[Dialogue] Bush's Fondness For Fundamentalism Is Courting Disaster At Home and Abroad

[Bill Schlesinger]

The argument here does not hold full internal consistency.  Bryan's work as
a populist politician was in favor of correcting social ills caused by
economic disparities - he opposed 'social Darwinism' that lay behind the
'hands off the economy' of the Republican Party of the day.   Mellon and
others argued that economic 'survival of the fittest' was the best medicine
for the economy.  Bryan - as other Democrats - saw the need for community
action in response to the collapse of consumer demand and resources.  

 

Bush in fact has promoted various social interventions, and is a major
champion of the Community Health Center movement.  He regards the
involvement of religious entities in 'charitable work' worthwhile and
supports funding those efforts with federal dollars.  His actions in Israel
and Iraq are more closely linked to oil and other 'rational' values than we
admit.

 

I am extremely critical of many of the president's initiatives and
decisions, including the decision on stem cell research, the invasion of
Iraq, and the refusal to deal comprehensively with health care in this
country.  But I think it weakens critique to blame a superstitious and
(literally) fantastic fundamentalism for his actions and those of his
supporters.  The author asks, "Is there a connection between a religiously
motivated mistrust of science, glaring social injustice, and a war in the
Middle East?"  The Catholic Church is no friend to the latter two, but
shares a sense of the question of the first.  Science says what we can do.
Religious values argue for what we should do - including caring for the poor
and weak, seeking peace, and acknowledging the complexities of the human
condition.

 

Bill Schlesinger
Project Vida
3607 Rivera Ave
El Paso, TX 79905
(915) 533-7057 x 207
(915) 490-6148 mobile
(915) 533-7158 fax
pvida at sbcglobal.net

  _____  

 

>From the very beginning, the conflict between religion and modern science
was couched in extreme, even apocalyptic rhetoric. Thomas H. Huxley, who
popularized the Origin of Species, insisted that people had to choose
between faith and science; there could be no compromise: "One or the other
would have to succumb after a struggle of unknown duration." In response,
conservative Christians launched a crusade against Darwinism. After the
first world war, the Democratic politician William Jennings Bryan claimed
that there was a direct link between evolutionary theory and German
militarism: the notion that only the strong could or should survive had
"laid the foundation for the bloodiest war in history. The same science that
manufactured poisoned gases to suffocate soldiers is preaching that man has
a brutal ancestry." 

The struggle continues - nowhere more so than among the Christian right in
the US, who still regard the evolutionary hypothesis as surrounded by a
murderous nimbus of evil. In 1925, they tried to ban the teaching of
evolution in public schools and developed creation science, based on a
literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis. More recently, they have
tried to introduce into the school curriculum the teaching of intelligent
design (ID), which claims that the irreducible complexity of micro-organisms
could not have evolved naturally but must be the result of a single creative
act. The issue splits the nation down the middle: fundamentalists want to
win a battle for God; liberals and secularists are fighting for truth and
rationality. 

The same passions are likely to be aroused by President Bush's decision last
week to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would have
loosened the restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research. "This
bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding
medical benefits for others," Bush said. "It crosses a moral boundary that
our decent society needs to respect." 

His opponents point out that while the president zealously champions the
rights of the unborn, he is less concerned about the plight of existing
American children. The US infant mortality rate is only the 42nd best in the
world; the average baby has a better chance of surviving in Havana or
Beijing; infant mortality rates are unacceptably high among those who cannot
afford adequate healthcare, especially in the African-American community.
And, finally, at the same time as Bush decided to veto the stem cell bill,
Israeli bombs were taking the lives of hundreds of innocent Lebanese
civilians, many of them children, with the tacit approval of the US. 

Is there a connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science,
glaring social injustice, and a war in the Middle East? Bush and his
administration espouse many of the ideals of the Christian right and rely on
its support. American fundamentalists are convinced that the second coming
of Christ is at hand; they have developed an end-time scenario of genocidal
battles based on a literal reading of Revelation that is absolutely central
to their theology. Christ cannot return, however, unless, in fulfilment of
biblical prophecy, the Jews are in possession of the Holy Land. Before the
End, the faithful will be "raptured" or snatched up into the air in order to
avoid the Tribulation. Antichrist will massacre Jews who are not baptized;
but Christ will defeat the mysterious "enemy from the north," and establish
a millennium of peace. 

This grim eschatology, developed in the late 19th century, was in part a
reaction to the "social gospel" of the more liberal Christians, who believed
that human beings were naturally evolving towards perfection and could build
the New Jerusalem here on earth by fighting social injustice. The
fundamentalists, however, believed that God was so angry with the faithless
world that he could save it only by initiating a devastating catastrophe;
they would see the terrible battles of the first world war, which showed
that science could be used to lethal effect in the new military technology,
as the beginning of the End. 

The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their
apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into
Rapture-speak. "Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,"
says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, "but they will be overshadowed by even
more amazing displays of God's power and light. Ever the long-term
strategist, YHVH is raising up a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time
warriors." They all condemn the attempt to reform social ills. When applied
socially, evolutionary theory "leads straight to all the woes of modern
life," says the leading ID ideologue Philip Johnson: homosexuality,
state-backed healthcare, divorce, single-parenthood, socialism, and
abortion. All this, of course, is highly agreeable to the Bush
administration, which is itself selectively leery of science. It has, for
example, persistently ignored scientists' warnings about global warming. Why
bother to implement the Kyoto treaty if the world is about to end? Indeed,
some fundamentalists see environmental damage as a positive development,
because it will hasten the apocalypse. 

This nihilistic religiosity is based on a perversion of the texts. The first
chapter of Genesis was never intended as a literal account of the origins of
life; it is a myth, a timeless story about the sanctity of the world and
everything in it. Revelation was not a detailed program for the End time; it
is written in an apocalyptic genre that has quite a different dynamic. When
they described the Jews' return to their homeland, the Hebrew prophets were
predicting the end of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC - not the
second coming of Christ. The prophets did preach a stern message of social
justice, however, and like all the major world faiths, Christianity sees
charity and loving-kindness as the cardinal virtues. Fundamentalism nearly
always distorts the tradition it is trying to defend. 

Whatever Bush's personal beliefs, the ideology of the Christian right is
both familiar and congenial to him. This strange amalgam of ideas can
perhaps throw light on the behaviour of a president, who, it is said,
believes that God chose him to lead the world to Rapture, who has little
interest in social reform, and whose selective concern for life issues has
now inspired him to veto important scientific research. It explains his
unconditional and uncritical support for Israel, his willingness to use
"Jewish End-time warriors" to fulfil a vision of his own - arguably against
Israel's best interests - and to see Syria and Iran (who seem to be
replacing Saddam as the "enemy of the north") as entirely responsible for
the unfolding tragedy. 

Fundamentalists do not want a humanly constructed peace; many, indeed,
regard the UN as the abode of the Antichrist. The willingness of the US to
turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocent people in Lebanon will
certainly fuel the rage of the extremists and lead to further acts of
terror. We can only hope that it does not take us all the way to Armageddon.


Karen Armstrong is the author of "The Battle for God: A History of
Fundamentalism
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345391691/commondreams-20/ref=nosim
> ." Email to: comment at guardian.co.uk. 

C Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

###

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060731/3ec9d1c5/attachment-0001.html