Fundamentalism

Nicholas Kristof’s editorial in today’s New York Times brings up a fundamental (pun intended) issue. He says that fundamentalist Christians feel persecuted and that liberals should treat them with greater respect. And he concludes with this:

It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. What's harder is to practice inclusiveness oneself. And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality.

Inclusiveness is, of course, a democratic principle. Americans believe (or say we do) that everyone’s perspective deserves to be given consideration. We oppose discrimination on virtually any basis. Of course, we all know it doesn’t work that way and that people are forever trying to convince each other that they are right and others are wrong, instead of trying to connect and understand and accept.

But a principle of democracy is that the common good trumps any other consideration. So, how to reconcile the need for inclusiveness and what constitutes the common good?

I think one of the questions we need to ask is whether someone who believes they have the only right answer and the only right way is focusing on the common good. Are fundamentalists concerned with the general welfare or their own? Do they believe that we are all created equal and are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights? Or do they believe that only some of us are. If they justify discriminating against people because of their religion or sexual orientation or gender, is their perspective democratic? And if it is not democratic, how much “respect” do we need to give them when making decisions about the common good?

Bigotry has its roots in fear. Fundamentalists are fearful people. And if some liberals are bigoted against fundamentalists it’s because they scare them. It’s all about energy, and the dynamic is very much like that of an abuser. In order to get energy from their victims the abuser attempts to keep them off balance. They use shock and surprise and denigration and assault in order to get their victims to focus on them. That focus energizes the abuser. It’s the same with any hate group. We pay attention to them because of their extreme views and violent activities, and the more attention we pay to them the more powerful they seem to be.

I’m reminded of an incident that occurred when I lived in Virginia. There was to be a KKK rally and speech at a local library. The community was in a mini-uproar over what to do about it. There were a lot of options considered, including counter-demonstrations and a massive police presence. But the decision reached was elegant. The rally was ignored by the community. And the library board suddenly remembered they needed to replace all the light bulbs and closed the building. Instead of reacting with fear or anger, people set boundaries.

When we debate their views or attack what we see as their stupidity, we only make fundamentalists more fearful and make them feel more powerless. That works contrary to what we want. What we want is for them to feel accepted and included in the great American conversation, but not to allow them to have positions of power and influence. And when we attack them we actually give their views power and legitimacy. So focusing on connections--whatever connections we can find with them--is important. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to run the world according to their beliefs. That's the boundary that we need to maintain.

Posted by Elissa Bishop-Becker at April 24, 2004 12:01 PM | TrackBack