Un-believable Faith- Fundamentalism

I’m about half way through a book about the Christian Right, “American Fascists,” by Chris Hedges. The thrust of the book is that these people pose a real danger to this country, nurturing a hope to recapture the powers of government and turn this nation into a bastion of (its) faith. Of course, that “revolt,” were it to happen would spell the end of tolerance and the freedoms we currently enjoy…the freedom, for example to believe or not to believe in their interpretation of religion. I cannot see this happening, don’t believe they wield that much political power, but the thing that strikes me about these people is not so much the scope of their intentions, but the incredibleness of their beliefs.
They are, of course, literalists, believing in the Genesis story of creation in every detail. And when I see the figures as to their numbers, how many followers they have, it boggles my mind. I find it really hard to believe that such un-believable, illogical, unreasonable things could appeal to such a large number of people. It shouldn’t be so hard to believe, however. After all, I have a sister who believes such things...an absolute literalist. She is truly locked into this belief-system, not the least bit open to argument. In fact, any effort to de-program her would be taken as just one more proof of the rightness of her faith.
And that’s a very chilling thought. The leaders of this religion have not only created a totally un-believable set of ideas, but have set up, a-priori, a defense system, guaranteeing that most of their converts will stand fast against all arguments to the contrary. Their crowning achievement is that they have prepared their adherents for such “warfare,” making such efforts serve as proof of their faith! They even give their members a way to ward off this enemy, warning them to pray all the harder, when these things happen, that they are from the devil and must be fought to the death by the power of prayer.
To maintain faith in any religion in today’s world is difficult, even one that I does not assault reason and logic; there are many persuasive arguments against the whole idea of faith…believing in anything that is not absolutely scientifically verifiable. My own Catholicism, contrarian though it is, for example, requires constant vigilance on my part for it to be held firmly. Sometimes, I listen to friends who seem to manage quite nicely (thank you) without bothering with notions having to do with the whys and wherefores of physical life, let alone notions about non-terrestrial life after death. It is a luxury, so to speak, which I cannot access. Being of a different “bent,” I seem destined to occupy my mind with questions about these things. It is essential for me that Catholicism does not require me to suspend critical thinking... does not do violence to logic and reason. Everything it dogmatically declares, (as opposed to mere "teachings" or sometimes temporarily held opinions) while not accessible through human reason alone, is at least not in conflict with it!
I wish I could simply observe fundamentalism as just a silly, but essentially harmless phenomenon. But I cannot. I agree with Hedges, that organizationally and in such huge numbers, they represent a real and positive danger to the world of free ideation. That they are dangerous is quite evident, whether they come from the bed of Christianity or the wellspring of Islam, they share this frightening characteristic…a total intolerance of people who don’t agree with them.
I would hope that a great number of liberal, critical thinking people would read this book, because the danger is that too many of us do see fundamentalism as just silly and inconsequential. Liberalism must find a way to knock through the walls these people have erected around themselves. It will require subtlety and compassion; a direct and denigrating attack will not work at all. We must get through to them whenever possible by making common cause…from a spiritual point of view. We must not attempt to turn them into radical humanists, for that is what they expect and that is what they are very well immunized against.
For most of these people, we can only hope to turn them in the direction of liberal Protestantism…say Universalist/Unitarianism. Contrarian Catholicism, I would imagine is far too big a jump, since part of their indoctrination has taught them to think of the Roman church as the very devil himself. I think back upon my own conversion to Catholicism and why it was so easy for me. The big difference is that I did not convert directly from a Baptist when I took that step. I jumped first into an agnostic mind set…no longer able to believe in the stuff I received in “Sunday School,” but not knowing of any alternative.
I’m sure it’s a whole lot easier for an agnostic to “jump” to Catholicism, once they see the embrace of reason and logic it confirms. For example, on the matter of literalism: The Church recognizes that there are elements in scripture which can be understood literally, without abandoning reason, but that many other elements should not be so read. Thus, according to the Catholic Catechism: “#115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”
The Church has never taught that Genesis, for example, should be understood literally. We are taught that the bible is not to be read as a scientific text. Nor, is it to be read as being in conflict with science. Read allegorically, the biblical story of creation fits with poetic perfection into the theory of evolution; there is absolutely no conflict between our faith and Darwinism. We are not required to believe in monogenism, for one example, that we all came from one wedded couple…Adam and Eve. In fact, we are not required to accept the notion that the physical being of man was “created” instantaneously, but rather that the physical nature of humankind most likely did evolve from pre-existently similar types of animal. The only thing we are required to believe (and this, though not deduced by reason or scientific fact, is not in conflict with same) is that the soul of humanity was infused by God at some point along the way into the creature to be known as man and it is in this way that we are cast in His image. Eminently reasonable. Requiring no prodigious leap of illogic.

Affectional Orientation

I agree with Greg that the mechanical/sexual aspect of human relationships is not the most important piece of the puzzle. Technically speaking, a case could be made for me to call myself a bi-sexual in strictly sexual terms. I do not ordinarily claim this distinction because I am too far off center (in the Kinsey scale), leaning too decidedly in the homo direction for it to have any practical value. But the point I'm making is not the freqency with which I feel sexually attracted to the opposite sex, nor even the amount of pleasure received from it, but the degree to which affection is involved.

I can honestly say that, in a purely physical sense, my sexual experiences with women have been quite as enjoyable as those with men...the difference being affectional. Even in instances of one-night stands, affection is involved with the latter, never the former. That is precisely why I only tried marriage once, because the degree of love was simply insufficient to maintain the relationship. I thought it would be, but it wasn't and both of us felt the lack of that essential ingredient in any committed relationship.

All other sexual activity with women was engaged in without affection being involved, not being desired by either party. Sometimes we seem to sink to a purely grunting animal level, and as long as that's all both people want, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. Interesting: we call this mutual gratification "making love," when it is so far from that, either in desire or intention. I guess that's just another indication of society's inability to face the facts of our more brutish existence.

Getting back to the Church's attitude on the matter...there again, it should concentrate on the loving, affectional aspect and stop thinking purely of the mechanical aspect of sexual activity. I do believe that sex with affection is far superior as a total experience. Another difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world. Having once been a dog breeder, I do not hesitate to judge the act between them as being totally mehanical, lacking any affectional element whatsoever...even, with canines, apparently involving way too much pain!

Imagine the Church uging holistic sex, empasizing the positive, rather than the negative for a change. Imagine it teaching us that it is a matter of spiritual failure, to have sex without, at least the intention of love and the desire for committment. I might not want to use the term "sin" to describe purely mechanical sex between two human beings, but I have no hesitancy, calling it ignoble, incomplete and perhaps ultimately not as satisfying for human purposes.