Prologue:

This is a work meant to refute the claims of an anti-fundamentalist essay found online. Before the essay is dissected, a brief overview must be given about the website it came from, Sullivan-county.com. Granted the writer definitely is from without even mainstream Christianity (identifying himself as a “Unitarian Universalist”), but the overall site appears benevolent. The beliefs professed by the owner of the site are as follows:

“I support America and our system of democracy, religious and personal freedom, science, secular government, and moderate capitalism. I'm also political independent and my hobbies are science, electronics, history, and religion. This page is constructed as a blog and addresses many issues. I'm a Deist/Unitarian. I reject both the Religious Right, radical Islam, and the extreme Left as threats to our freedoms and nation.”¹

Regardless of who wrote the work, it is a blatant attack on the merits of religious fundamentalism. Given the tone of the essay, it can be assumed that Tippitt is focusing on Christian fundamentalism rather than overall religious fundamentalism, as he gives no testimonies to the activities of Islamic extremists such as Hamas, Chechen rebels, or the current Iranian government. Despite the efforts of Tippitt to usher a cry of tolerance, the work includes generalization, misrepresentation, and false allegations leveled at a group fervently despised.

I. Misclassification

As with any antireligious work, Tippitt introduces the reader to the usual, almost trite recipe of banter against organized religion, mentioning the Spanish Inquisition, the “Black Legend” of Spanish colonialism, the ethnic cleansings performed in the Balkans by the JNA, the Branch Davidians, and threw in a mention of the Nazis for good seasoning. His conclusion for the cause of all these atrocities and atrocious people is summed up quite early:

...all symptoms of the plague that has ravaged the human race since before recorded history: religion. Or, should I say, the wrong sort of religion -- intolerant fundamentalism.

Now entire books could be written explaining the complexities of each example he gives and they would include many things such as the sensationalism in the reporting of the Spanish Inquisition, the fact that historians largely reject the “Black Legend”, the nationalist and Communist elements involved in the Balkans conflict, and the strong ties to the Occult that the Nazi party had, but a simpler response is sufficient.

The fact remains is that none of these examples or the ones given later on in the essay actually fit the definition of Fundamentalist Christianity. As Webster defines it, Fundamentalism is

“a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.”²

The religious sects he labels “Fundamentalist” include the Branch Davidians, Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Jehovah's Witnesses are prohibited by their religion from receiving blood transfusions; Christian Scientists can't receive any medical care at all (believing that since we don't really exist, our ailments are all an illusion). When you add in the people who've died after handling snakes or falling on coals or trusting faith healers instead of doctors, you'd have enough dead bodies to declare religion a plague.

Yet each of these groups do not subscribe to Fundamentalist Christianity. Branch Davidians, for example, worshipped David Koresh as a god, which is alien to the beliefs of both Fundamentalist and mainstream Christianity. Roman Catholics are very quick to distance themselves from the largely Protestant movement and vice versa. Charles Hodge, a fundamentalist theologian, had this to say of Scriptura Sola:

“The Bible is a plain book…It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not that of the Church.”³

And this is what Roman Catholic Bishop Robert H. Brom says about the Fundamentalist Movement in general:

“When one falls into sin, when the ardor that was present at conversion fades, the transforming power of Christ seems to go, and so can one’s faith in his deity. This accounts for many defections from Fundamentalism to agnosticism and secularism; the tenuous basis for the Fundamentalist’s beliefs does not provide for the dark night of the soul. When that darkness comes, the Fundamentalist has no reasonable basis for hope or faith.”⁴

Although grouped together by Tippitt, the two religious entities are not as willing to be put together. The same can be said for the fringe Protestant sects mentioned, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. The first of those two, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, deny attachment to the Fundamentalist title:

"While we have strong religious convictions, we are not fundamentalists in the sense that the term has come to be used. We do not believe that every passage in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. We do not pressure political leaders to promote a certain point of view, nor do we resort to demonstrations and violence against those who disagree with us. The Bible teaches Christians to be kind, good, mild, and reasonable—qualities that do not allow for the kind of fanaticism that is sometimes associated with fundamentalism."⁵

Christian Scientists are from without the fundamentals when it comes to the atonement of the passion sacrifice. As their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, once wrote: “the material blood of Jesus was no efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon ‘the accursed tree’ than when it was flowing in His veins.”⁶

The very groups who undermine Fundamentalist beliefs are ones that Tippitt is saying adhere to them! For an author who denounces generalizing people whose beliefs vary he does an excellent job of doing the very action he detests by naming everyone he sees as malevolent the same appellation. This apparent inability to adequately define who is a fundamentalist and who is not pervades in the essay.

