<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
I applaud the call to protest and I've no use for radical
fundamentalists, but as I digested Dr. Gier's missive over the past
several hours, I became increasingly troubled by the broad brush with
which he paints "fundamentalists".<br>
<br>
I am not either a fundamentalist Christian or an evangelical. I do,
however, have many friends who are. Although I do not embrace their
spiritual construct, I accept their beliefs while knowing
that faith is the leap of personal understanding where science can show
no proof. What arrogance would I display if I held that my faith were
true and others' were false? This is the primary argument against
fundamentalism - the belief that the literal reading of scripture are
true and non-believers are lost. So the antithesis must also be true
for those who deny fundamentalist their beliefs. This appears as
intolerance of intolerance - defying the tenets of Lockean liberalism.<br>
<br>
It is estimated that 30% to 40% of Americans are either fundamentalist
or evangelical Christians. Most, who I know, are hard working loving
people who largely keep to themselves. Baptist and Pentecostal
organizations provide a great deal of charity and give a meaningful and
productive worldview for millions of people. For those of us who will
not subscribe to their religious edicts, we are protected by the rule
of law and the Bill of Rights. Those, our tools to maintain liberty,
must vigorously be used to protect our right to speak in the public
square. Likewise, we must protect their's as well.<br>
<br>
As I said, I've no use for radical fundamentalists and, taking the
linkage between Wilson and Monroe as likely true given the evidence,
it is desirable to protest the radical ideology that may eventually
infringe upon the quality of life and personal liberties of the
community. Accordingly I applaud the call to arms. But, I think it
would be more helpful while appealing to a larger constituency if we
addressed our concerns to the villains at hand rather than call into
question the religious liberties of a third of our countrymen. After
all, influence is politics. Just a thought...<br>
<br>
Dave Budge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>