Secular Fundamentalism

It is amazing to see the development of a new 'Secular Fundamentalism' emerging in our country.  It is characterized by:

1) a blind devotion to the myth of Darwinian Evolution.

2) a commitment to censor anything that even questions that myth.

Several events over the past year point to this disturbing trend:

1) The Smithsonian's National Museaum of Natural History pulled out of showing a film called "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe".  Worst of all the Washington Post printed an editorial on this act of censorship that revealed its own secular fundamentalist bias.  Al Mohler describes the entire event well in his blog.

 2) A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia recently ruled that a school district's stickers on textbooks referring to evolution as a "theory not a fact" were unconstitutional.  See the story here.  The sticker, he said, sends "a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists."  Wow, since when is honestly calling a theory "a theory" an act promoting christain fundamentalism?  There was no referrence to God on the sticker.  There was nothing remotely 'Christain' about it.  It is just another instance of Secular Fundamentalism.

 3) The current climate of Secular Fundamentalism is easily seen in the concern over flowers in Bryan Park in Richmond Virginia.  Apparently there was someone strolling through the park who became very disturbed by a 12 by 20 foot bed of azalia bushes in the shape of a cross.  The tradition of this display dates back over 50 years, but now it is seen as a threatening violation of separation of church and state.  A local paper reports this story.

4) A final example is found in the Orlando, Florida area.  Here the parents of a Palm Bay High School graduate are requesting a temporary restraining order until all religous symbols are covered or removed in the Calvary Chapel facility they are borrowing for their graduation ceremony.  The facility owners have said they will not light up the symbols during the ceremony, but apparently this is not good enough. Why, is it still too scary for them?  Could it possibly undermine their secular beliefs?   See Florida Today's site for this article.

 
Apparently secular fundamentalists are not open to reason or discussion  Their theophobia has so saturated their thinking that anyone who sees life in a different way is a threat that must be censored or sued.

For a full treatment of Secular Fundamentalism see this.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fundamentalist

This reminds me of what knobblyknees said recently about the misperception of what a fundamentalist is.  As you so clearly point out, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds rigidly to a belief and isn't open to new ideas or understandings.  Blind devotion and censorship.  Why is it that such a general concept is applied so narrowly in dictionary definitions.  Why are the same people who speak of intolerance so intolerant against Christians?  I would argue:

  1. because Christianity is true, and there are great efforts within the fallen inner-man to suppress truth in order to avoid responsibility and condemnation from God, and
  2. because Christianity is by the nature of Christ's words exclusive.  John 16:4 leaves no room for alternate routes, or universalism.

I missed the link to the full treatment of Secular Fundamentalism, but there doesn't yet exist an entry for it on wikipedia.  Perhaps one of us could add it.  There certainly is a long treatment of fundamentalism.

Secular Fundamentalism

Hmm, that's a thought (about the wikipedia).  Before our history is rewritten and defined by athiests, we could define and and write that which is true. 

 

Matt 

A good idea... about adding

A good idea... about adding it to wikipedia.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I am intrigued by the idea of adding a "secular fundamentalism" to Wikipedia.  The act has a great deal of promise for general outrage.

 When considering the whole issue of "fundamentalism", beit religious or otherwise, I wonder, what's the matter with being serious about what you believe?  I am, for all intents and purposes, a fundamental christian, a fundamental constitutionalist, a fundamental perveyor of opinions.  Problems with fundamentalism only arise when your fundamentalism imposes on my fundamentalism.  If you believe you have to kill me, well, I fundamentally disagree.  Here's the issue: secular fundamentalism want me to not believe what I believe, and if I must be so ignorant as to do so, to not show it.  Ultimately the danger of any fundamentalism is the trampling of other's rights. 

I am a fundamentalist christian, being that I am unwilling to believe what someone else tells me to believe when it contradicts Scripture.  I do not, however, desire to force anyone to believe what I believe (that was the major error of Constantine and the corruption of the early Catholic Church).  Ultimately, I hope they will choose to believe, but they are free not to.  I hold no animosity for religious symbols that are contrary to my beliefs; I don't wish to assume that evolution cannot be taught as a theory.  It is the imposition of fundamentalism that is the terror of being fundamental.

good clarification

I definately agree with this, and had some trouble with my definition above for that reason.

I characterized fundamentalism as blind devotion and censorship.  Determining blind devotion is troublesome at best.  Truth is mutually exclusive by nature.  I think your right in emphasizing the second half; fundamentalism is censoring dissenting opinion to that which you hold dear.  There is a great difference between proclaiming what you believe to be true, and trying to shut up all other voices.

Interesting, that this is exactly what the secular fundamentalists do.  Go ahead and disagree with Christianity, but why do you feel the absolute need to squelch the free expression of it?

Fascinating...

I wonder if the hand-ringers in Georgia have ever actually read the Constitution?  Here's what it says about religion:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 So, in the first amendment to the constitution (which of course falls within the Bill of Rights) makes this case fairly clear.

  1. Putting a sticker on a book is not a law to establish a religion.
  2. What these secular saviors are trying to do is trying to "prohibit the free expression thereof."
  3. And the perennial favorite, the freedom of speech.

Ultimately, people who cry out "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" haven't a clue what that really means.  It is quite sickening.  Imagine, trying to defend the right to bear arms when you aren't even sure if bears have arms or just four legs.