Archive for the 'christian fundamentalism' Category

This explains a lot

Published
by
Ken
on December 9, 2008
in carl jung and christian fundamentalism
. 0 Comments

Typical of neurotic people is their attitude of disharmony towards reality, that is their diminished capacity for adaptation.

– C.G. Jung, The Theory of Psychoanalysis:
Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, No. 19, p. 102

When I read this, I immediately thought about Fred Phelps. Pat Robertson, George Bush, the Kansas State School Board, &c., &c., &c. That is, everyone who vehemently defends that “old time religion” but doesn’t realize the “old time” for which they are nostalgic was populated by people vehemently defending that “old time religion” but didn’t realize their “old time” was populated by people vehemently defending …

Christian Fundamentalism, fundamentalism in general, is a prolific source of neuroses. Regression is one of the central dynamics in any neurosis. When confronted with an obstacle or conflict, the neurotic reverts to pathways that are old and outdated, hence infantile. These old pathways have nothing to do with the current obstacle and offer no effective means of resolution but the neurotic’s energy gets “backed up” due to the obstacle and spills over into these infantile, regressive pathways or thought processes. That is why they seem so irrational and downright childish — their current ideas, actions, and conclusions are being motivated and rationalized by ideas and thought processes that are irrelevant to the conflict at hand and are outdated. It is impossible for them to adapt to a changing world because they are still living in the past.

Merton pegs Fundamentalism

Published
by
Ken
on July 19, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, faith, fear, fundamentalism, judging others, theology and thomas merton
. 0 Comments

Thomas Merton from Zen and the Birds of Appetite:

At the same time, Christian experience itself will be profoundly affected by the idea of revelation that the Christian himself will entertain. For example, if revelation is regarded simply as a system of truths about God and an explanation of how the universe came into existence, what will eventually happen to it, what is the purpose of Christian life, what are its moral norms, what will be the rewards of the virtuous, and so on, then Christianity is in effect reduced to a world view, at times a religious philosophy and little more, sustained by a more or less elaborate cult, by a moral discipline and a strict code of Law. Experience of the inner meaning of Christian revelation will necessarily be distorted and diminished in such a theological setting. What will such experience be? Not so much a living theological experience of the presence of God in the world and in mankind through the mystery of Christ, but rather a sense of security in one’s own correctness: a feeling of confidence that one has been saved, a confidence which is based on the reflex awareness that one holds the correct view of the creation and purpose of the world and that one’s behavior is of a kind to be rewarded in the next life. Or, perhaps, since few can attain this level of self-assurance, then the Christian experience becomes one of anxious hope—a struggle with occasional doubt of the “right answers,” a painful and constant effort to meet the severe demands of morality and law, and a somewhat desperate recourse to the sacraments which are there to help the weak who must constantly fall and rise again.

Is this Christian Fundamentalism or what! The Bible is “absolute truth” and we should be most concerned with who’s getting it right and who’s getting it wrong. Jesus is coming back any day now so screw the environment. Morality is dictated by God in the Bible and everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, should follow this moral “law.” Christians should focus on what they’ll get in heaven. The more they are persecuted on earth the greater their reward. This gives them a “license” to do whatever they want because they perceive all persecution (even that inflicted on them for being just plain jerks) as building up rewards in the hereafter. The Fundamentalist’s Christianity is a world view and nothing more. It is legalism at it’s finest.

As Merton says, “experience of the inner meaning of Christian revelation will necessarily be distorted and diminished.” Despite their bully tactics and overall hubris, you really must feel sorry for these poor souls. They totally miss the point yet insist they are the point. But this insistence comes at a price: as a Christian, they are told that they should have “a feeling of confidence that one has been saved, a confidence which is based on the reflex awareness that one holds the correct view of the creation and purpose of the world and that one’s behavior is of a kind to be rewarded in the next life.” Yet, many cannot “attain this level of self-assurance” and it is precisely because it is out of their reach that they put on the show of confidence.

The code of conduct for the Fundamentalist is a bar set too high for it dictates not only overt actions but covert thoughts and motives which are damn near impossible to control yet extremely easy to fake. They truly are like the child who lashes out at others to compensate, in some futile way, for the abuse they receive at home. The Fundamentalist cannot live up to expectations and so points out others’ flaws to draw attention away from themselves.

