I think you are absolutely right about that. Indeed, there is a sort of "anti-fundamentalist cottage industry" which seeks to use that label as defining anyone who actually has morals and is not a post-modern nihilist "neo-liberal" who regards the NYT as the New Bible for our time in world history. Mostly the term is used as a pejorative with which to whip Christians, but it also is useful to beat up on traditionalist Hindus and Orthodox Jews. This is one reason that I take a contrarian view of the word and, more than that, identify myself as a "fundamentalist." But, needless to say, there are several meanings of the word. To me it all comes down to faith which springs from the original Bible. Not quite the best way to say it, but to get a point across........ That is, the whole focus of Christian fundamentalism is the original text of the Bible, with a good % of believers regarding the KJV as pretty much that exact text. To me this is flat out incorrect. The final form of today's Bible ( most of the OT ) dates to ca 500 BC even if it is based on a collection of far older texts, some which are not "Jewish" at all but are Mesopotamian. Should not be too big of a mystery why since Abraham and Sarah were from Ur, in about their same era, the capital of what is now called the Ur III Empire. End of Joshua admits exactly this, albeit disparagingly. In any case, the word "Bible" roughly translates as "library," for that is what it is, a collection of texts. This collection, in the course of Hebrew history, from the time of Abraham onward, from , I think, before 2000 BC until Esther was added last, in about 80 or 90 AD by Jews in Roman Palestine, about 2100 years, all kinds of things happened and what the Bible was after Ezra was not what it had been before, not what it was before the era of Solomon, and so forth to the beginning. My quest, as much as it can be done, is to recover the original. Maybe the archaeological finds of the past 150 years or so are seldom discussed from any pulpit, but that is anything but an impediment. I have a fairly decent collection of sources, and I also know what they say, which documents are foundational to the Torah and to books like Proverbs and Psalms and Job and so forth. Not all that difficult to read one , then the other, and understand which is the original. Sometimes the "refined version" which we have in the extant Bible is a masterpiece that does, in fact, represent an advance to a new level. But not always, and sometimes the opposite is the case, the original recommends itself far more. So, there it is, even if only in a set of many parts, the original. Or a good number of parts. And that is what I base my faith on. This out-fundamentalizes the fundamentalists. It is "extreme fundamentalism." And I wouldn't have it any other way. But this doesn't make me a KJV literalist, not by any stretch of the imagination. Because, again, the original is what matters, and much as I love the KJV, which is at least as good, as literature, as Shakespeare, and which is so much more, it still is not the original. And sometimes the original has a message unique to itself, and more profound. I mean, the original takes us to the very dawn of civilization, to a time which, from our perspective, was "magical" and when so many of the issues we now face and grapple with were being grappled with for the very first time. Lots more to say about this, but it due course...... Billy ================================================ 10/14/2011 10:23:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Well, I think that using "fundamentalism" is a thinly veiled attempt to tar Fundamentalist Christians with Fundamentalist Islam, or at least to try the "guilt by association" angle. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 10/14/2011 1:20 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: This says it all. BTW, Foreign Affairs is simply the very best scholarly journal there is about world events. I am a subscriber and recommend it highly. Best experts in all fields --nations, regions, cultures-- and everything well written and thoroughly researched. I am especially appreciative that, among other things, the articles in the journal rarely refer to MSM stereotypes in their reporting or analysis. Like the word "fundamentalism" which is tossed around by so many journalists as if they knew what they are talking about. Hence, say the word "fundamentalism" and most people assume --while not understanding the world, either-- what it means or may mean in different contexts. Here we have an article that is all about so-called "fundamentalists" in Islam which makes it clear just what is going on by not misusing that word as a catch-all for anything that the press dislikes and is judged to be narrow minded. Anyway, an outstanding article guaranteed to make it clear that US media stories about the "Arab Spring" have just about all been superficial , based largely on wishful thinking, and half-baked. The outcomes in each country have been manipulated behind the scenes by the Saudis on behalf of Wahhabi interests. All the while as the MSM has said nothing about this reality. Nothing. And, O yes, the United States has been paying to undermine democracy in Arab countries --every time someone fills up the family car with gasoline. Which, of course, neither party has much interest in actually doing anything about. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------- Foreign Affairs Saudi Arabia's Invisible Hand in the Arab Spring How the Kingdom is Wielding Influence Across the Middle East _John R. Bradley_ (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/author/john-r-bradley) October 13, 2011 On October 4, a brief, ominous release came from the state-controlled Saudi Press Agency in Riyadh acknowledging that there had been violent clashes in the eastern city of Qatif between restive Shiites and Saudi security forces. It reported that "a group of instigators of sedition, discord and unrest" had assembled in the heart of the kingdom's oil-rich region, armed with Molotov cocktails. As authorities cleared the protesters, 11 officers were wounded. The government made clear it would respond to any further dissent by "any mercenary or misled person" with "an iron fist." Meanwhile, it pointed the finger of blame for the riots at a "foreign country," a thinly veiled reference to archrival Iran. Saudi Arabia has played a singular role throughout