CO raises the issue of "Secular Fundamentalism," I think it a good idea to delve a little deeper into this topic, simply because it is one of the great fundamentalisms and dangers of our age.
But first, some definitions:
fun-da-ment-tal-ism: A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles.
sec-u-lar-ism: 1) Religious skepticism or indifference. 2) The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education
The above definitions come from the American Heritage Dictionary: third edition, no friend of conservatism, but a good source for words.
Let us parse these definitions, just a little.
Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence, for the sake of brevety, to your beliefs; more aptly, the basic principles of your beliefs. With this in mind, we can easily label fundamentalists in every station of life: the ACLU, fundamentalists; Islamic Terrorists, fundamentalists; Ted Kennedy, wobbly fundamentalist; Orthodoxy of any sort, fundamentalist. As I mentioned before, I have no problem with being a fundamentalist, I count myself as one. I do, however, have a problem when your fundamentalism tries to trample my fundamentalism, especially in a country founded to protect both of our rights to our opinions.
Secularism is simply disbelief, but more problematically a movement to spread disbelief. The secularist wants to seperate religion from public functions. They have the right to that belief, just as I have the right to believe that we should pray before any public meeting. Neither one of us has the right to insist that the other participate or be happy with the decision. Oh, and by the way, the decision of whether to pray or abolish religion in the public forum is made by, you guessed it, the public: majority rule is a marvelous thing.
What secular fundamentalism does is try to impose its basic beliefs, namely that religion (particularly Christianity) is foolishness, on the rest of society. They feel that the Ten Commandments in a public place is government endorsement of religion; maybe they have a point, maybe they should pound sand, but I'm willing to listen. However, the line is not drawn here; as CO points out, some SF's want a church to remove its religious icons for a public school graduation. This church is not a public forum and does not have to let the school use its sanctuary. Do these people feel that a cross hanging on the wall hurts them? Does its mere presence challenge their beliefs?
I am not much for religious icons, I think they tend to obscure the object of our true devotion. At the same time I am not offended by them: if someone wants to wear a symbol of execution on a necklace, that's fine, even a good way to publically display your beliefs; if someone wants to have an ank, or ohm tatooed on their forehead, I am neither offended or concerned about the strength of my faith; or if someone wants to stick a fish with legs on their car, go ahead, that symbol doesn't shake my belief in intelligent design. The difference between me and a secular fundamentalist is that I am not afraid of symbols, certainly they seem to be.
The SF movement wants to remove religion from the public sector, and they have the right to choose such a goal; I also have the right to want to see the Bible in the backpack of every elementary student. Those are simple differences of opinion. SF's become militant when they start to remove my right to express my beliefs on my person, in my speech or on my property. They stand on the first amendment calling for freedom from religion; well, they have it, the United States have never endorsed, as a matter of law, a specific religion; that does not mean that we are not allowed, as a society, to express our religious leanings. They stand mightily on the first amendment, but fail to read further: the government shall also make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. There is no right that protects people from seeing a cross or a nativity scene, and if the people elect officials who believe in Christ, or any other religion, it is an exercise of democracy that allows for the majority to rule and place a plastic Jesus, Mary and Joseph in a city park.
Here is the danger of the SF movement: where does it end? Is it over when the Ten Commandments are out of the court, when children stop praying in school, when Moses is taken off the Superior Court building in D.C., or when churches are wiped off the face of the planet? If you want to teach children that Creation might be wrong, I should be able to teach that it might be right; but that is not the distinction of freedom of ideas you want. You want religion abolished because it is a foolish lie, without considering its right to exist because it might be the absolute truth.
Comments
Question to Pose
Would you propose that there is a difference in the number of Secular Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists of all types?
The essentially problem, as I see it, is not so much the belief but rather the militant nature of the actions associated with the belief. If a Secular Fundamentalist tries to spread his belief, or lack thereof, what real harm is there? Is it very much different from a Christian Fundamentalist trying to spread their faith?
“Secularism is simply disbelief, but more problematically a movement to spread disbelief.”
Would a Secular Fundamentalist be reasonable in declaring a Christians yearning for spreading “their” truth is much the same? I see no significant difference other than point of view.
I understand the problem with legality and trying to change the U.S. Constitutions, and agree wholeheartedly. Symbolically who really gives a damn. A cross is meaningless unless you attach meaning. The guillotine is meaningless unless your French. So trying to define what is appropriate and what isn’t is a worthless endeavor. Words are much the same, they rarely are as offensive as people choose to make them.
Back to the initial comment about Fundamentalist populations. If you are defining Secular Fundamentalists in part by the “movement to spread disbelief,” you cannot deny the same claim coming towards your self-proclaimed Christian Fundamentalism.