And because they are focused on all this finger pointing and name calling, they miss the “living theological experience of the presence of God in the world and in mankind through the mystery of Christ.” God is too busy inflicting punishment on the sinners to be present in the world. Christ is not a mystery to them because they have him totally figured out and are able to weed out sinner from saint with their “x-ray” vision (which really doesn’t penetrate much past a person’s hair, tie, and Bible translation).

Christianity is like working for the government

Published
by
Ken
on June 21, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, faith and mysticism
. 0 Comments

Well, it’s like what working for the government used to be. And it’s like what being a tenured professor used to be. In other words, you couldn’t get fired. The ultimate job security. You could sit around and do enough to just get by. And nobody cared a whole lot.

And that’s what Christianity is like. Once you “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior” you’re on easy street. Sure you should go to church and you should read your Bible and you should pray. But, hey, it’s not works that save you. It’s God’s grace. You don’t deserve anything at all from God so going to church or not going to church isn’t going to change anything. Yeah, yeah there’s all that talk about the Fruits of the Spirit and your faith is demonstrated by your works. But really, in the end, all you have to do is “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior.”

Most Christians who do go to church and read their Bibles just end up listening. They listen to the “feel good about yourself and your life” sermons and they listen to encouraging words and rationalizations for why they’re believe what they’re told to believe. How much do they really work at their salvation? How much do they really grow in their relationship with Jesus?

And this is what I was whining about in my last post. Mainstream and Fundamentalist Christianity is all about getting people to believe. What happens after that doesn’t matter because all you have to do is believe. It’s so freakin’ easy that anyone can do it! Which is the attraction. You don’t have to be a monk or in a convent or work at it full time. You don’t have to quit your day job and all your extra curricular activities. Go to church on Sunday morning and you’re good to go. A Wednesday evening prayer meeting (does anyone do that anymore?) once in a while for a little extra credit. From day one, you’re good to go. Accept Jesus Christ one minute, die the next, and you’re being ushered past the pearly gates into your own private mansion on your own private cul-de-sac of gold.

But what about the mystical versions of religions? The mystics have to work. And work hard! A lifetime of meditation, contemplation, introspection. And what happens if a mystic dies the day after she takes up mysticism? Well, she gets to start all over again next time around. Meditation — training the mind — is extremely difficult. But that’s how the mystic encounters God. It’s not an instant conversion type experience.

But there are those of us for whom the easy way out does not work. We desire a much more intimate relationship with God — more intimate than hearing about him while sitting in church on Sunday. More intimate than just reading what he’s said in the past. More intimate than talking to the wall and pretending he’s listening. And so, because we desire more, we must work more. And so, I’ll get back on “the cushion” tomorrow and meditate again. Take the good days with the bad. I’ll think about true mystics like Suzuki, Merton, Eckhart, Wilber, etc. who were/are much further along the path than I’ll ever be in this lifetime and I’ll be envious of them. I’ll even bitch and moan a little bit about it but I’ll still get back on the cushion tomorrow.

That’s just not freakin’ fair

Published
by
Ken
on June 18, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, faith, jesus and mysticism
. 2 Comments

So, I’m trying to meditate again. And it’s hard work! Lately I’ve been fighting my body more than my mind. I get fidgety and I just can’t talk myself into staying still. I’m not giving up — no matter what — but it’s still frustrating some most days.

And then I start thinking about how I have a lifetime of meditation ahead of me. A lifetime of sitting and working on quieting my mind. A lifetime of working hard to focus and try and reach the next level, get past the next koan. A lifetime with no assurance of achieving kensho. I read what some of the Christian mystics write and they don’t see themselves very far along the path and that’s all they do! How can I, a non-monk regular working Dad, supposed to make any progress?

And then I start thinking about fundamentalist, evangelical, literalist Christians. Believe in Jesus and you get into heaven. Live a 100% sinful, evil life and repent at the last moment and get into heaven. Simply accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and get into heaven. It just takes one act of simple belief and your problems are solved. Sure you need to live your life in a certain way but the act of believing seals your fate. It’s so simple a caveman could do it. After you “do it,” even if you fail and sin and stumble, a simple confession makes it all right as rain again. Read your Bible, pray, go to church and you maintain your status of “saved.”

It’s all so simple and all so unfair that I cannot “simply” believe.

