In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times Slavoj Zizek continues the meme that a fundamentalist of any religion is essentially the same. Well, me and the facts would like to disagree.
Zizek from the beginning displays his ignorance of the differences between Christianity and Islam. He writes, “Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God’s will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do.”
Now sure that sounds good and allows him to jump from that point to illustrating why Europe’s secular nature is best for everyone, but it is completely wrong when discussing Christianity.
The very basis of the Christian doctrine is that no matter how good you are, you cannot earn your salvation or even God’s favor. The core belief of Christianity is that Christ died for us, satisfying our debt to God – we need only to accept that.
This concept differs dramatically from every other religion on the planet, which teaches essentially “do enough good and you will be rewarded.” On this point I agree with Zizek. This mindset does allow one to be led away from basic morality to doing things to fellow human beings because “God” deemed it neccessary.
But just for fun, why don’t we look at the most recognizable fundamentalist from both Christianity and Islam and compare them. This should help us illustrate whether both are “equally evil.”
Top Fundamentalist:
Christianity: It is a toss-up, but I think Pat Robertson edges Jerry Falwell.
Islam: Clearly the winner is Osama Bin Laden.
In a tale of the fundamentalist tape, Bin Laden clearly out classes Robertson.
Number of People Killed:
Bin Laden – upwards of 4,000
Robertson – none that we know
Stupid Things Said:
Bin Laden – depends on availability of video recorders in Afghan mountains
Robertson – depends on availability of 700 Club on your television
Biggest Impact on a Nation:
Bin Laden – essentially ran Afghanistan and influenced several other Muslim nations
Roberston – 17 people watch the 700 Club, 15 are reporters waiting for him to say something controversial
Seriously, weigh it how ever you want (even in terms of treatment of gays) and clearly Islamic fundamentalist are a much larger danger. While Christian fundamentalist may be annoying and arrogant. Which one would you want for your neighbor? That should answer the question.
Or do the math this way. Your daughter is marrying a fundamentalist. You react.
Fundie Christians Fiance?
You worry that your daughter will start preaching to you. You worry that your grandkids will grow up republican.
Fundie Islamist Fiance?
You worry that your daughter will be forced to stay in the home and wear a burka with the other wives. You worry that her husband will beat her. You worry that your grandchildren will grow up jihadist and try to kill you because you are an unbeliever.
You guys are right. Christian fundamentalists aren't as bad as Muslim fundamentalists. But that doesn't mean that Christian fundies are good for anything. Given their opportunity to run this country, the United States would become one of the worst places in the world to live.
I don't recall Zizek saying that christian fundies were just as evil as Muslim fundies, nor do I recall him saying that the two are "essentially the same." You must have access to the parallel dimension version in which he notes that he'd rather live next door to a muslim fundie than a christian one.
Okay, I will simply quote the column:
"Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow."
"In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism."
He never makes a distinction between fundamentalist of any religion. Can you show me in the column where he did? Because I only see him reference "fundamentalist" and mean those of all religious stripes.
Sam – possibly, but it depends on which fundamentalists. If Robertson or Falwell maybe, but if it is one that has a deep respect for the Constitution then I think you would be surprised how "liveable" the nation would be.
No, thanks, Aaron. I wouldn't want to live in this country if fundies of any stripe were in charge (the Constitution can be changed after all).
Aaron
This country would definitely be liveable – for you. The rest of us, like Louis and myself and any other person who cherishes our ability to make totally legal decisions that are based outside of the Bible, wouldn't enjoy a fundamentalist Christian government one bit. And after awhile, I don't think you would either. Pluralism can take criticism, but allowing for difference in our country is far better than legislating sameness onto all of us.
If we ever have a fundamentalist xian gov't, I'll exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
LOL. I don't think i want any kind of fundie govt – not even a Secular Fundie one – if you doubt such a thing is a threat, you may be part of the problem ;)
And YOU aren't?
I know fundamentalist are the boogieman for the secular American, but honestly guys those aren't the ones you should be worrying about. I don't want someone to come in and make OT law American law. I completely disagree with the people trying to turn SC into a "Christian nation" by moving likeminded people from across the nation here.
I honestly don't think most Christian fundamentalist would want to legislate "sameness" on everyone. I know I certainly do not want that.
I'm not sure, but we are not close to have either run the government, but one is clearly a bigger threat in my eyes. One may want to ban Will & Grace from TV, but the other wants to kill Will & Grace – that's a big difference.
Aaron,
I know you find this hard to believe, but while I agree with you that killing Will from Will and Grace would be terrible, I also happen to believe that television channels that were nothing but Christian propaganda would be pretty awful as well. I like sin: I like watching it, I like participating in it, and I generally like the idea that I'm free to sin. That's why I shot a guy the other day after sleeping with his wife. (Am I kidding?)
A fundamentalist Christian government would scrub the airwaves of everything that makes media great. A fundamentalist Christian government would scrub our communities of everyone that makes them great. I know that you and Seeker think that preachers make communities great, but I happen to like the weirdos and the strangeguys and the other people who tend toward the extremes. I like the fact that we live in a country where millions of people are generally free to be themselves. You can be certain that a fundamentalist Christian government would greatly restrict that freedom.
And while the losing the freedom to be yourself isn't as awful as being killed, it is still pretty damned awful.
I agree (to some extent) that it would be bad to do away with the individulaity of Americans to attempt to force Christianity on citizens, but that is why I don't think someone that truly follows the concepts of the faith wants to force it on anyone. It has to be a free choice of accepting God's gift. I can put TBN on every channel, but that is not going to change people.
I don't want self-righteous people put in charge of what is allowed or not either, but you are giving fundamentalist Christians more credit than they deserve. I may not think they want to actually restrict the freedoms you are worried about, but the point is they can't. We are no where close to any form of a theocracy, but we do have to worry about an Islamic fundamentalist flying a plane into our buidling, running us over in his rented SUV or blowing himself up when we are shopping.
A fundamentalist Christian government would scrub the airwaves of everything that makes media great.
I think that is every secularist's fear, but I don't think that's what would happen at all. While people like the AFA may want to take gays off TV, most of us more normal evangelicals would probably just want a rating system that includes a warning ;) You know, like PG (ProGay), or something like that.
He never makes a distinction between fundamentalist of any religion.
And? The column wasn't about the relative evil of groups; it was about the political liberalism of groups, and in that sense it makes sense to group fundies together as against atheists.
I'd go along with a "PG" rating if we also had a "XB" one as well (Xian Bigot), to warn normal people away from xianist bullsh*t.
Remember that John Calvin had a theocracy in Geneva, the original 13 American colonies were governed by theocracy, really, check it out.
My question is, what happened to Calvin's theocracy in Geneva? Something brought it down. Research those historical theocracies and what lead to their weakness and you will know the prospects if ever there is a Theocracy USA.