Far-Right Violence in America

January 25, 2013 By 12 Comments

If you’re an American and you’ve got some time, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has released a report titled Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right, which is useful for defining many of the key terms used by watchers of the far-right and for giving some of the history of the movements.

The media coverage, from sources like The Washington Times, are filled with scare quotes and misleading quotations. Nothing to really give a sense of the actual findings of the paper. For example, one article claims, “The report says there were 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011. Details about what makes an attack a “far right” action are not clear in the report …”

Since the report spends its opening chapters talking about what defines the far-right, this seems deliberately obtuse. Consider this section:

If there is one ideological doctrine about which there is almost full consensus regarding its importance for understanding the far-right worldview, it is that of nationalism. [...] In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective.

In other words, the far-right believes that there is a quality that we could call “American-ness” (as opposed to “French-ness” or “Mexican-ness”). This quality is shared by all true members of the country. In most cases, there is a certain race, religion and/or set of ideals that are attached to the quality of “American-ness”.

By extension, all people who do not have the quality of “American-ness,” perhaps by having the misfortune of being the wrong color or creed, cannot be considered true Americans. At best, they can be a minority tolerated by the true Americans, and expected to remember their place.

If the authors of the reports had wanted to be more inflammatory, they could have used the word “fascist” or “proto-fascist” and gotten at the same meaning.

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Politics 12 Comments

Christian Soldier Firearms

January 13, 2013 By 17 Comments

This place helps Christians turn the other cheek.

Can you imagine if there was a place called Islamic Solider Firearms?

Though maybe a better name would be Allah Ammo…

(via)

Filed Under: Christianity, Fundamentalism, Oh the Stupidity! 17 Comments

Why Evolution Is False

January 8, 2013 By 9 Comments

Once I planted a tomato seed and it came out a tomato.

CHECKMATE, EVILUTIONISTS!

Filed Under: Creationism / ID, Evolution, Fundamentalism, Humor 9 Comments

What is a Fundamentalist?

January 2, 2013 By 11 Comments

The word “fundamentalism” comes out of the conflict between liberal and conservative American Christians in the late 19th-early 20th century. The word itself was coined when various conservative Christians devised lists of doctrines that they considered fundamental to Christian belief. It was popularized when members of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles published a series of essays titled, The Fundamentals. To be a fundamentalist was to hold to one of these lists of doctrines and insist that its centrality to Christianity was non-negotiable in the face of progressive revelation or an evolving Christian culture.

Since then the meaning has been expanded. Folks like Karen Armstrong have pointed out that Christian fundamentalism shares many of the same features as Jewish and Muslim conservative movements, and so it makes sense to use the same term across the monotheisms. Fundamentalism became a term to describe reactionary movements within a religion that are opposed to the secular, pluralistic and tolerant aspects of modern society.

But we’ve also seen the word used to describe other movements, including atheists and other non-religious groups. Is there a way to do this and still have the word be meaningful?

Ian at Irreducible Complexity kicks it around a bit and comes up with a definition that might work: “A Fundamentalist is someone who argues against tolerance and accommodation.”

I like it and I don’t. It works, but it’s watered down. Every movement – political, religious or cultural – has its hard-liners who reject compromise. I don’t really want to be talking about “fundamentalist environmentalists.”

It also loses the core, which to both myself and Armstrong is the rejection of modernity. I’d consider that, well, fundamental.

Any thoughts?

Filed Under: Fundamentalism 11 Comments

Splitters!

December 6, 2012 By 1 Comment

From Fred Clark‘s summation of fundamentalism:

So while the absolute truth of the Bible must obviously be defended against worldly enemies such as liberals, modernists and secular humanists, it’s even more important that this absolute truth be defended against other fundamentalists who disagree on any point of doctrine, however seemingly minor. We worldly types are a favorite bogeyman for fundies, but “the world” — a category just as comprehensive as it sounds — cannot pose an existential threat to the core of fundamentalist identity. Other fundamentalists can.

Oh good. I though it was only us liberals who were like this:

This skit is supposedly about the British leftists groups who were quick to turn the knives on each other. I’m glad to hear that it’s not just a leftist thing. Still, what’s frustrating is that the right seems to be able to band together whenever someone shouts, “Look, gays!” One could with that they would stay split – what therefore God has put asunder, let no man join together.

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Humor, Videos 1 Comment
« Older Posts