Maybe Jesus is the finger, not the moon

Published
by
Ken
on June 3, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, christianity, god, jesus, judging others, mysticism and religious pluralism
. 0 Comments

“Don’t think. Feel. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”

That was Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon. He was echoing the well-known Zen analogy that all instruction (doctrine?) is like a finger pointing at the moon. It should not be confused with the moon itself.

Jesus, the man — the human side of Jesus — did a lot of pointing in his day. But a lot of people back then and after him and today are too busy staring at his finger to see what he was pointing to. They see him pointing at his literal life, his literal work, his literal death, his literal resurrection. But those are all the finger!

The moon was Jesus’ other side — his non-human side. The side that is identified with God. The perfect, immortal, numinous side that is in us all — and has been in us all from the very beginning.

Jesus said, “I am the way,” but that “I” was not Jesus, son of Joseph, prophet, leader, healer, etc. When I say, “I love you,” to my wife and daughter, that “I” has absolutely nothing to do with what I am or what I do or what I look like. That “I” is the “I” that is my real essence. It’s the unseen part of me that, if I were to die right now, would remain and still love as much as it does now.

The next part of Lee’s quote is even better. “… or you will miss all that heavenly glory.” If you stare at the finger, you miss the heavenly glory. Now, just imagine what you are missing by staring too hard at the external, literal Jesus! If Jesus is pointing us to God, to glory, and we only look at him and do not follow his pointing to see God, we are missing out on a lot!

As proof of this, compare the writings of any mystical Christian to any dogmatic, literalist, fundamentalist Christian. There is a world of difference. The mystic sees things so far above and beyond and below. They are following the pointing finger of Jesus and truly seeing God.

To go even further, pointing is far from an exact science. When you point, you often have to qualify with words what you are pointing at or the other person misses the point, so to speak. I think there are Christians who do follow Jesus’ finger and look at the “moon.” But some of them then become fixated on “the moon” and become dogmatic that it was “the moon” Jesus pointed to.

Someone else comes along and, looking up to follow Jesus’ pointing finger, sees a star. But looking more intently, they begin to make out the breathtaking Crab Nebula. Another looks up and initially sees a few tiny stars but, looking more intently, sees the Pleiades. They are both taking in the wonders of God and the glories of the heavens when the “moon Christian” starts berating them for missing the whole point and being heretics and idolaters because clearly Jesus was pointing at the moon and at only the moon.

I’ve said this before on this blog: I think that a literalistic view of Jesus as The Way robs you of the true glories and wonders that are available to you. Putting Jesus and God “out there,” perhaps touchable but distinct from yourself, is to miss your Self. Jesus was not pointing to God by holding his arm in the air. He was pointing to God by pointing at himself — his essence of which we all are a part. He was pointing inside at the God inside us all. He was pointing inside you.

Does Not Play Well With Others (v0.1)

Published
by
Ken
on May 26, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, faith, judging others and tolerance
. 3 Comments

The following is a work-in-progress. It’s a draft I wrote for a Writers Group I go to once a month (more or less). I’ll be editing, revising, reworking, redoing it in the future and will post the new versions. Your comments will help me fine tune my thoughts. Thank you in advance.

Does Not Play Well With Others

In this age of diversity, tolerance is required. Tolerance of those diverse from ourselves and tolerance of those so much like ourselves that we can’t stand them. Yet, there are those who are not, and do not claim to be, and claim that they will never be religiously tolerant. The Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Evangelical come to mind. They want to dictate what others believe and how others act. Putting aside the issues of hypocrisy and assuming they are on the up and up, how do we deal with them? Is it possible to tolerate them and let them believe what they want to believe? If so, how do we go about doing this? If not, then what, exactly, do we do when you can’t live with someone and you can’t shoot them?

In other words, how do we tolerate those who do not play well with others?

So as to not “stoop” to their level, we cannot dictate to them what they can or cannot believe. This seems very reasonable because that is the major complaint we have of them. So, is that the answer? Do we let the Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals believe what they want and preach what they want and we do on with our lives and with our beliefs?

The answer appears to be “yes” but with a major caveat: Keep your beliefs to yourself and don’t let me catch wind of them. This is the same basic attitude we have grown into regarding smoking. Used to be that a smoker could smoke anywhere she liked as long as she didn’t force a cigarette on us. But now, we are bothered by the smell and fear for our lives and so we’ve told the smokers that they can’t smoke just anywhere. They must smoke outside. And then we started getting bothered by having to walk past the smokers congregated just outside the main doors on cold, rainy days and so we told them they had to move further away or couldn’t smoke anywhere on the premises.

