💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › friendly.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:30:08.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-


  
           CAN WE TRUST "FRIENDLY" FUNDIMENTALISTS?
                      by Isaac Bonewits
 
               "Deeply hath sunk the lesson thou
                hast given and shall not soon depart"
                     -- William C. Bryant --
 
Neopagan newsletters and journals have recently been publishing articles
about a religious freedom organization, founded by fundimentalists, that
has invited Neopagans to join. The response from Neopagans has been, I
believe, somewhat naive. If we are to survive as Neopagans and accomplish
our goals, we should improve our understanding of fundimentalism and of
what a fundamentalist considers religious freedom.
 
Throughout this essay I'm going to be referring to "fundamentalists," so
perhaps I should clarify the term. Let me start, as I so often do, with
a historical review of the term - on this occasion quoting 'A Handbook
of Theological Terms' by Van A. Harvey (MacMillan, NY, 1964):
 
"Fundamentalism is a name that was attatched to the viewpoint of those who,
shortly after the turn of the century, resisted all liberal attempts to
modify orthodox Protestant belief or to question the infallibility of the
Bible in any respect. The name is derived from a series of tracts published
between 1912-14 entitled 'The Fundamentals' that aimed at defining and
defending the essentials of Protestant doctrine. The most important of the
fundamental doctrines were (1) the inspiration and infallibility of the
Bible, (2) the doctrine of the Trinity, (3) the virgin birth and deity of
Christ, (4) the substitutionary theory of the atonement, (5) the bodily
ressurection, ascention and second coming of Christ (parousia)."
 
Since most of these beliefs have been a part of orthodoxy, historians have
seen the uniqueness of fundamentalism to consist in its violent opposition
to all beliefs that seem opposed to some teaching of the Bible. In the
twenties and thirties this opposition was focused particularly on any theory
of man's origins, especially evolution, that seemed incompatable with the
account in Genesis. Consequently, fundamentalism tended to be identified
with blind opposition to all critical inquiry.
 
Because of this identification, certain conservative theologians who share
the above-described beliefs but who think they can be defended in a rational
manner have tended to shirk the name "fundamentalist" and call themselves
"evangelical conservatives." They generally oppose the spirit of ecumenism
and any theology, including neo-Reformed theology, which does not regard the
Bible as the absolute and infallible rule of faith and practice."
 
This term has since been extended by the media to refer to "fundamentalist"
Jews, Moslems, and even Hindus! In each case, the inference is that some
people refuse to budge from the most conservative version of their faith
that is available to them. Non-Christian examples include some Orthodox
Jews, Shiite Moslems, and Mormons (and some would add Marxists). Christian
but not Protestant examples would be ultra-conservatives within both Roman
and Eastern Catholicism.
 
For the purposes of this essay, I could simply refer to "ultra-conservative
monotheists," but "fundamentalists" is somewhat shorter and the modern
Protestants who call themselves by this term are, in fact, the primary 
threat to our lives and freedom right now. So on those occasions when I
don't specifically mention it, you may keep in mind all the others mentioned
in the preceding paragraph.
 
The primary emotions driving fundamentalists are an Unholy Trinity of anger,
hatred and fear: anger that there are other religions in the world (implying
the possibility that their own fundamentalism might not be the One True Right
and Only Way after all); hatred of these other faiths and their followers
for daring to exist; and a deep abiding fear that if these other faiths are
allowed to continue to existing, they will seduce the fundamentalists'
membership away. Obviosuly these are a religious expression of other
psychological factors: the emotional repression involved in being raised as
a fundamentalist tends to breed anger, hatres and fear towards yourself and
the world around you.
 
Fundamentalism, with its pervasive sense of guilt about most normal physical
and emotional feelings, and its patriarchal structure wherein the father's
word is law, creates family atmospheres where emotional, physical and/or
sexual abuse of children is the rule, not the exception. Such abuse, now
being publicized thanks to organizations such as Fundamentalists Anonymous
and various incest survivors' organizations, can't help but create
personalities in which anger, hatred, and fear towards abusers is redirected
inwards, creating the guilt and shame so useful for church authorities. 
Later in life, these painful emotions can be redirected again, this time
towards "safe" targets - people with different religious and moral convictions
than those your family claims.
 
Again, I'm using the term "fundamentalists" very broadly. I've heard similar
life histories from people raised as Othadox Jews, Mormons, and Jehovah's
Witnesses - and I can clearly remember the patterns from my own Roman
Catholic childhood.
 