I would define Fundamentalism without including the possible action associated with individual belief. I find it to be too limiting and based on only educated assumption. And maybe you are as well and I’m misrepresenting the whole point. However, if it’s the extreme Secular Fundamentalists you are worried about, I would imagine that they countered quite appropriately by the Religious Fundamentalist zealots.
I don’t really think your point is to debase the right of SF’s to declare and fight for their beliefs, but I believe many will. That’s the meaning of my comment, not to deny either sides right, but to affirm them. Too many people from the Secular and Religious sides denounce each other entirely.
Final thought...
The concern you should have is not the extreme Fundamentalists who claim about as exposure as their counterparts, but rather the middle. The courts are the only place the extremists are dangerous; and in our day and age that is indeed a serious threat to civil liberties. However, the more apathetic (raising hand) among us are the truest danger to the spread of “Secular Fundamentalism.” It’s the tiny shifts of the majority that make social change. Very few briefs have been definitive enough to define a social movement, and those are usually precipitated by the majority.
Fundamental Dilemma
To answer your question, I cannot gauge whether there are more, equal or fewer numbers of religious fundamentalists or secular ones; sufficient data is simply not available. While most researchers/census geeks will attest to is that there are more people who identify themselves as religious than not, the fervor of their practice is not easily quantified. That said, I would like to clarify my thoughts.
I do not in anyway wish to hamper the SFs rights to believe what they do or spread said belief (again, disbelief). That is not my America, and it should never be. My problem is the way that fundamentalism manifests itself. As I said, I call myself a Christian fundamentalist, but I am by no means militant (true Christianity does not lend itself to be so). By fundamentalist I mean someone who adheres strongly to their beliefs and desires to spread those beliefs. The problem that I have with SF is that their belief is predicated on the idea that mine is archaic, ignorant and should be banished from society. My doctrine does not dictate that my job is to force everyone to believe what I believe, SF "doctrine" is the exact opposite. That is the problem with fundamentalism. A fundamentalist believes something so strongly that it is the core of their existence. Ultimately, we must contend with the results of their fundamentalism based on what they believe. I, for one, believe that Christ came to Earth, lived a perfect life, died and rose again as payment to sin unto salvation. The result of my belief is I want to share that news with people and help them to see what I see. Now, if I believed that Allah wants me to convert or kill infidels, my fundamentalism manifests itself differently.
In short, when it comes to SF, my fundamentalism wants them to believe what I believe, SF (at least in practice) wants to restrict my ability to believe what I believe; or if not to restrict it, to stop the public display of it (thereby making it impossible/difficult to manifest my fundamentalism).
Perhaps we are dealing with symantic issues, confusing fundamental with militant; perhaps not. Thanks for replying, and welcome to the Vale.
Relativism and the SF
It seems when one in the secular media refers to a fundamentalist Christian or Islamist, it is used as a derogatory statement which packs a boatload of cargo overflowing with ideas of crusades, jihad, angry, bigotted, obstinant, ignorant, self righteous, unreasonable, dangerous, "close-minded" powerful men. In a book which I find quite interesting; "Relativism feet firmly planted in mid air"- by Greg Koukl Of STAND TO REASON He points out that people who often think they are tolerant of others and yet so often they are only tolerant of the very idea they hold. "Dont push your morality on me"... for example is a very view which pushes that morality (dont push your morality on me) on another. There is a moral statement It is wrong to push morality.... its self refuting. Even the word tolerant has changed to be a word which means to accept as ones own idea rather than learn to cohabitate peacefully while maintaining a different view or perspective. If I'm tolerating something it has a sense of irritation suffered and endured. Now it seems ones tolerance is displayed by adopting opinions and or not voicing otherwise. It will ultimately end free speech as I see it.
However scripture is clear : James 3:14" But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.
James 3:15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.
James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.
James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
Symantics
I think perhaps this is a simple symantic issue, as you propose. You define your fundamentalism by a wish to spread your belief, and SF's as a wish to restrict you. I think it is highly likely that this is simply a point of view, which will differ greatly from one side of the spectrum to another. I fear that Secular Fundamentalism is primarily defined by Christians, which is my only real point of contention. To be honest I'm neither here nor there on the issue, as it affects me not at all. An interesting point though, biased though this issue must be.
I think...
...you're right in you contention. Sure, secular fundamentalism is defined by christians, mostly; but this is the case for every group. Ask someone strapping a bomb to their body and ask them if they are a fundamentalist and I doubt they will say yes. Fundamentalism is generally decided by someone outside of the cause; that does not make them any less fundamental.