This is the attitude that is brewing towards the Fundamentalist. Don’t bother me with your ideas. Don’t preach to me as I walk into my place of business. Don’t try to influence the government with your crazy ideas. Just go off by yourselves and believe what you want to believe.

The problem is that this is impossible. Not because of the person but because of the belief. Pretty much everyone believes that murder is wrong. We have enacted legislation to this effect and enforce it daily. There may be some discussion as to degree of guilt and appropriate punishment but there are clear-cut cases of murder. No one has an issue with the belief that murder is wrong being inflicted on everyone regardless of race, creed, etc. Even if someone does not believe that murder is wrong and wants to murder in private without bothering us about it, we generally do not accept their belief and still hold them accountable.

Now consider the stance that abortion is murder — cut and dried murder. Anyone holding that belief would be considered immoral if they let others committing or facilitating murder by abortion get away with it. Even if that person did so in private and didn’t bother us with it.

By condemning those who publicly and vehemently oppose abortion and those who try to get anti-abortion legislation passed are we not condemning their beliefs and telling them that they can’t believe whatever they want but must believe what we tell them to?

Separation of church and state seems to be a much discussed issue these days. The separation of moral ideals and religious ideals seems to be the crux. But what if your morality is a direct result of your religion? What if your religion dictates your morals? How can you separate them?

What would you say about a Christian who went to church and prayed piously and tithed and was a deacon or elder on Sunday but then cheated and lied and stole on Monday? A hypocrite, no doubt. If the Christian does not live his Christian life outside of church, then what kind of Christian is he? How can a truly Christian woman NOT shade all her decisions and actions by what she believes? We all do this; perhaps implicitly but we all do this. Some beliefs are not religious in nature but the principle, I think, is the same. Is it reasonable to expect, then, that a religious president not make decisions based on his religion?

The only real way to effect a separation of church and state is to have atheists running the country. I doubt that despite all the so-called, self-proclaimed liberals in this country that a Bertrand Russell or a Richard Dawkins could come close to winning an election. We may not want a president who is influenced by his religion but sure as hell don’t want a president who doesn’t go to some kind of church.

What do some Christians have in common with some atheists?

Published
by
Ken
on May 25, 2007
in atheism, christian fundamentalism, christianity and god
. 2 Comments

Q: What do some Christians have in common with some atheists?

A: The assumption that the Christian God is the only God and when you speak of god, even in a general sense, you are speaking of the Christian God.

Why?

Because when some Christians say “there is a God,” they really mean “the Christian God exists and is the only god.” And when some atheists say “there is no god,” they really mean “the Christian God is the only god and does not exist.”

I went through both these stages. As a Fundamentalist while I was growing up, the only God in town was the God taught from the pulpit in my church. I didn’t even consider the possibility of another god. It was unthinkable! Then, starting in my college years, I became disillusioned with God as taught from the pulpit in my childhood church. I said, “that God is a crock of horse pucky; ergo, there is no God” and promptly threw religion — in general and as a whole — out the window because I was still brainwashed into thinking that the only god in town was the god taught from the pulpit in my childhood church.

Years later, I’ve come around to realize that the God as taught from the pulpit in my childhood church can be a crock of horse pucky but that does not mean that there is no God. I need not throw all religion out the window. I need not even throw all of Christianity out the window for there is a huge chunk of Christianity that was not taught from the pulpit in my childhood church.

I like to think that I’ve “grown up.” I no longer express that knee-jerk reaction to one aspect of Christianity which only resulted in a complete purge of everything and everyone who even mentioned the word god. Now, I realize that “Christianity” does not necessarily mean The Christianity I was taught as a child. There are other aspects to Christianity and so the Christian God is not necessarily The God I was taught as a child. I can reject the one without rejecting them all.