II. Misrepresentation

Pat Buchanan is a giant in modern politics, a former third party presidential candidate in 2000, a former presidential cabinet advisor, and a widely syndicated columnist who often appears on news analysis programs. A traditionalist Roman Catholic, he would reject being classified with the Fundamentalist Christian Movement however many issues he and they may concur on. However the very fact that he is used as an example of fundamentalism, a movement whose population is almost exclusively Protestant, shows yet again the flimsy definition of fundamentalism Tippitt uses. Maybe if the essay was about conservatism as mental illness then at least the examples cited would group together better. As expected of any in the work labeled “fundamentalist”, Buchanan is portrayed as a malicious human being:

Never mind the opinion columns Buchanan has written denying the Holocaust ever took place -- what matters is that he's a Man of God, note the capital letters.

However in no works has the conservative pundit ever made such a pseudo-historical claim. Political strategist Pat Choate, in an interview with Salon magazine fired back at claims made by those who say Buchanan has such positions:

“Pat Buchanan is not anti-Semitic. Incidentally, none of this came out till he opposed the war in Iraq. Then suddenly he was an anti-Semite. Since then his critics take snippets, they can't point to whole sentences and paragraphs to support this vile demonization. It's McCarthyism from the left…That gets to the charge he denies the Holocaust. There is not one such statement anywhere by Pat Buchanan. Time and time again he has condemned Hitler and the Holocaust.”⁷

Although Buchanan is not a perfect man, what is interesting is who Tippitt deems a moral superior to the traditionalist Catholic:

Take Dr. Madalyn Murray O' Hair, for example. This atheism activist has vanished after years of death threats from "Good Christians" who wanted her dead because of her involvement in the fight against religious indoctrination in public schools. All of this despite her living in a country whose Constitution guarantees free speech and (in theory, although you wouldn't think so from Mississippi's judges or Tennessee's state legislature) guarantees that the government will not take one side or the other in the matter of religion.

It is amazing that Tippitt chastises Christians for agreeing with Pat Buchanan, a man whose occasionally biting in his political commentary and then decides to praise Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a woman whose constant vitriol and hatred are a matter of record. Howard Thompson, Editor of The Texas Atheist newsletter, noted the awful nature of the woman so revered in Atheist circles:

"The stories told to me in Austin by those who had personal contact with Madalyn make one wonder how anyone could ever look to her for leadership. She was vulgar, rude and abusive to those around her. The O'Hairs engaged in frequent screaming matches at AA headquarters. The most frequently mentioned aspect of Madalyn was her dishonesty."⁸

In a statement released in response to her murder, O'Hair's surviving son William J. Murray had this to say:

"My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her."⁹

Given how horrible O'Hair's actions were, had she been a religious believer would Tippitt label her a “fundamentalist"?

III. Misinformation

After Tippitt lionized O’Haire, demonized Buchanan, and willfully lumped non-fundamentalist sects into Fundamentalist Christianity, he goes on to present alleged inaccuracies about Fundamentalism. Of course it does stand as possible that if one were to factor in the very loose definition for fundamentalism that the essay has, maybe these allegations are true. Regardless, using the accurate definition of fundamentalist Christianity, his allegations fall before factual reality.

Listing the crimes, Tippitt states fundamentalists are guilty of the following points:

Suppression of knowledge. The Big Bang happened. Several million years later, evolution started to happen (and still is). Period. But fundamentalists are still trying to substitute the Genesis creation myth for real science.

Tippitt feels very certain that the Big Bang and the General Theory of Evolution are true, even though peer-reviewed science has shown otherwise, as found here and here. Furthermore, there are many from without Fundamentalist Christianity who deny the Big Bang and the GTE, as proven by a recent BBC led poll on British citizens.¹⁰ As for the substitution allegation, there is a growing amount of evidence to indicate that the creation myth has some scientific merit and once again secular sources are to thank for these blessings.

Leaving the origins debate, it is also a noted error given that education has been a constant companion to the Fundamentalist Movement. We should not forget the number of colleges established by Fundamentalists, including Liberty University, Moody Bible Institute, and others. For that matter do not forget the upper level educational entities founded by other groups that believed in “the Genesis creation myth”, which would include just about every university founded in the Western world from the medieval period up until the 18th century.

I wonder how many opportunities have slipped past people who were too busy waiting for divine intervention? Many are the problems allowed to spread because the faithful have opted to pass the buck to God. With religion offering the prayer exit, why do anything? You really don't even have to be moral -- you can do as you please during the week, then confess on the Sabbath and have a clean slate.