The Unholy Trinity is exhibited in other ways that have affected all of 
Western history: anger towards ambiguity (why can't Mon/Dad/Siblings be
predictable?); hatred towards women (why didn't Mom protect me?); and a
generalized fear of the entire world (what awful thing will happen to me
next?). The resulting emotional turmoil from these factors can't help but
effect the overall worldview, and thus the religious beliefs and actions,
of the victims.
 
The ancient Hebrews appear to have invented religious genocide : killing the
priestesses and priests of the competing deties worshipped within their own
population, then the clergy of all the local tribves. For good measure, they
also killed the conquered tribe's adults and boys, keeping only the little
girls whom they could rape and brainwash into the new religion of Yahwehism
(and their new roles as slaves to men). The history of what became known as
Judaism is the history of sanctimonious religious terrorism - practiced 
right up to the time when their weapons were taken away from them. While
they were a conquered people, the Jews believed in religious freedom, but
whenever they had land again, that freedom vanished for all but themselves.
Fifteen centuries of Christian oppresion made religious freedom again a
cherished ideal, but as soon as there was a chance for another Jewish state,
fundamentalist Jews were quick to oppress the non-fundamentalist Jews and
the gentiles then in residence. The results have been the current mess
you can observe on your TV news every night.
 
Let's not overlook the history of Islam - another desert monotheism that
started by committing religious genocide against local Paleopagans and
which has slaughtered and enslaved non-Moslems ever since. They too have
promoted the ideal of religious freedom and toleration whenever economic
or political fortunes have been against them, only to toss those ideals out
the window when Islam was in power.
  
That brings us back to the Christian fundamentalists and a bloody history
with which most NeoPagans are only too familiar. More men, women, and
children have been enslaved, tortured, raped, mutilated, and murdered in 
the name of Jesus Christ than in the name of any other deity in recorded
history. Christians have oppressed Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Pagans, and
each other throughout their centuries of power, preaching religious
intolerance as the word of Jehovah whenever they had the military, political,
or economic power to make it stick - and preaching brotherhood, peace, and
toleration when they didn't.
 
The irony here is that the various sayings attributed to Christ give
Christians a choice of behaviors: the Unholy Trinity of anger towards the
unbelievers, hatred of "sin" (ie. different moral beliefs) and fear "of the
lord", on the one hand; or peace (from spiritual serenity), love for all
humanity (as children of the "same" god), and hope for a new world (here
or in their Heaven). Because of the dualism inherent in monotheism, 
Christian individuals and sects tend to flip-flop between these extremes.
The Liberals and the oppressed amoung them stress the positive side of
the Christian message, while the conservatives and those in power stress
the negative side. The conservatives will sometimes use the positive
vocabulary when proselytizing, and both the liberals and the conservatives
routinely describe each other as not being "real" Christians.
 
Why should fundamentalists hate us Neopagans more than they do the members
of all the other Competing religions around these days? Well, all of them
don't. Most of the Moslems in the world, for example, have never heard of
us. Their fundamentalists are too busy fighting Christians in Lebanon, Jews
in Israel/Palestine, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Indonesia, Marxists in
Afghanistan, authors in England, and liberal Moslems at home, to pay any
attention to what is in essance a Western religious movement with no 
appreciable prescence in the Middle East. Don't worry, if a Neopagan 
movement starts up ove rthere, the Shiites will be quick to kill the
participants.
 
Most of the fundamentalist Jews aren't paying any attention to Neopaganism
either. We're just one more non-Jewish religion that their kids are straying
off to, and we're viewed as a form of craziness rather than evil.
 
It's the Christian fundamentalists in whom we inspire the greatest anger,
hatred, and fear. They denounce Buddhism, Taosim, the New Age, and all other
competing belief systems, just as they have always done, but seem to save
their greatest vituperation for occultists in general and Neopagans
(especially witches) in particular. As most Neopagans know, Christian
fundamentalists are constantly publishing and broadcasting blasphemies
against our deities, slanders against our members, and half-truths and
outright lies about our beliefs and practices. Over and over, they strive to
convince the general public, the media, and the civil goverments that we are
devil worshipping murderers, rapists, child abusers, and even cannibals. 
Why? What is it about Neopaganism that makes the Christian fundamentalists
so desperate that they will stoop to such tactics against us, when they
don't against the Buddhists or the Hare Krishnas?
 
There are a number of theological reasons why fundamentalists of any
monotheistic persuasion would find Neopaganism disturbing; after all, we 
disagree with them about everything they consider most important (while
agreeing with a surprising number of liberal montheistic ideas). But so do
the Buddhists, the Theosophistsm and most of the other "new" religions
making strong inroads onto the American religious scene. The real reasons

for fundamentalist attacks on the Neopagan community are, as usual, not
theological at all.
 
