An individual act not expressive of an entire faith

Assuming Nidal Hasan was driven by his religion to kill 13 and wound 31 at Fort Hood is akin to judging Christianity by the actions Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people.
So argued Bruce Prescott, executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists on his Nov. 8 "Religious Talk [mp3]" radio program. He said:

The problem is with the individual. It's not with the faith.

Prescott's guest, Razi Hashmi, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK), said [mp3]:

This is really, really upsetting, because this reall violates the tenets and the principles of my faith, and I believe of Islam. And it is very unfortunate that this happened. But we shouldn't use it as an issue of religion, and it shouldn't be framed in that way. I think it concerns some greater issues, such as mental health and the harmful consequences of war. There are many Muslims that proudly and patriotically serve in the American military. About 20,000.

. . .

There's a verse in the Quran that speaks to this, that if you kill one innocent human being, it's as if you have killed all of humanity. Conversely, if you have saved one innocent life, it's as if you have saved all of humanity. It shows the sanctity of human life in the Quran, and it mentions this many, many times.

Prescott and Hashmi touched on the "fear mongering" of the "extreme right wing" in response to the Texas tragedy.

The independent Associated Baptist Press both failed to report that in its mentioned their references to Islamophobia in its account of the interview, and subsequently imported the rightist view from the blog of Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. They quoted Fischer as writing, "This is not Islamophobia. It is Islamo-realism."

Faith in Public Life's Bold Faith Type blog published an inclusive survey of Muslim voices denouncing the Fort Hood shooting.

Our view of the incident is here.

Fundamentalism on life support

Although neither God nor fundamentalism is dead, Harvard Divinity School professor Harvey Cox believes the latter is on its deathbed.

Cox's article in the Boston Globe looks at the history of fundamentalism, and proclaims "that for all its apparent strength, the fundamentalist sun is setting on all horizons." Cox also argues that the religious right in America "is becoming a niche."

The shrillest TV evangelists are losing audiences to more moderate “evangelical-lite” preachers. Fundamentalist congregations are ceding ground to Pentecostals and mega-churches, which embrace a wider social agenda and teach the spiritual authority - not the literal inerrancy - of the Bible.

Cox calls the fall of fundamentalism "a decisive change in global society."

It has already freed Christians, Muslims, and Jews to explore what all three have in common as they now begin to cooperate in confronting nuclear weapons, poverty, and climate change.

A key reason for the downfall of fundamentalist movements is their "inherently fractious" nature, Cox says.

When your view of reality is the only acceptable one, you cannot compromise. Almost from its inception, American Protestant fundamentalism split into warring factions.

No doubt. Earlier today we reviewed the Southern Baptist Convention seppuku - a relentless process of denominational self-destruction through ejection of all but a steadily narrowing group of the sufficiently fundamentalist.

Cox believes the frozen righteousness of fundamentalism will fail because young people learn that "inherited prejudices can soften and melt when confronted with good, morally upright people from different belief systems."

Virtually anywhere on the planet, it is hard to imagine the grandchildren of fundamentalists reconciling themselves to their tightly constricted spiritual world.

Read the entire piece here.

[H/T Bruce Gourley.]

Conservative blasphemy project (CBP)

Robert Parham at Ethics Daily systematically strips Andy Schlafly's Conservative Bible Project (CBP) of pretense, unmasking one false assertion after another, drilling unerringly down to its core hypocrisy:

Regrettably, Schlafly hasn't allowed the Bible to speak to him — a well-worn Christian practice of studying a text, seeking to understand its message and searching for how to be faithful to the word. He is less interested in listening to the Bible than making the Bible record his voice.

Exactly.

Southern Baptist Convention seppuku

Adoption of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 sent thousands out the Southern Baptist Convention door and pushed a still larger number back a step or two while institutions which could, continued to flee the conservatives.

Weighing the spoiling fruits of their labors, SBC fundamentalist power brokers adopted another self-destructive strategy, as Enid, Oklahoma, pastor Wade Burleson explains:

So conservative leadership decided to change, behind the scenes, the doctrinal statements that served as the standard for cooperation and service within individual SBC agencies. These changes in the doctrinal statements of SBC entities were approved and implemented without SBC convention-wide approval. Designated trustees began changing the doctrinal statements to reflect the core of organized Fundamentalism (anti-spiritual gifts, Landmark, pre-millenial, etc.). There is nothing necessarily morally wrong with Fundamentalism if the adherents to that particular ideology love those who disagree with them. The problem with Fundamentalism, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention, is when people of cooperation become more interested in doctrinal conformity than missional cooperation. When that happens, Baptist people, pastors and churches who used to identify with the cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists will CEASE cooperating.

With overarching demographic change running against them, their secrecy-blighted Great Commission Resurgence floundering as the chickens of their earlier secrecy come home to roost, the SBC power brokers seem incapable of adapting.

Kevin Drum sows confusion

Virginia, North Carolina and Florida drummed out of the South? In his Gone With the Wind, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones writes, "Republicans are the party of the South these days, and sure, the GOP will regain power eventually. "

Obama and others broke the back of the Nixon Southern Strategy. The demographics of the Southern electorate suggest that South is gone and by the wind unmourned.

You owe the facts an apology, Kevin.

Is Land set to re-preach fear of hate-crimes law?

Southern Baptist Convention ERLC chief Richard Land may preach his counterfactual hate-crime fear tomorrow to the Florida Baptist Pastors Conference.

Land has consistently made the sweepingly false [1, 2, 3, 4,] argument that new law is "the groundwork for prosecuting Christians who share their biblical beliefs against homosexuality."

Land's session tomorrow is entitled "Persecution of the American Church: Welcome to pastoring in a persecuted environment" and he has consistently argued that enactment of the hate-crime legislation would lead to religious persecution.

After the law was signed, ERLC made again the strained, general prediction of oppressive outcomes:

Advocates of freedom of religion and of speech, as well as of the biblical view of sexuality, expressed dismay at the development, even though they oppose violence against homosexuals. They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim’s “sexual orientation” after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.

In fact the First Amendment is still in full force. We do not have "hate speech" laws in this country and attempts to impose their limited-purpose analogs have been judicially demolished.

Convoluted arguments about possible combinations of laws muzzling and/or imprisoning preachers have no basis in fact. Arthur Leonard, a professor of law at New York Law School and an expert in gay rights and discrimination based on sexual orientation said flatly, "No sane prosecuting attorney in the United States would go after a church due to a preacher making a sermon based on the Biblical teachings about homosexuality."

'God is dead:' No, and neither is fundamentalism (anywhere)

While assaulting myths about modern religion, Karen Armstrong writes in the Nov./Dec. issue of Foreign Policy:

Fundamentalism is not conservative. Rather, it is highly innovative -- even heretical -- because it always develops in response to a perceived crisis. In their anxiety, some fundamentalists distort the tradition they are trying to defend. The Pakistani ideologue Abu Ala Maududi (1903-1979) was the first major Muslim thinker to make jihad, signifying “holy war” instead of the traditional meaning of “struggle” or “striving” for self-betterment, a central Islamic duty. Both he and the influential Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) were fully aware that this was extremely controversial but believed it was justified by Western imperialism and the secularizing policies of rulers such as Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

All fundamentalism -- whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim -- is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation. Qutb developed his ideology in the concentration camps where Nasser interred thousands of the Muslim Brothers. History shows that when these groups are attacked, militarily or verbally, they almost invariably become more extreme.

Even if it enrages you, indeed especially if it enrages you, her comparative-religion analysis deserves consideration.