What percentage of our nation belong to the Fundie SIG?

[dmr]

Not Christian, but Fundie?

This statement by Susan Sanford, Daily Mountan Eagle, angers me to no end.
"We now have activist judges, mayors, governors, etc., who go against the will of the great majority of citizens in this nation (forget that it is against the law in most of the nation!) and declare that it is the "right" of homosexual men and women to "marry."

I'm a Christian. I have strong family values. I am a good citizen. I get teary-eyed when it comes to my patriotism. I choke up each time Senators Byrd or Kennedy speak about our Constitution and equal opportunity for all Americans. I'm firm in my belief system that is inclusive to all men and women. I understand my values may differ from others, and I respect the differences.

As far as I can tell, the Fundies or Neo-cons are just another special interest group, albeit loud mouthed, well-connected and well-funded. With all their noise and money, they do not speak for me. In fact, I don't believe they speak for the majority of Americans. So I wonder, what percentage of our population is Fundie? I'd like to know so the next time I hear them tell me they speak for the majority, I can set them straight. Then dismiss them, as Bush* dismissed the peace protesters as a special interest group.

As a matter of fact, should the POTUS* be a member of a SIG? Seems to me it is counterproductive in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Remember the concern some had over John F. Kennedy's Catholicism, and if he could run this nation without the influence of his personal religious faith?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Well,

in a recent emailing, MoveOn said they have more members now than the Christian Coalition. Personally, I believe the right wing whacko fundies are a loud minority in this country. They try and sway the rest of the people, but usually they wind up going too far (like banning Charlotte's Web from school libraries because animals can't talk) and make fools of themselves.

[jsw_81]

2. I'm not certain

But I think they're only about twenty percent of the population. But as the above poster mentioned, they're a LOUD minority. You've got to admire how they planned, organized, ran for and won seats on school boards, then city councils, then state houses and Congress...and finally they took the White House. If only liberals could be organized that well.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Here's how they got so organized

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm

and that organization and quest for power is still going on. 20% of this country can rule it simply because of the apathy of the vast majority.

[cprise]

4. Scientific American had a data point about this

Their numbers have been slowly declining over the path 20 years. I think it put them at less than 15% (Protestants who believe in biblical inerrancy).

I also remember that Catholics were holding steady, and atheists were slowly increasing.

[jsw_81]

5. We really have to worry about fundamentalist Muslims

The vast majority of Muslims are great people, but the fundamentalist segment is a serious problem. These people are, like our Christian fundies, against gays, against women, against science, and against secular government; they're already trying to impose their violent "Sharia" law in certain European nations, and you can bet that they'll try it here, too. And they're growing at an enormous rate.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. Just for the heck of it and for intellectual clarity

snip>
CONCLUSION: The term "fundamentalist" is used in at least three ways: (1) As a synonym for "inerrantist". Here I suggest using the term "inerrantist" instead on the grounds that it is less ambiguous, and carries less emotional baggage with it, and will on both grounds be preferred by those who aim at clear thinking. (2) As a general term of abuse and mudslinging, appealing to the prejudices of the listener, whether against Southerners, or against Arabs, or against moral and religious standards that make him uncomfortable, or against all cultural and social circles not his own.(my emphasis and comment: The term "fundie' is bigoted and the definition provided here by this writer is similar to the rules of DU, so therefore, should be deleted if we have any sense of propriety or one rule for all principles This use the honest writer and speaker will avoid on principle. (I have been asked: "Do you think newspersons should stop talking about Moslem fundamentalists? If so, what word should they substitute? Should they talk about Moslem conservatives instead? That implies that the Ayatollah resembles Bill Buckley, which is hardly more accurate than suggesting that he resembles Jerry Falwell." I reply by recommending that the newsperson stop and think for a moment about what the members of group under discussion really are. Are they anti-modernists? anti-Westerners? anti-Zionists? anti-Americans? anti-capitalists? nationalists? ultra-nationalists? militarists? chauvinists (the word is older than Gloria Steinem)? jingoists? xenophobes? Let him identify them a little more precisely than "fundamentalists" (meaning "people-definitely-not-from-my-club- who-are-all-riled-up-about-something-I-do-not-understand-and-I-do- not-like-them-and-I-wish-they-would-go-away"), and when he has identified it, let him find the right word or phrase for it, and use it. HINT: The correct word may vary from group to group, or even from event to event.) (3) As a term for an inerrantist, normally a Protestant from the United States, accustomed to a certain style of worship: of devotional music (see above), of preaching (sermons that would lose much of their effect in printed form), of prayer (always spontaneous and "from the heart", although habits of speech do develop), and so on. Now, all fundamentalists are inerrantists, but not all inerrantists are fundamentalists, and in addition to the beliefs common to all inerrantists, the fundamentalist normally has an additional set not shared by all inerrantists, although the fundamentalist often does not realize this, and takes it for granted that all "Bible-believing Christians" share his views on, for example, the future of Jerusalem, or what it means to be "born again". DIGRESSION: Fundamentalist or not, it is easy to overlook the fact that the Bible does not actually say what you assume it must say somewhere. For example, I was in a Bible study on Genesis, where one of the Jewish participants asked, "Why do you talk as if it were Satan tempting Eve, instead of just a snake." The Christians answered, "It was Satan disguised as a snake." The Jew said, "But the Bible doesn't say that." The Christians said, "Of course it does!" and started skimming the page to find the place where it does. It doesn't. The best one can do is a verse in Revelation referring to Satan as "that old serpent," and it is not clear that this is anything more than generalized name-calling. That is why it is valuable to have group Bible studies with a diverse group, and to read commentaries by writers with whom you are totally out of sympathy. It keeps you from making unchallenged assumptions.

This third use of the word "fundamentalism" has some legitimate use, but only where all those involved in the dialogue already have some acquaintance with fundamentalism and know what the term means. And even then, there is some danger of sliding off into stereotype.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/library/defining-fundies.html