We believe in magic - that anyone can learn to do miracles. That makes
Christ merely a magician, destroying the main body of "evidence" for special
claims of his divinity and thus for the fundamentalists' special position
as holders of The Only Truth.
 
We believe in pluralism and multiplicity - making is very hard to pin
down and define, and bringing up dreaded "feminine" ambiguity. Worse, we
worship goddesses and our women have places of honor and leadership. This
threatens both the male egos that control fundamentalism and the inherant
sexism of their way of life, and presents the terrifying danger that
fundamentalist women might find our religions more attractive than their
own.
 
Perhaps worst of all, those of us who call ourselves Pagans, Druids and
Witches have deliberately choisen to identify ourselves with the victims
of conservative monotheism - with the millions upon millions who have
suffered at their hands down through the centuries. Reincarnation has not
been officially accepted belief in monotheism for the last thousand years
or so. Nevertheless, a certain wave of fear must pass over the 
fundamentalists when they realize, however subconsciously, that we just
might be their victims come back from the grave to haunt them for their
crimes. And this time when they try to silence us, they will fail.
 
But silencing us is something that they must at least attempt - and not
only because we are a healthy, growing competitor in the marketplace
of religious ideas. As a pluralistic, decentralized, femmminist, ecological,
and democratic collection of religions, we represent the future of faith in
a Third Wave world of ever-increasing change and diversity. Fundamentalists
know that teh world is changing and that they cannot control the changes.
They are horrified of the future and anything that reminds them of it.
Neopaganism combines a ressurrection of old deities that the fundamentalists
have been taught from childhood were demonic, with a pattern of belief and
practice that fits in perfectly with the new global culture now emerging.
The Fundamentalists have no psychological options left. they either have
to cure themselves of the addictive/obsessive personalities that have made
them fundamentalists, or (being dualists) try to silence us. Guess which
tactic they're more likely to choose.
 
That's why it came as such a shock to me when I saw my first copy of
'Religious Freedom Alert'. This is published by an organization called the
Coalition for Religious Freedom (515 Wythe St., #201, Alexandria, VA 22314),
founded in 1984 by a number of famous fundamentalists and funded (according
to reliable sources) by the Unification Church! they seem to have two major
interests : fighting the Cult Awareness Network (the deprogrammers'
organization that has been elading the "anti-cult" movement), and fighting
what they perceive as goverment interference in the practice of religion.
In pursuit of their battle with CAN, they have contacted numerous minority
religious organizations - including Neopagan ones - inviting us to join
CRF. They have even published positive, failry accurate stories in their
newsletter about Wiccan, Native American, and other non-monotheistic groups.
Some people in the Neopagan movement have suggested that we should all 
support CRF. I'm in no hurry to do so.
 
To begin with, many of the fundamentalists associated with CRF, such as
Hal Lindsey, have been strongly opposed to minority belief systems, including
Neopagaism, as long or longer than CAN has been. Apparently it wasn't until
CAN and its deprogrammers started attacking what they call "Bible-based
cults" that any of the founders of CRF became interested in the rights of
small religious groups. I suspect that the rise and amazing growth of the
Fundamentalists Anonymous movement was another spur.
 
Further, it seems that most of CRF's complaints about unconstitutional
goverment interference with religious practices are actually more about the
fundamentalists' loss of their traditional - and very unconstitutional - 
privileges. For three hundred years, religious zealots have been shoving
their theology down our throats, usually with the connivance of the civil
goverment - where do you think most of our laws about sex, drugs and
gambling come from? From Blue laws that close stores on Sundays to manditory
(monotheistic) prayers at graduations, right-wing Christians have dominated
the public American culture. But over the course of the last few decades
courts and legislatures have gradually taken away one after another of the
fundamentalists' special privilages. Organized prayer is no longer 
allowed in schools, evolution is taught in biology classes, landlords can't
refuse to rent to "sinfully" unwed couples, etc. - all of which upsets the
people at CRF terribly.
 
'Religious Freedom Alert' tends to be a very schizophrenic publication. Much
of it consists of press clippings about legal cases involving homeschoolers
who want to teach their kids from the Bible instead of from state-mandated
(secular) textbooks, stories about conflicts between rights of religious
and nonreligious people of various persuasions, and denunciations of CAN
and other anti-cult activists. Much of this material is of interest to
anyone concerned with religious freedom. But then there are the editorials:
most of them are typical fundamentalist complaints that the existance of
rights for secular people (including the right not to be subjected to
fundamentalist opinions) violates their rights as spreaders of the Gospel.
Every once in a while there is an editorial that actually deals in a
straightforward way with the complexities of freedom in a pluralistic
society (there was relatively good one in the May 89 issue about the Great
Satanic Conspiracy nonsense).
 