the Arab Spring. With a guiding hand -- and often an iron fist -- Riyadh has worked tirelessly to stage manage affairs across the entire region. In fact, if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. The invasion served an immediate strategic goal: The show of force gave Riyadh's fellow Sunni monarchy in Manama the muscle it needed to keep control of its Shia-majority population and, in turn, its hold on power. But that was hardly the only advantage King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud gained. The aggression quelled momentum in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province among the newly restive Shia minority who had been taking cues from Bahrain. The column of tanks also served as a symbolic shot across the bow of Iran: The brazen move was a clear signal from Riyadh to every state in the Middle East that it would stop at nothing, ranging from soft diplomacy to full-on military engagement, in its determination to lead a region-wide counterrevolution. >From the Arab Spring's beginning, Riyadh reached directly into local conflicts. As far back as January, the kingdom offered refuge to Tunisia's deposed leader, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Eager that popular justice not become the norm for Arab dictators, Riyadh has steadfastly refused to extradite Ben Ali to stand trial. (He remains in Riyadh to this day.) Moreover, Ben Ali's statements, issued through his lawyer, have consistently called on Tunisians to continue the path of "modernization." For fear of upsetting his Saudi hosts, he has not been able to express what must be his horror as a secularist at the dramatic emergence of Ennahda ("Awakening"), the main Islamist party, on the Tunisian political scene. Ennahda's meteoric rise is widely believed to be, at least in part, bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries. Islamists across the region are working in Riyadh's favor. Islamists across the region are working in Riyadh's favor. As with the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis gained newfound influence with the Muslim Brotherhood and its even more hard-line Salfi allies, who reportedly take funds from the Saudis. The Muslim Brotherhood has vaulted to prominence in the post-Mubarak era. It draws hundreds of thousands to rallies. It looks set to sweep forthcoming elections. After all, it is telling that Muslim Brotherhood members took refuge in Saudi Arabia during the decades of persecution under former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Today, the party makes a good partner for Riyadh, as it never utters even a whisper of criticism of what more radical Islamist outfits denounce as the Saudi royal family's treacherous ties with the West. If Saudi Arabia desperately backed Mubarak to his last days, in post-revolutionary Egypt the kingdom is now closely connected to the country's new political power brokers. All of this makes the situation in Yemen look quite familiar. When President Ali Abdullah Saleh was injured in the June bombing of his presidential palace, he fled to (where else?) Saudi Arabia. When Saleh returned to his country last month, he found himself more indebted to Riyadh than ever. Essentially, Saudi medics had saved his life, and in a tribal region such personal debts are not quickly forgotten. But Saleh may not matter much: In the capital of Sana'a, the exhausted protesters have largely departed the main square they had occupied. It has been taken over by activists from Islah (or, the Islamist Congregation for Reform), the country's main Islamist party. Islah was founded by leading members of the powerful, Saudi-backed Hashid tribal confederation, whose decision to turn against Saleh was a key moment in the uprising. Whichever side emerges triumphant from the power struggle now under way, the Saudis have both eventualities -- either Saleh or the Hashids -- covered. Looking at the future of the Middle East, perhaps the most decisive change could come in Syria. It was with a heavy dose of irony that King Abdullah condemned Syria for the murderous crackdown Damascus was waging against its own popular rebellion in early August. Of course, Riyadh has a less than exemplary human rights record, to say the least. Likewise, King Abdullah's announcement that he was withdrawing Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Damascus was less a protest against the savage brutality of the Syrian regime (if it was at all) as it was another chapter in Riyadh's ongoing effort to loosen Iran's grasp on the region's counterrevolution. The simultaneous decision by fellow Gulf Cooperation Council members -- Kuwait and Bahrain -- to likewise withdraw their ambassadors, followed by a communiqué from the Arab League expressing predictably muted misgivings about Damascus' ongoing massacres, indicated the kingdom's ability to line up allies and make them dance to the tune of the regional powerhouse. If the Syrian regime collapses (which is hardly imminent but appearing more and more possible as peaceful demonstrations give way to armed insurrection), it would mean the end not only of a brutal dictatorship but also of the only other ostensibly secular Arab country apart from Tunisia -- another boon for Riyadh. However, in light of Saudi Arabia's hardened stance, the real question is what it envisions would happen in Syria if the regime were overthrown. Riyadh's hope, clearly, is that a post-Assad Syria would align itself with a new Sunni-led, more anti-Iran government in Damascus. That may be hoping against hope, at least in the short term, because Syria is more likely to descend into a bloody, sectarian-driven civil war than witness a smooth transition to a new government. Riyadh, though, is banking on the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies ultimately coming out on top. It is certainly true that, since most Syrians are Sunnis and the Muslim Brotherhood is the best organized of the opposition groups, they are the most likely to fill the vacuum in the long term. If the Arab Spring had any hope of ushering in greater freedom and democracy, it would have had to challenge from the beginning the influence of Saudi Arabia, the region's Washington-allied superpower and its most antidemocratic, repressive regime. That is a tall order indeed. The tragic irony of the uprisings is that the exact opposite happened. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