Another stereotype of religious people in general, but in this case aimed at Fundamentalists. Firstly, there is a strong ignorance of the large amount of charity performed by Christian sects that believe in the Protestant Reformation and its battle cry of faith alone. Tippitt ignores what religious scholar Karen Armstrong knows about some of the ministries of the late Reverend Jerry Falwell:

“At Lynchburg, he created a school run on biblical lines; by 1976, Liberty Baptist College had 1500 students. Falwell also established philanthropical ventures: a home for alcoholics, a nursing home, and an adoption agency to offer an alternative to abortion."¹¹

In addition to this, the Reverend Pat Robertson has a multimillion dollar charity called “Operation Blessing”,¹² and these two controversial clergy are not alone. There is also the The Institute for Prison Ministries (IPM), a department of Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.¹³ Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have contributed much to the welfare of the common man, but none of that counts according to Tippitt.

Secondly, the aspect of not needing to be moral is another willful misinterpretation of not just fundamentalist belief but also belief in grace in general. If nothing else, the Bible itself clarifies things:

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (James 4:17)

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins if left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)

“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1-2)

Homophobia, racism, and sexism have all been given the divine seal of approval by fundamentalist Christianity. Prejudice is approved; discrimination is promised a heavenly reward. Hate is, bluntly, a sacrament in many Christian sects. Revenge fantasies are fueled by the teaching that the redeemed will one day listen gleefully to the screams of souls damned to eternal torment...

As aforementioned, since Tippitt gives every man-made evil religious or perceived to be the “fundamentalist” appellation it is not surprising he would make such wild claims. But each of them does not fit a proper definition of Christian fundamentalism. First to be mentioned was homophobia, a feeling of fear or hatred of homosexuals. Homophobia in its most accurate definition is denounced by conservative and fundamentalist Christians. Reverend Billy Graham, often associated with the Fundamentalist Christian Movement, said that “God loves homosexuals as much as anyone else. I think homosexuality is a sin, but no greater than idolatry and adultery.”¹⁴ When asked what he would do if one of his sons turned out to be homosexual, Rev. Jerry Falwell said “Nothing would make me reject one of my children. I would tell him to go back to his bedroom. You live here. You are my son. My resources are yours.”¹⁵

Regarding racism (another stereotype the media some people claim is conservatively biased never bothers correcting) it is acknowledged by Catholic Bishop Brom that Fundamentalists are not to be equated with white supremacism:

"Fundamentalist churches in the South have few converts from Catholicism because there never have been many Catholics in most parts of the South. In the Northeast and Midwest, where Catholics are more common, one finds former Catholics making up a majority of some Fundamentalist congregations. And in the Southwest, with its substantial Hispanic population, former Catholics are the congregation. Indeed, it has been estimated that one out of six Hispanics in this country is now a Fundamentalist.”¹⁶

If nothing else, the father of the famous civil rights leader himself Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an open adherent to Fundamentalist Christianity. When it comes to anti-Semitism, a subspecies of racism, one Jewish columnist had this to say about fundamentalist Christianity’s involvement:

"Jews who always place Christian fundamentalists at the top of groups by which they feel threatened -- even though all studies and surveys show that the fundamentalists are no more or less anti-Semitic than other Americans. However, it is not really the coalition's anti-Semitism that most directly troubles Jews. What most threatens Jews is something else, something more insoluble. It is the Christian fundamentalist belief, protected by the First Amendment, that their religious precepts are the only ones that will save everyone else."¹⁷

Most likely Tippitt considers paramilitary groups like the Christian Identity movement to be part of fundamentalism when he lists these labels, but religious scholar Armstrong attests to the contrary:

“Christianity Identity, a fascist group…has left fundamentalism far behind, and, indeed, disapproves of fundamentalism. Members of Identity hate the idea of Rapture, which they believe has emasculated American religion: they want to be there to fight the forces of evil during Tribulation. Viciously anti-Semitic, they hate the fundamentalists’ support for Zionism, which they regard as a great sin.”¹⁸

As for sexism, all that needs to be said is that the premiere late 19th and early 20th century fundamentalist Christian figures William Jennings Bryan¹⁹ and Billy Sunday²⁰ both supported women’s suffrage.

As for the claims of “revenge fantasies”, I would hate to think eternal justice is nothing more than a “revenge fantasy”. If fundamentalists are so in love with the desire to have ideological opponents burn in Hell then how come they evangelize constantly? What gain is there for them when they establish groups like Answers In Genesis, Exodus International, and various prison fellowships if all they want is to see people eternally damned?

IV. Miscellaneous

There were other issues that can be mustered regarding the essay that generalizes a group and then decides to denounce generalization. The author had other claims that are factually dubious:

Christians are not the practitioners of the One True Religion that has by the Grace of God slowly overcome all the false ones, but rather the legacy of centuries of wars fought over the silliest bone of contention imaginable.

