion. That can be difficult for followers of any religion, or even the irreligious, to accept.

Jesus is reported to have said, in Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me.” Nevertheless, official neutrality is the only way to avoid seriously risking a return of the Holy Crusades, pogroms, oppression, persecution, and, almost certainly, terrorism as well. These calamities will befall fundamentalists as well as committed secularists, and the need to educate everyone on this is urgent and continuing. Those who understand that need must not wait for others to do the work, which includes political action in support of education and secularism.

As has previously been noted, the education that has to occur must be both broad and specific. It must include an unabashed, unrelenting counter to the false propaganda of the fundamentalists themselves. It must also include a clear and accurate indictment of those fundamentalists who think they are above the law, who believe the rights of others are inferior to their own, and who are willing to use violence to further their own beliefs.

It will never be easy, but Americans must not rest. We must not fail to persuade everyone, fundamentalist, secular humanist, and everyone in every other category, that a secular society with firm separation of church and state is necessary. The cost of failure is severe. People who are absolutely sure about the need to protect the fundamentals of their religion can do terrible things. They can even do things like flying airplanes loaded with jet fuel and innocent passengers into buildings that symbolize and empower secular societies, buildings filled with people freely living peaceful lives.

---

Note: Anyone may copy and publish what I or my guests write, provided proper credit is given, that it’s not done for commercial purposes, that I am notified of the copying (you can just leave a comment saying where the copy is being published), and provided that what any of us write is not quoted out of context or distorted.