-Caveat Lector- On 16 Jan 02, at 11:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> where people appreciate the values of �family and faith, of > personal responsibility and hard work >From http://www.faisal.com/quotes/s.html Bush's family values campaign: The major thrust of Hitler's ascent to power was the return of traditional German family. The slogan was 'Kinder, kuche, kirche;' in English, "Children, kitchen, church." The Third Reich believed the return to tradtional family values was threatened only by Jews, socialists, feminists, and homosexuals. Creepy, huh? -Tara M. Seman >>>NOTE: Some apply "chores" to the meaning of "kuche".<<< From http://www.j-cinstitute.org/Articles/Lyons_Particularism.htm }}}>Begin Note: A paper prepared for Wranglers on November 19, 1991. Wranglers is the name given to a network of small discussion groups of local religious leaders. Founded in the 1920s by Reinhold Neibuhr, there are many Wranglers groups spread throughout the country that continue to meet on a regular basis for dialogue and dinner. A typical meeting begins with a presentation by one of the members followed by a discussion ("wrangling") on the topic of the presentation; the discussion may continue over a shared dinner provided by the evening�s host. Jim Lyons was a member of the Detroit area Wranglers for many years. PARTICULARISM, UNIVERSALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM IN TODAY�S WORLD By James R. Lyons I must confess that I was mystified during the early 1980�s by the complete adoption of Ronald Reagan by the fundamentalists in America. It went against everything I knew to be true about both fundamentalists and conservative Christians. How could a non-church going, divorced, drinking, non-charitable giver, Hollywood movie actor (remember the time when movies were ipso facto evil) become the darling of the extreme religious right in America? It didn�t make sense to me. Or, indeed, how could these fundamentalists adopt Col. Oliver North as one of their own? A Roman Catholic, North would not fit into their religious belief system and certainly not in their worldview which has been anything but friendly to Roman Catholics. Indeed, these same groups are currently publishing some of the most obscene "comic books." It should be recognized from the start that the fundamentalism most of us in this group are acquainted with stems from a deep religious conviction that the Bible is the literal word of God; that all people are sinners; th at faith and only faith saves; that there is only one way for individual salvation -- through the sacrificial death of Jesus and the atonement offered by God through His only- begotten son, Jesus Christ; and that God is a unified being known in three persons, i.e., the Trinity. In actual fact, aside from the over emphasis on certain aspects of their faith, i.e., the literal character of the Bible, most Christians are rather comfortable wi th the religious fundamentalists in their midst. These religious fundamentalists who have often been harshly persecuted, can and do support an open society, preferring to evangelize through words, while protecting their own rights by protecting the rights of others. The y might reasonable say that you have the right to worship God in your way, though they worship God in His way. However, there is a second type of fundamentalist in this land that shares a great deal in common with like-minded fundamentalist people in other lands. Recently I learned of a project at the University of Chicago that ha s been studying the phenomenal growth of fundamentalism. Over the past four years, what they have discovered, not only helped explain to me how Reagan became the idol of the extreme right, but went a long way in explainin g what is happening around the world where fundamentalist groups are active. Fundamentalism, as it is now developing, is primarily a political movement that uses religious language to unify its supporters and to justify its program. Within Christian circles in America this politicized theology app ears as DOMINION THEOLOGY which argues that Christians are meant to have dominion over the world. As we shall see later, when we discuss the conflict between a universal God and a specific faith, fundamentalists assume th at their faith is indeed the universal faith. People have the right to disagree, but since the fundamentalist�s faith is indeed the godly (true) faith, non-believers or false believers should never be in a position of pow er over true believers. This leads to a second, but related, theological justification of their political goals called KINGDOM NOW THEOLOGY. Fundamentalists who hold this view reject the idea that the Kingdom of God is an eschatological kingdom, they also reject the idea that it is within individuals here and now. Kingdom Now fundamentalists believe that the Kingdom of God is a visible political kingdom that should be produced now through the endeavors of "committed" Christians. Ultimately the goal is a Christian theocracy. Christians must be politically active to achieve the Kingdom Now Theology. Traditionally Fundamentalists have had one approach to the world, i.e., "They are not of the world, even as I am not of it" (John 17:16). Today�s political fundamentalists have added a second approach. Take control of the world in God�s name. Their key scripture might well be: "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ." (Matt. 18:18). There are several