This is historically inaccurate, as countless examples exist of Christianity doing just that, including the introduction of the One True Religion to the oldest country currently in existence, Egypt. According to historian John Iliffe, “The first firm evidence of Christianity there comes from an early second-century controversy between Jews who had and those who had not accepted the new faith.”²¹ He goes on to describe what the author would say was mere religious right propaganda:

“By AD 200 there was a Greek-speaking church under a Bishop of Alexandria, with many Christians in Upper as well as Lower Egypt…Once the first bishops outside Alexandria took office early in the third century, Christianity spread among Egyptians as well as Greeks. By 325 Egypt had fifty-one known bishoprics and the Bible was widely available in the vernacular Coptic language (Ancient Egyptian written in Greek script).”²²

It must be stressed that what wars can be classified as being over silly affairs involve not just Christians but all other sects, religious, political, and secular. One could argue that the Eastern European Front of World War II, where anti-Christian Communism and Secular Humanist Nazism slaughtered unarmed men, women, and children in the millions could fall under Tippitt’s labels of wars fought over minor differences in ideology.

Viewed from an objective standpoint, with no stakes in the outcome, these "holy wars" resemble nothing more than a playground full of children arguing over whose imaginary friend is the most powerful. This sort of religion brings out the worst, not the best, in human nature.

What is notably interesting about this remark (other than beating the dead horse regarding the fact that Christian fundamentalists have yet to launch a Crusade and were not around to fight the Wars of Religion in Western Europe) is that it contradicts another statement later on in the essay:

We're all atheists until someone else teaches us religion, good or bad.

Epilogue

In the end, Tippitt offers no valid evidence to claim that religious fundamentalism, in particular fundamentalist Christianity, is a pathology. What Tippitt does show in his essay is that he has the capability to generalize. After creating a very loose definition for fundamentalism, he then points to examples of militant extremism that rarely happen in fundamentalism. Even if there was the occasional murder, abortion clinic bomber, or misogynist, so what? Is Tippitt willing to ignore the far larger numbers of non- and anti- fundamentalists who murder, rape, and store up wealth while making the poor poorer? Probably not; most likely the author would call these people “fundamentalists” also. Now to the familiarity I felt when first stumbling upon this work. What makes this whole essay amusing is that not too long ago I came across another essay very similar to it, entitled “The Pathology of Liberalism”. Unlike the essay critiqued in this first trip to Sullivan County, “The Pathology of Liberalism” actually does quote people, giving examples that can be effectively fact-checked. However, like the essay critiqued in this first trip to Sullivan County, it takes a large socio-political movement and claims that it is a mental disease. I encourage people to read both essays, just so they can see how extreme people denouncing extremism can be, so unwilling to deem their opposition valid that they have become convinced of the mental derangement of those whose only abnormality is disagreement.

Sources:

1.http://www.sullivan-county.com/main.htm, accessed 11/24/2007.

2.Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, RHR Press, 2001, USA, p.776.

3.Marsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American Culture (2nd Ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006, p.111.

4.http://www.catholic.com/library/fundamentalism.asp (accessed 11/24/2007)

5.http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm(accessed 11/24/2007)

6. Ridenour, Fritz, So What’s the Difference?, Regal Books From Gospel Light, Ventura, California, USA, 2001 p.168.

7. Fred Branfman and David Weir, “The Kingmaker Speaks”, http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/11/choate/index2.html, accessed 11/26/2007.

8.http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ht-whospeaks.html (accessed 11/24/2007)

9.http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp?action=detail&article=144(accessed 11/24/2007)

10. "Britons Unconvinced on Evolution" BBC News, found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm or on-site in the Department of Nonfiction here

11.Armstrong, Karen, The Battle for God, Random House Publishing Group, New York, 2000, p.275.

12.http://www.ob.org/about/history.asp, accessed 11/26/2007.

13.http://www.bgcprisonministries.com/index.php?id=29, accessed 11/26/2007.

14.The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, compiled by Mark Water (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books) 2000, p.491.

15.Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, If Grace is True (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003) p.59.

16.http://www.catholic.com/library/fundamentalism.asp (accessed 11/24/2007)

17. Earl Raab, "Anti-Semitism is not primary threat of strong Christian right", Friday September 15, 1995, located at http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2007/edition_id/31/format/html/displaystory.html (accessed 11/24/2007)

18. Armstrong, The Battle for God, p.363.

19.http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h805.html (accessed 11/24/2007)

20.http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/residents_sunday.htm (accessed 11/24/2007)

21. Iliffe, John, Africans: the History of a Continent, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.37.

22. Ibid.

Italicized passages from Tippitt, Jason R. "Religious Fundamentalism As Mental Illness", May 30, 1997, located online at http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/illness.htm,accessed November 6th, AD 2007.

All verses quoted came from the New International Version of the Holy Bible.