Republicans for Nader, and Democrat Strategy

[John Cole]

To counter the push made by Republicans to ensure Nader a postion on the ballot, the Democrats are mounting a campaign to collect enough signatures south of the Mason-Dixon line to allow the Reverend Donald E. Wildmon to compete.

[MMMMMM]

Wild-who?

[Ed Miller]

I hear Strom Thurmond is on the ballot in South Carolina.

[John Cole]

The Reverend Ick (http://www.afa.net/about.asp)

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the link...I had never heard of him--and for that reason was sort of wondering if many in the South had ever heard of him. If the Dems are to be using their resources wisely, much of the South had better have heard of him for this to have any chance of making a significant difference in Bush's numbers.

[John Cole]

M,

I was joking. Let me assure you, though, that Wildmon is very well known among right wing Fundamentalists. (I have trouble believing I wrote "right wing Fundamentalists," but moderate Fundamentalists do exist, and many of them believe that Bush has gone too far in his promotion of Fundamentalist causes.)

[Zeno]

It's just the poetry of politics. It's the everyday laundray bag of dirty tricks.

Go Rev. Go Nader. Go Kerry. Go Edwards. Go Bush. Go. Cheney.

Go. Go. Go.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

When you find a Liberal Fundamentalist, please take note and let me know.


P.S. An odd thought just occurred to me. Might some Quakers be Liberal Fundamentalists?

[John Cole]

M,

I'd scour the world, Diogenes style, looking for a Liberal Fundamentalist and find not one, but some do take more moderate positions; they have criticised Bush's good/evil stance.

BTW, I saw a tape of one of Bush's speeches last week, and the tone was akin to a revival meeting, complete with the call/response format.

Say Amen, Somebody.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif he'd clearly be the best choice for president out all others mentioned in this post...not even close...

let freedom ring!!

gl /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[nothumb]

MMMMMM,

Interesting question. I was a very active Quaker growing up, so maybe I can shed some light.

I understand the term 'fundamentalist' to mean a strict adherence to a particular code or scripture, or the so-called 'fundamentals' of a faith or organization. Often, fundamentalists resist the increasing relativism of modern society and modern ethics, and reject those systems as corrupt in favor of some perceived 'core truth' about the world or the universe.

Quakers are indeed a very liberal sect in their most traditional form (this is what is ironic about the group). There are actually three main branches of Quakerism. They are Friends General Conference, which adheres to the original Quaker forms of meeting for worship very strictly and tends to be the most liberal politically. There is Friends United Meeting, which has semi-programmed meeting for worship, often with appointed speakers or a pastor who 'guides' the event. And finally there is Evangelical Friends International, which is basically a bunch of Quakers who got caught up in the whole Pentecostal movement in the mid-19th century and behave, for the most part, like fundamentalist Christians. Thus, it's ironic that the most 'fundamentalist' branch of Quakerism (in terms of practice) is the least 'fundamentalist' in the Christian sense!

I can see how this would lend credence to the notion of 'liberal fundamentalism' in the case of the Quakers, but I don't think the term quite fits (as it is, I suppose, a bit of an oxymoron). It is true that the core testimonies of FGC Quakers are profoundly liberal - indeed, they make up some of the most important aspects of liberalism, namely respect for all individuals regardless of rage or gender. To say that Quakerism is a fundamentally liberal religion is, I think, undeniable.

However, Quakerism fails to meet the criteria of a fundamentalist institution. The range of belief within FGC Quakerism alone is quite astonishing. There are Jewish Quaker groups, Buddhist groups, even so-called 'non-theist Friends." While Quakerism is a Christian religion in origin, it has tended more and more towards universalism recently.

So, if one were to think of the Christian Right as a well-trained army of pit bulls and missile-equipped sharks, the organizational capacity of Quakers (particularly in an ideological sense) would remind one more of a mangy mutt and a goldfish swimming in circles. While Quakers are very active in political and charitable causes (such as the American Friends Service Committee), they do not have a coordinated, orchestrated agenda or nearly so signifigant a fund-raising apparatus.

To me, one of the most important aspects of a 'fundamentalist' philosophy is a rigid system of belief and enforcement. Just about all religious groups that claim to adhere to such a code have a top-down leadership structure and place a great deal of importance on authority and mentoring. (BTW, I was listening to an interesting program yesterday in which I guess hypothesized that the Gospel of John may have taken the forefront in Christian teachings because it is the only one where Christ explicitly calls himself a supernatural being, and because John emphasizes the importance of being a 'follower.') Quakerism is more or less the polar opposite of this.

FWIW, I think a 'liberal fundamentalist' would probably go around preaching from Locke and Rousseau, reading each text strictly and claiming that answers to all sorts of minute social issues could be found in some obscure, outdated point made in a footnote somewhere.

NT

P.S. Now that you know more than you ever wanted to (or asked for) about Quakerism... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for your interesting and detailed response.

After posing the question last night, I spent some time reading the websites of the organizations you referenced above. From that, I would rather generally concur with your assessments. However, I am still somewhat in the dark as to whether there might be some liberal fundamentalist Quakers, somewhere.

It may also depend somewhat on one's definition of fundamentalism. Not all fundamental approaches are necessarily of the same mold.

When I lived in downeast Maine for a year or so--quite some years ago--I visited a meeting of Friends on a few occasions and rather liked it. It was the largely silent type of meeting, arranged with a square of chairs all facing inwards, in which someone occasionally would break the silence and speak a thought or meditation. Logistical considerations prevented me from exploring it much further at that time, however, and my interests and attentions later passed to other things.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
(BTW, I was listening to an interesting program yesterday in which I guess hypothesized that the Gospel of John may have taken the forefront in Christian teachings because it is the only one where Christ explicitly calls himself a supernatural being, and because John emphasizes the importance of being a 'follower.') Quakerism is more or less the polar opposite of this.


[/ QUOTE ]


A recent book by Elaine Pagels called 'Beyond Belief' deals with this very subject. Perhaps the program mentioned this book. Anyway, by some 'divine coincidence', I just finished reading this book and enjoyed it greatly. Its central theme deals a lot with the Gospel of John, very early schisms in nascent Christian communities, and the ideas that shaped the making of the New Testament canon. Other ideas are also flushed out in respect to the main theme, such as orthodoxy, heretics, and concepts of how to find the ‘divine’. Early 'Church Fathers' are also explored in relation to the above themes, especially Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. The book is well worth reading if you have any interest at all in early Christian history and development, or an interest in the four Canonical gospels and their relationship to the many other gospels that circulated amongst early Christian communities.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

AAAAAAAAAAA----MEN.

The symbiosis between politics and religion is vastly interesting. In early human history they are intertwined to an extent that they are impossible to disentangle. I have often wondered if one was an out growth of the other, if they developed almost parallel in human thought and history, or if one preceded the other.

This, perhaps, would depend on the precise definition that you postulate. Broadly speaking, politics, if defined as communal living agreements or arrangements, probably preceded the notion of religion or transcendental tendencies. No doubt some cultural anthropologist has definitively answered this question with wit and acumen. After all, current living primates, as far as I know, have no religion but certainly have a rudimentary political (social) structure.

-Zeno

[nothumb]

Z,

I believe this was the woman on the program. Her book sounded very interesting and she seemed quite restrained and quite thorough in her analysis. I was considering buying the book; if you think it's a good one that might just motivate me to do so.

NT