characteristics that all fundamentalist groups have. It does not matter if they are Christian, Jewish, Islamic or have any other religious affiliation, they all exhibit certain manifestations that clearl y identify them. Because the political fundamentalists are the ones who arouse questions of universality and particularism in religious systems, and because they are the ones who arouse the fear that a certain particularism (theirs) might become the universal, it will be good to discuss this wide-spread phenomenon briefly. Here I wish to thank Dr. David Loehr, an active participant in these discussions, whose paper on the subject of fundamentalists has gr eatly stimulated my own thinking. Indeed, I will cite his five-point analysis with additional comments of my own. 1) "First and most importantly, they agree that there must be only one law for all life, both public and private, and that individual rights or the separation of church and state cannot be used to let people stray from th e one true religion which, coincidentally, happens to be theirs." "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God�s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God who executes wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:1-4) In light of this thesis, we should think about the Nazi movement toward Gleichschaltung, the movement toward unification that ultimately meant the removal of everything that could not or would not fit the unified whole. W hat happens to the outsider? What happens to human value? What happens to legal protection? If Gleichschaltung is the goal, what happens to safeguards? It should be noted that unlike the Promethean legend, that stretched or cut people to fit the mold, in Nazi Germany Gleichschaltung came to mean the elimination of those who didn�t fit the mold. 2) "Second, all fundamentalisms are ruled by men, and the roles of women are narrowly defined and strictly controlled. The basic structure of patriarchal authority is paramount, the dissolution of traditional patriarchal structures is the most important factor in mobilizing fundamentalist movements." Fundamentalists always denigrate women but justify it on the "separate but equal" principle. Different but equal function (Kinder, Kuche und Kirche = Motherhood, keeper of the house, wife). Think of Paul on women. 3) "Third, there is a strong family resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. As one scholar pointed out, the phrase, �the overcoming of the modern� was a popular fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941 and whic h is now resurfacing in most fundamentalist movements." Listen to the conversation that Erica Mann, daughter of Thomas Mann, had in Germany. Note the use of religious language: Talking to a woman on the train: "I ask her how much she can expect to influence Franz when she is a little older. She admitted that she is afraid of the schools� influence � the new schools, which teach that the German p eople are . . . strong . . . and that one is German by the grace of the Fuhrer of the Third Reich and his Archangels, the Leaders of the Third Reich." (Erika Mann, School for Barbarians, p. 15) In his propaganda, Goebbels occasionally introduced a religious note about the Fascist experience. Of a speech Hitler made in Cologne he wrote, "One had the feeling as if all Germany had been transformed into one vast church embracing all classes and creeds, in which its spokesman appeared before the high altar of the Almighty to render an account of his achievem ents, and to implore His mercy and protection for the uncertain future. In Cologne that morning, we saw hard and strong men who had overcome many a danger burst into tears at the closing words of the Fuhrer. This was reli gion in the most mysterious and deepest sense of the word." (Marogli, Propaganda, p. ) 4) "Fourth, history is denied in a radical way. While they are all aware that the modern world, its writings, and its ideals are strongly influenced by the biases of our culture, they deny that the same was true when thei r own sacred scripture were written, and deny any deep historical conditioning of those scriptures at all. Their scriptures are the word of God, pure and uncompromised." 5) "Fifth, fundamentalists want to control the education of children and adults, to insure that the next generation grows up with their view of the world, of religion and of what is expected of them. They are doing this t hrough setting up their own schools, through influencing textbook publishers and state legislatures to mirror their own agendas, and through some other methods of influencing not only their own educational programs but th e general public education platforms of the general culture." (pp. 7- 8) Again, let us listen to Erika Mann in her 1938 book entitled School for Barbarians. "The whole end of education in a people�s State . . . is found by burning into the head and brain of the youth entrusted to it an instinctive and comprehensive sense of race. . . . It is the duty of a national state to se e to it that a history of the world is eventually written in which the question of race shall occupy a predominate position. According to this plan, the curriculum must be built up with this point of view. . . . [For girl s] the greatest importance is to be given to the development of the body, and only after that . . . the mind, and finally, the soul. The aim of the education of women must be inflexibly that of the future mother." (p. 48) The difference between education and indoctrination has to do with the goal. Education is designed for everyone and seeks to expand knowledge while encouraging independent thinking. Indoctrination seeks to create individu als who surrender thinking for "the greater good," usually the greater good of a few. The common view in the religious community is that God is available for everyone, while the narrow fundamentalists make God available o nly to the select few, "the elect," which is indeed a source of pride for many fundamentalists since they will be in heaven and others won�t. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Proverbs 22:6) "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world." (William Ross Wallace, 1819-1881) "Who has the youth, has the future." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf) The deep impact of education is seen from the following true story. An "Aryan" boy was rushed to a hospital with appendicitis, peritonitis had begun, and an operation was a matter of life and death. The doctor, who happen ed to be Jewish, had begun the surgery when the boy, under the influence of the anaesthetic, began to scream: "Down with the Jews! Kill the Jews, we have to get rid of them." (Mann, p. 16) In a very real sense we could stop here for a period of discussion, but I want to briefly consider the question of universalism and particularism, a question that introduces us to a series of fundamental problems for the ecumenical movement. That issue also raises the broader question of how to deal with faith traditions that are outside the Judeo-Christian environment that most of us are familiar with. Without over-analyzing the problem, let me suggest just a couple of basic questions. Is there a difference between "true" and "truth?" Can my faith be particularistic for me without becoming a universal? If it is universa l, how can I accept other interpretations and/or truths? Where does inter-religious dialogue fit into all this? If there is only "one way," (a la Billy Graham of the 70s) how can I appreciate others without compromising m y beliefs? For discussion purposes, I would offer the following THESES: The fundamentalist (and other conservative) position, which is held by political and religious fundamentalists alike, declares: There is only one TRUTH, which is MY UNDERSTANDING OF GOD which must be UNIVERSALISTIC. I would propose the following concept as an ecumenical position: There is only one TRUTH who is GOD and who is UNIVERSAL; while TRUE, MY UNDERSTANDING of GOD is PARTICULARISTIC. Since my understanding of the universal God is true in a particularistic fashion, if it is a valid representation of the universal God, it is capable of becoming a universal but need not do so. You will note that I use "t ruth" only in reference to God. We fight over our commentary about God but assume we are fighting over truth itself. There are several theological dimensions which can be raised. Certainly the classic problems of philosophy/theology remain in full force. Can we express the ineffable in human language? What do we mean by "know?" These pr oblems arise because we assume our understanding of God to be the truth. Interestingly, there are a couple of biblical ideas which open up the question of knowing God: ". . . and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him." (Exodus 19:19) "When the people saw the thunder and lightening and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, �Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do n ot have God speak to us or we will die." (Exodus 20:18-19) God spoke in one kol (voice), but the people heard the kolot (voices) of God. We should speak of the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. QUESTIONS: VALIDATION - How do we validate one another�s understanding of God and, indeed, of life? Since there really is no such thing as "value free" (for that is a value in itself) how do we bring values to bear on a religious sy stem? If my religious system says to kill all female babies except for a limited number necessary for future "breeding" or, as in the case of some Muslim women, to remove the clitoris, are there human standards which cry out and demand that this can not be the will of God? All things are not equally good or evil. But how do we discern which are good from those that are not? How do we discern which are good from those which are not? How do we discern what is God�s will from our own or society�s will? I could not find my copy of Huxley�s Ape and Essence where, if I remember correctly, the evil one is talking about the ultimate destruction of the world. He said that the world came dangerously close to being saved (as I remember it) but fortunately, instead of following the prophets who took the universal and applied to the personal, they followed the priests who took the personal and applied it to the universal. Seems to fit with some o f these arguments. Fundamentalists have learned the use of propaganda, i.e., mass media, mass rallies, simple emotional themes, simple well defined enemies (humanistic liberals, communists, liberals in general, etc.). For more information contact The Ecumenical Institute for Jewish- Christian Studies. Copyright � 1999 The Ecumenical Institute for Jewish-Christian Studies. All rights reserved. Web site produced by Internet Design Services Inc. Most recent update: 09/24/00 End<{{{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