I hope that all atheists — and all Christians — will someday come to realize the same thing.

tol·er·ant (adj): What the other guy should be

Published
by
Ken
on May 17, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, jerry falwell, jesus, judging others and tolerance
. 3 Comments

Reading this post and the subsequent comments about Jerry Falwell was like listening to a bunch of 2nd graders bicker. “Was not” “Was to” “Not” “To” “Not” …

Basically the anti-Falwellians were complaining about how intolerant he was. The pro-Falwellians then criticized the anti’s for being intolerant hypocrites. All which reminded me of something I’ve been mulling over on the back burner of my mind for a while:

What does it mean to be tolerant? Can you be tolerant of those who are intolerant?

If I have a migraine, I can either tolerate the pain or I can take something to make the pain go away. The latter is not the same as the former.

If there is someone who holds beliefs different from mine, I can either tolerate that person and his/her beliefs or I can (try to) convert her/him to my own beliefs. The latter (attempted conversion) is not the same as the former (religious tolerance).

Christian Fundamentalists are — by self-definition, I would say — an intolerant bunch because of the exclusivity of their beliefs. It’s kind of like having someone claim that 2+2=5. You can tolerate that belief all you want but that person really is wrong and in need of correction. That’s how the Christian Fundamentalist feels. Everyone else really is wrong and in need of correcting. Jesus said “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life,” after all. Tolerance is no more an option here than with arithmetical errors.

And that’s their belief. And so we, non-Christian-Fundamentalists, who are all for tolerance and religious pluralism, should respect that belief and be tolerant ourselves and let them believe what they want, no?

Of course we should, BUT …

But what if they don’t keep their beliefs to themselves? What if they try to make me do something I don’t want to do or try to stop me from doing something I do want to do by getting legislation passed or influencing the government or getting elected to political offices? What if they don’t just practice their religion on Sunday but bring it to work with them on Monday? And what if they let their crazy religious ideas influence how they act?

What if they try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Or what about homosexuals and same-sex marriages? Same deal applies.

So, what if they don’t play well with others? How can we be tolerant of them when they are so intolerable?

…

Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the answer … yet. Comments, anyone???

I’m afraid of the Light, mommy.

Published
by
Ken
on May 16, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, christianity, evil, jerry falwell, jesus and judging others
. 0 Comments

I was reading this post about Jerry Falwell and just a few of the (as of right now) 358 comments. Talk about a polarizing figure! In between some of the hardcore anti-Falwellian comments was this one :

The hate-filled vitriol towards Dr Falwell speaks volumes that he was correct. Jesus said it first through (John 3). Folks hate Jesus and Dr Falwell because they love their evil deeds.

Men do indeed have a sinful heart that is in enmity towards God. Those that are lost without Christ can’t even pay respects to a fine man, husband, father, and grandfather because he stood for Christ. You that are spewing hate today should be ashamed of yourselves, if you were capable of shame that is.

The commenter is referring to John 3:19-21 where Jesus says:

“And this is the judgement, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

This also reminds me of something else Jesus said in Matthew 5:11,12:

“Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

The implication here is one that I fear many out-spoken fundamentalists hold and wear as a “Scarlett H,” so to speak. If I am hated for what I say and do then that proves I am doing God’s work. But some key ingredients are explicitly missing in this. Jesus said that “everyone who does evil hates the light.” Jesus did not say “everyone who hates is evil and everyone who is hated is the light.” The fact that there is hatred does not prove a damn thing either way.

So people hate Jerry Falwell. I’m sure that there were people who hated Bernardo Gui (watch The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery and Christian Slater) and other members of the Inquisition. There were and are people who hate Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Hussein. Does this mean all these people were doing God’s work and were “the light”? And if you hate Hitler, are you necessarily an evil doer?

Of course not. Even God hates!

So, the mere fact that Falwell is hated by some does not prove anything. Falwell’s “correctness,” as the original commenter says, cannot be proved by how much or little Falwell is hated. It can only be proven by the fire of God’s judgement.

The key to how much light we have in our selves is how much we emulate Jesus. The only fingers Jesus pointed were at the Scribes and Pharisees — religious leaders who should have known better. He didn’t condemn adulterers, prostitutes, tax collectors. He didn’t separate himself from them as many Christian Fundamentalists are doing today with homosexuals, liberals, pro-lifers. No. Instead, he ate with them; hung out with them; loved them. You can talk all you want about “loving the sinner and hating the sin” but all too often the “loving the sinner” part is missing.

