http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,899641,00.html

Saturday February 22, 2003
The Guardian 

There are two things desirable for fighting fundamentalists. The first is
not to be one yourself. The US government's war on the movement is
somewhat compromised by the fact that it is run by scripture-spouting
fanatics for whom the sanctity of human life ends at the moment of birth.
This is rather like using the British National party to run ex-Nazis to
earth, or hiring Henry Kissinger to investigate mass murder, as George
Bush recently did by nominating him to inquire into the background to
September 11. Fundamentalists of the Texan stripe are not best placed to
hunt down the Taliban variety. 
The second desirable thing is to know what fundamentalism is. The answer
to this is less obvious than it might seem. Fundamentalism doesn't just
mean people with fundamental beliefs, since that covers everyone. Being a
person means being constituted by certain basic convictions, even if they
are largely unconscious. What you are, in the end, is what you cannot
walk away from. These convictions do not need to be burning or
eye-catching or even true; they just have to go all the way down, like
believing that Caracas is in Venezuela or that torturing babies is wrong.
They are the kind of beliefs that choose us more than we choose them.
Sceptics who doubt you can know anything for sure have at least one
fundamental conviction. "Fundamental" doesn't necessarily mean "worth
dying for". You may be passionately convinced that the quality of life in
San Francisco is superior to that in Strabane, but reluctant to go to the
gallows for it. 

Fundamentalists are not always the type who seize you by the throat with
one fist while thumping the table with the other. There are plenty of
soft-spoken, self-effacing examples of the species. It isn't a question
of style. Nor is the opposite of fundamentalism lukewarmness, or the
tiresome liberal prejudice that the truth always lies somewhere in the
middle. Tolerance and partisanship are not incompatible.
Anti-fundamentalists are not people without passionate beliefs; they are
people who number among their passionate beliefs the conviction that you
have as much right to your opinion as they have. And for this, some of
them are certainly prepared to die. The historian AJP Taylor was once
asked at an interview for an Oxford fellowship whether it was true that
he held extreme political beliefs, to which he replied that it was, but
that he held them moderately. He may have been hinting that he was a
secret sceptic, but he probably just meant that he did not agree with
forcing his beliefs on others. 

The word "fundamentalism" was first used in the early years of the last
century by anti-liberal US Christians, who singled out seven supposed
fundamentals of their faith. The word, then, is not one of those
derogatory terms that only other people use about you, like "fatso". It
began life as a proud self-description. The first of the seven
fundamentals was a belief in the literal truth of the Bible; and this is
probably the best definition of fundamentalism there is. It is basically
a textual affair. Fundamentalists are those who believe that our
linguistic currency is trustworthy only if it is backed by the gold
standard of the Word of Words. They see God as copperfastening human
meaning. Fundamentalism means sticking strictly to the script, which in
turn means being deeply fearful of the improvised, ambiguous or
indeterminate. 

Fundamentalists, however, fail to realise that the phrase "sacred text"
is self-contradictory. Since writing is meaning that can be handled by
anybody, any time, it is always profane and promiscuous. Meaning that has
been written down is bound to be unhygienic. Words that could only ever
mean one thing would not be words. Fundamentalism is the paranoid
condition of those who do not see that roughness is not a defect of human
existence, but what makes it work. For them, it is as though we have to
measure Everest down to the last millimetre if we are not to be
completely stumped about how high it is. It is not surprising that
fundamentalism abhors sexuality and the body, since in one sense all
flesh is rough, and all sex is rough trade. 

The New Testament author known as Luke is presumably aware that Jesus was
actually born in Galilee. But he needs to have him born in Judea, since
the Messiah is to spring from the Judea-based house of David. A Messiah
born in bumpkinish Galilee would be like one born in Gary, Indiana. So
Luke coolly invents a Roman census, for which there is no independent
evidence, which requires everyone to return to their place of birth to be
registered. Since Jesus's father Joseph comes from Bethlehem in Judea, he
and his wife Mary obediently trudge off to the town, where Jesus is
conveniently born. 

It would be hard to think up a more ludicrous way of registering the
population of the entire Roman empire than having them all return to
their birthplaces. Why not just register them on the spot? The result of
such a madcap scheme would have been total chaos. The traffic jams would
have made Ken Livingstone's job look positively cushy. And we would
almost certainly have heard about this international gridlocking from
rather more disinterested witnesses than Luke. Yet fundamentalists must
take Luke at his word. 

Fundamentalists are really necrophiliacs, in love with a dead letter. The
letter of the sacred text must be rigidly embalmed if it is to imbue life
with the certitude and finality of death. Matthew's gospel, in a moment
of carelessness, presents Jesus as riding into Jerusalem on both a colt
and an ass - in which case, for the fundamentalist, the Son of God must
indeed have had one leg thrown over each. 

The fundamentalist is a more diseased version of the
argument-from-the-floodgates type of conservative. Once you allow one
motorist to throw up out of the car window without imposing a lengthy
prison sentence, then before you know where you are, every motorist will
be throwing up out of the window all the time, and the roads will become
impassable. It is this kind of pathological anxiety, pressed to an
extreme, which drove the religious police in Mecca early last year to
send fleeing schoolgirls back into their burning school because they were
not wearing their robes and head dresses, and which inspires
family-loving US pro-lifers eager to incinerate Iraq to gun down doctors
who terminate pregnancies. To read the world literally is a kind of
insanity. 

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to