Defending Fundamentalists

[awediot]

Fundamental, elementary, essential, base...

In these days, after the infamous "...depends on what the meaning of Is, is." nonsequitur spewing from presidential lips, the ridiculous cutting edge "think outside of the bun" paradigm, and the self perpetuating, open ended mind thats closed off to the idea of absolutes, seems the very idea of indisputable Fact is up for debate. Those who claim to know anything outside the test tube, are automatically suspect and presumed to be self-delusional or freakishly gifted. The very nature of what the word implies is in decline.

-ism: system of principles; practice; doctrine
-ist: one who -isms

These tiny suffixes have taken on an amazing power over the past few years. Added on to the simplest word, ( popcornism, frisbeeist ) instantly labels one a fanatic (or an -aholic).

The combination of the two is simply, one who takes the basics seriously. A compliment we'd all like to claim. It is also the only blatant, demeaning insult rampant in these posts.

The term fundamentalist, as used by some self proclaimed, free thinking, genius uberliberals, seems mostly to mean. or invoke the image of Christians who haven't questioned their beliefs since Sunday school, accept the absurd literally, glaze over easily at the mere hint of logic or contradiction, just because the Bible tells them so. They are helmet headed, mascara weeping, power wielding spiritual infants terrified of their own pubic hair who can see us only as children humping, mincing militants with a topless, dyke biker front line, preparing to writhe out of the rainbow to crush picket fences, spread poopy diseases and end the species with lustful decreation... Who's zoomin' who?


This issue confounds and frustrates me maybe more than any other. I call myself a Christian instantly wanting to clarify, not that kind of Christian. So, I call myself a reluctant, or lousy or hypocritical Christian (all true) in order to undermine the automatic stereotype this "C" word invokes. The "gay" word sparks equal, immediate assumptions and putting Christian in front of it, tends to short circuit both sides and I become imaginary. I fear my natural cop-out of dismissively labeling those I disagree with as less intelligent, less inquisitive or nervous, Borg sheepbots... Few of them are.

We can ask why label at all. They lump and generalize, demean and demonize. They also explain, simplify, organize and allow conversation to continue. Stereotypes are encompassing extremes, averaging into that not black and white grey we are so fond of, simply illustrating a base commonality or similarity within a group. They are useful tools, as long as they are understood as a stereotype. The push to transcend labeling in order to encompass diversity is impossible (its de-labelism), and it takes too much with it. Maybe we can hope, and practice, the more difficult task of using them loosely, spreading them thin, then seeing through them to the individual soul fading under their weight.