STICKS AND STONES . . .

Prov 2:12 - Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse . . . . NIV

FUNDAMENTALISM:
Everyone is a fundamentalist
No one is a fundamentalist

The way the term "fundamentalist" is used today is so unhelpful and prejudicial in nature that it makes me wonder what kind of purpose it has, other than to divide people and create barriers of communication. I think it generates murkiness rather than clarity, and unfriendly attitudes rather than openness. Anytime we label others, or even label ourselves, we create false unnecessary barriers between ourselves and others, and define limits for our perceptions about who we are, who others are, and about possibilities of communication between people. At present, there is no universal interpretation for the term "fundamentalism." It is merely used as sharp stick to jab and harm people. It has no beneficial purpose that I can tell, and it is certainly not descriptive in any useful way.

Once, in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, I suggested to a person with whom I was having a discussion about fundamentalism, that the term had a very precise definition, and he needed to be careful about how he used the word, and who he labeled as a fundamentalist. The gentleman agreed with me, and fired back with a definition of fundamentalism based on an early twentieth century description of Protestantism that he had once read. I could tell he felt very proud of nailing me with his knowledge. I did not respond to it or disagree with him. That would have invited an endless argument; not something I'm fond of. I just smiled and let it pass.

But, this encounter underscored for me what I had already suspected, that the term fundamentalism is tossed about without much understanding, and without much relevant contemporary definition. Usually the term is used to indicate someone who is intolerant of others, resistant to ideas that do not line up with their view of reality, resistant to change, closed-minded to new ideas, forceful and persistent in presenting their own views to the exclusion of another's views, and unkind to those who hold different beliefs; maybe even willing to use violence to promote their ideas, or to suppress alien ideas. Of course, this is not a precise definition, only a summation of the way I hear the word being sometimes used.

But that is just my point. There is no completely articulate definition of the word, especially as it is being currently used in the media. It is employed more as a dismissive label about some rube who has no common sense, no connection to the modern plurlistic world; one who wouldn't recognize the truth that there is no such thing as truth, if it jump out and bit them.

If fundamentalism can be described in at least some of the ways I put together in the previous paragraph, then, if I use that as a lens to look at people and groups, families, and governments, church leaders and philosophers, scientists and school teachers, it would seem that everyone I've ever met was a fundamentalist at some point, and many people at numerous points. This is the problem with the use of the word. It has no substantive meaning, other than to indicate, in a rather intolerant way, that some OTHER person is intolerant, but not the one using the term. The term "fundamentalism" itself is an intolerant label. It oozes disgust the way it is employed. That is curious to me in such a culture of tolerance as we claims ours to be.

The word "fundamentalism" is a bomb that whoever uses the term first automatically holds the moral high ground, and the other person (the person being accused as a fundamentalist - and that is what it is, an accusation), must prove they are NOT a fundamentalist. The burden of proof is placed on the so-called "fundamentalist" to deny it in some tangible way. The use of the term is demeaning and coercive in the manner in which it is wielded.

The employ of the word is a kind of labeling, like using the "N" word to demean another person, or like placing "the scarlet letter" on some one's coat, so all can see the "undesirable" person in the midst -- the outcast -- the sinner -- the freak. It marks one in the eyes of others and dialogue becomes pretty much impossible, to say nothing of dignity and camaraderie. The term is pejorative.

Some people don't seem to mind being called a fundamentalist. In my view, this is much like when a dog owner calls their dog unkind things in an pleasant tone and the dog wags its tail, thinking the owner is saying something nice. Some people are just a little too slow to understand the depth of the insult. This is unfortunate, and it is sad. At least to me it is.

Let's face it. We all have beliefs we think are right - or best - as opposed to ideas we think are not as correct, or not as good. How else can one develop any kind of personal opinion at all? One has to make decisions about ideas; which ideas are worthy and which ideas are less worthy. To imply we don't do that is just plain dishonest. It is not possible to have no opinion. Even if one tried, it would indicate that one is of the opinion that that is preferable. So, in that sense, we are all a little fundamentalistic (is that a word?)

We are living in an impossible world today. No one wants to be seen as intolerant, so they down play their beliefs so as not to offend someone else. This will prove itself unproductive in the end. I personally don't mind if someone has views different than mine, even if they think my ideas are crap and theirs are totally right on. I can listen to divergent views in an open and engaging manner without either capitulating or wanting to retaliate. I want people to own their beliefs, just as I would like the freedom and courtesy to own my own beliefs. Is that bad?

I too would like the respect of being allowed to hold my own beliefs without being labeled as cultural-undesirable, or a fundamentalist. Or, here is another solution; I will allow others to call me a fundamentalist for my beliefs, if they will allow me to call them a fundamentalist for the things they believe. Then we might be at least closer to an understanding of how unnecessary the term is. It is one of the many useless words floating about in our language that does more harm than good. Words in my opinion, should be used for good, not for harm. This is what I am striving for, and, perhaps, making some headway . . . I do hope and pray this is true.

There are certain words I think we should call a moratorium on and never use again. One of those is of course the "N" word, as well as slang for Mexicans, Jews, Italians, Polish people, and so on (I'm of Italian decent, so I know the pain words have caused my grandparents and mother - I am not immune to it). But the words I think we should ban from our ordinary speech are words like Right-Wing, Left-Wing, Christian, Conservative, Liberal, and Fundamentalist . . . among numerous others. These words create more confusion than they remedy. They no longer clarify, they only falsify an idea about another human being. All such falsification through labeling is bound to be less productive and more divisive, more intolerant and less respectful, than learning to know each other as people, and being able to share our views openly and freely, even if we have views to which we hold passionately.

Listen for the word fundamentalism in the news, in the speech of others, in the public square, and see for yourself if it doesn't have a prejudicial quality to it. See for yourself if it is not spoken with disdain. Then ask yourself, if the one using the word about others, is doing so because they believe their own views are more "fundamentally" true and better than the one whom they have labeled as the "fundamentalist?" Couldn't such a person also be considered a fundamentalist of their own worldview? I am hoping that we all can start listening to ourselves a bit more analytically, and ask ourselves if the words we use are not only accurate and helpful, but if they are respectful and enlightened. Words really are important.