More on The Blasphemy Challenge

Published
by
Ken
on February 13, 2007
in atheism, belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, fundamentalism and religion
. 0 Comments

After an anonymous commenter (apparently he or she is not afraid of the Holy Spirit but is afraid if me) called me a moron in response to my post about the The Blasphemy Challenge I decided to do a little more investigating. Yes, I admit that I did not read very much on TBC’s website (tsk tsk). But I went back and viewed their very brief FAQ. Here are some more comments …

Why do you care?

It isn’t just adult Christians who are indoctrinated with the frightening ideology of Christian belief. In fact, most Christians are indoctrinated as children. These children are told that they must believe the following: That 2000 years ago a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds– and right now this man is with them as their invisible companion and savior from Hell, if only they will submit to him. If this bizarre theory were not religious in nature, teaching it to children would probably be considered child abuse.

Personally, I don’t see anything frightening at all about what TBC’s FAQ says Christian children must believe. And this is not all that bizarre when you look at any religious belief. It’s also not at all bizarre when you compare it to the fairy tales and myths that are routinely believed by children. Things like “Santa Claus is watching you to see if you are naughty or nice” and “he knows when you are sleeping”. That is closer to child abuse than the Christian tenets listed above. TBC is missing the whole point — in my opinion. It’s not the Christianity that is the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism.

How will The Blasphemy Challenge help?

Religious dogma has one chief means of support: Our unwillingness to criticize it in public. If we talked about religion the same way we talk about science, history or other fields involving truth claims, dogma would wither in the light. The Blasphemy Challenge, by addressing a truth claim of Christianity, is intended to provoke this sort of conversation.

A couple points here. First, how is asking people to blaspheme “addressing a truth claim?” The only way to determine that the “truth claim” is false is to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen. The only way to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen is to wait until all the people who blasphemed are dead and see if they ended up in Hell or not. But, anyone who blasphemed who was not a Christian would be in Hell anyway so there would still be no proof that it was the blasphemy that put them there. So, the only real test would be to have a Christian blaspheme and then see if that peson ended up in Hell. But I doubt that a true believer would want to blaspheme unless, of course, they would be willing to lose their eternal soul in the hopes of saving others. So, clearly this experiment is far from scientifically valid. If only the Bible said that anyone who blasphemes would be immediatley struck by lightning. Now that would be a verifiable result. But, alas, that is not the case.

Second, I think people have been criticizing religious dogma a lot longer than TBC gives them credit. But criticism is very different in the scientific community and in the religious community. If anyone has ever criticized a Christian Fundamentalist you know what I’m talking about. They do not take criticism well and usually it just makes them cling to their beliefs with more tenacity and close their ears and minds more tightly. Pissing off the Fundamentalists is not the way to get them to talk to you. I will guarantee that no “conversation” will be provoked by this.

Is it true that you are targeting young people with this campaign?

Yes. As young people are the most vulnerable to religious indoctrination, we feel it is important to reach them with the concept of challenging the doctrine they are told to unquestioningly believe.

In my opinion, Brian Flemming is as fanatical about being not Fundamentalist as the Fundamentalists are about being Fundamentalist. (Again, I saw the movie and these are my opinions. And these are opinions from someone who was in a situation very very similiar to Flemming’s.) Just because you don’t like Fundamentalism is no reason to trash all religious beliefs. If you don’t like Fundamentalism, then attack Fundamentalism! Don’t attack religion in general.

The FAQ talks about “religious indoctrination” and battling this by “challenging the doctrine” that Fundamentalists preach. But TBC is not about challenging any doctrine. TBC takes one idea out of an entire religion — an idea that it’s impossible to prove is wrong — and tries to base a new “anti-religion” on it. This is “religious indoctrination” of a different kind but it’s still indoctrination. “Don’t believe anything!” is as bad as “Only believe this!”.

Isn’t this just “fundamentalist atheism”?

That is a remarkably stupid question. The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt — not to believe something because they are told to. Free inquiry is the opposite of fundamentalism. The Blasphemy Challenge may be activist in nature, but it is hardly fundamentalist.

Again, I saw the movie and in my opinion the movie was very fundamentalist atheist. I got the impression that the movie was all about throwing out Christianity in its entirety and not about questioning your beliefs. TBC talks about free inquiry but also seems to say that you can’t believe the Christian dogma even if you want to. I’ll give my opinion one more time: It’s not Christianity that’s the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism. Yet I see TBC attacking Christianity.