Yet they've also written editorials on which they argue that the seperation
of church and state is itself a violation of the first admendment freedom of
religion clause - that they have the right to use the goverment to promote
Christianity as long as they aren't pushing any particular denomination of
it. A recent editorial attacked the ACLU for its pro-seperation stand, despite
the fact that the ACLU has done more to fight for freedom of religion than
any other group in American History.
 
there are huge differences in attitudes and agendas amoung the organizers of
CRF and/or there is some severe dishonesty going on. I suspect that CRF is
just another example of the phenomenon I mentioned earlier - the habit that
conservative monotheists have of being sweet and reasonable whenever they
are out of power. I don't believe that the majority of the membership of
the Coalition for Religious Freedom really wants religious freedom anymore
than the members of the Cult Awareness Network do.
 
I think the CRF woudl prefer that America was a fundimentalist theocracy in
which they would have every one of their old privilages back, and a number 
of new opnes as well (with only Christians eligible to vote, run for office,
or teach in the schools, for example). No matter how friendly, reasonable 
and ecumenical they may be acting now towards non-Christian groups, on the
day they decide they don't need us anymore they will cheerfully rip our
throats out.
 
Does that sound paranoid? Perhaps. But remember - we know their track 
record. Fundamentalists have never supported religius freedom for anyone
but themselves except as a temporary tactic. The folks at CRF are going
to have to be a lot more convincing if they expect us to be able to trust
them. I suppose they could start by publishing an apology for and retraction
of all the lies that the fundamentalists have published and bradcast about 
us over the years, signed by all the members of tehir executive committee
and board of advisors - some of whom have told those lies. I'm not going
to hold my breathe. In the meantime you can send them $15 for a subscription,
but I wouldn't advocate becoming a member or sending any adidtional donations.
 
Fortunately, those of us in the Neopagan community who are looking for
religious freedom groups to join do have some trustworthy alternatives to
the CRF. There's always People for the American Way (2000 M St. NW, #400,
Washington DC 20036). This group has pluralistic, femminist, and democratic
biases far more in keeping with Neopaganism than CRF. in fact, PAW is
dedicated to removing the fundamentalists' special privilages that CRF is so
anxious to hang on to.

Also worthwhile is 'The Freedom Writer', a newsletter published by
ex-fundamentalist minister Skipp Porteous  (Box 589, Great Barrington, MS
01230; membership is $20 year, subscription by donation). This publication
focuses on the activities of religious right, exposing fradulent ministers,
anti-Semitism, censorship cmapaigns, etc. There are also frequent news
clipping about civil liberties victories. Those of you who were once
fundimentalists might also be interested in his other publication 'Walk
Away'.
 
For keeping tabs on trends throughout the American religious scene, I can
recommend 'Religion Watch' (Box 652, N. Bellmore, NY 11710, $15 year). The
editor, Richard P. Cimino, does an excellant job of neutrally reporting
trends in both mainstream and minority religious movements, and would
apprecaite receiving copies of Pagan publications and pamphlets.
 
Of course, for civil liberties activisim in general, there is no beating
the American Civil Liberties Union. I'm a card carrying member and proud
of it (even if that does mean I can never be elected President). 
Controversial as the ACLU is, and disgusting as some of their clients have
been ove rthe years, they remain the largest and most effective defense
against all those forces (including the fundamentalists) who would discard
our Bill of Rights.
 
There's a group called Americans for Religious Liberty (Box 6656, SIlver
Spring MD 20906), founded as a front for the Humanist Society, but I can't
recommend them. The Humanist Society is an association for atheists,
agnostics and scientolators - people who sneer at all religions equally.
If you can put up with the kind of folks who run sleazy "debunking" groups
to attack psychics and parapsychologists, you might find ARL worth
investigating. Ask them about their platform in which they advocate keeping
"pseudoscience" as well as religion out of the public schools.
 
If Neopagans are going to support civil liberties and anti-discrimination
groups, which I obviously think we should, then we should be selective in
our choice of allies. It's usually the fundimentalists themselves who
oppress our civil liberties. We'll be much better off setting up our own
groups, or supporting organizations that are genuinely neutral in matters
of religious belief. I don't think that we can or should trust "friendly"
fundamentalists. After all, deeply hath sunk the lesson they have given and
shall not soon depart.

                             #30