[Vision2020] The Fundamentalist Hoax

[Chasuk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/the-great-fundamentalist-_b_21944.html

by Philip Slater

THE GREAT FUNDAMENTALIST HOAX

Thoughtful Americans have long wondered how it is that fundamentalist
Christians--followers of someone who preached pacifism and
tolerance--became the poster boy for hate speech, touting "moral
values" indistinguishable from those of the Taliban. They wonder why,
for example, fundamentalist Christians so seldom quote from the New
Testament--which is supposedly what Christianity is all about--but
prefer citing the Torah and Old Testament prophets.

One reason is that the Old Testament is full of murder,
vindictiveness, and genocide--all supposedly ordered by God. So when
fundamentalists want a Biblical excuse for hate speech and hate
crimes--which they seem to need with considerable frequency--they turn
to Old Testament sources.

Christian homophobes, for example, carry signs saying 'God hates
fags', which they justify by claiming that Leviticus 18:22 (condemning
male homosexuality as "abomination") is the 'word of God'. Yet more
than a third of the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to God's
detailed instructions on the proper manner of making burnt offerings
of animals to Him. (The rest deals with keeping Jewish dietary laws,
avoiding pollution from inadvertent contact with menstruating women,
forbidding haircuts and beard trimming, justifying slavery, and saying
anyone who swears should be stoned to death). Why doesn't God hate
those who fail to make offerings in the exact manner He so carefully
spelled out in chapter after chapter? Since fundamentalists feel
comfortable ignoring 95% of the 'word of God' in Leviticus, why have
they latched onto this isolated phrase? If "God hates fags", then God
must feel positively murderous toward people who don't make burnt
offerings of animal carcasses in the precise manner so carefully
indicated, and in such extreme detail. (God must also hate people who
eat lobster, shrimp and pork, which are also "abominations" according
to Leviticus).

It's startling, in fact, how rarely fundamentalist Christians mention
the sayings of Jesus. 'Morality' to them means the sexual inhibitions
of ancient Middle Eastern patriarchies. They seem to be nostalgic for
the pruderies of the 1950s, when the Hays office decreed that movies
couldn't show pajama-clad married couples in bed together lest it
incite teenage moviegoers to fornication. This obsession with
sexuality is surprising, since Jesus seemed to have very little
interest in the topic. In the four Gospels there are only four
statements about sexuality, and these deal with adultery and divorce
rather than sex per se. That is, with relationships--with causing
injury to another.

Compare this with the nineteen statements Jesus makes about the
importance of giving, and the value of divesting oneself of money and
possessions. Yet we seldom hear fundamentalist Christians saying it's
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter heaven. Or quoting the ten statements exhorting us to
turn the other cheek--a Christian idea that seems to be anathema to
hate-filled fundamentalists.

The Bible becomes the 'Word of God' when a bigot wants to use it to
bludgeon his neighbor, and a mere archaic relic when it would be
inconvenient for him to take it seriously. Fundamentalists of all
persuasions--Christian, Muslim, Jewish--often manage to find some sort
of backing for their hatreds in their sacred texts; for these texts
were written in societies that were misogynistic, militaristic, and
rigidly authoritarian--written, furthermore, by men who believed the
earth was flat.

The reason why so many fundamentalist Christians are so notoriously
"unChristian" is simple: for the majority of Christians (Quakers are
among many notable exceptions) Christianity isn't about the teachings
of Jesus, and never was. The early church fathers knew that Jesus'
rather Buddhist message of nonviolence and voluntary poverty wouldn't
fly in the Graeco-Roman world, let alone in the Middle East. The idea
of a Redeemer on the other hand--someone who would voluntarily
sacrifice Himself for humanity and their sins--was very popular.
Instead of having to give up their worldly goods and espouse
non-violence, all the Romans had to do was believe in the miraculous
stories surrounding Jesus' birth and death, which was easy for them,
since such stories had been told about pagan gods and heroes and were
already familiar.

Christianity as it exists among fundamentalists isn't about behaving
like Jesus. It's all about faith--about believing the story. The
underlying message seems to be: you can behave any way you want as
long as you believe the story and say you're sorry before you die.
Following the teachings of Jesus is much too demanding, whereas with
the Christianity of fundamentalists all you have to do is shut your
mind off.

There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually
follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word "Christian" has been
largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by
fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite:
intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry.