In a bleary-eyed opinion article in the Sunday Boston Globe (11/8/09), Harvard divinity professor Harvey Cox denounces religious "fundamentalism." In doing so, he places mass-murdering Muslims from the Middle East on the same playing field as conservative Christians from the United States. From Cox's article:
As the 20th century ended and a new one began, fundamentalism has taken on more formidable shapes, both politically and religiously. Though most of its adherents work through spiritual and educational channels, the small minority that turn to violence have caught the media’s attention. If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and exploding bombs at weddings. For plenty of thoughtful people, fundamentalism has come to represent the most dangerous threat to open societies since the fall of communism.
Cox's passage reveals a number of egregious errors. Gunning down abortion doctors is not a practice of fundamentalist Christianity. A deliberate murder of an abortion doctor is a direct violation of Christian teaching. (Fifth commandment, anyone?)
Second, Cox 's caricature of Christians "[gunning] down abortion doctors in church" is an incredible smear. Although any murder of an abortion doctor is unacceptable, exactly one abortion doctor has been "gunned down in church" (Dr. George Tiller, 2009). And since Roe v. Wade passed over thirty-six years ago in 1973, a grand total of eight abortion doctors and workers have been murdered in the United States and Canada. (Tiller's murder was the first of an American abortion doctor in the 21st century.)
By comparison, while reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar," Nidal Malik Hasan brutally annihilated far more individuals in a matter of seconds at Fort Hood this week. Do the math, Harvey. Then there's September 11th, the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2005 London bombings, almost-daily homicide bombings ... You get the picture. Cox's comparison is awfully warped.
Surprise! A Harvard professor doesn't recognize his own muddled thinking.
-=-=-=-=-=
There's a lot more to critique about Cox's piece, but he is correct in one notable passage. In opining about modern "spirituality," Cox writes:
The plethora of emerging new spiritualities has its own problems, of course. They are often intellectually incoherent or melt into a self-centered narcissism. They can become vacuous and faddish. (Madonna and other Hollywood celebrities are now “into Kabala,” the ancient Jewish mystical tradition.) They can become highly individualistic, lacking any vision of social justice. Esoteric and snobbish at times, they often fail to reach the poor and dispossessed people for whom Jesus, the Buddha, and the Jewish prophets had such concern.
Exactly. But isn't Cox criticizing the exact same thing that Christian fundamentalists rail against? Hmmm.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have no use for what the
November 9, 2009 - 20:04 ET by HockeyKidI have no use for what the Ivy League divinity schools crank out. My father was a Yale M.Div., and his theology is so corrupt it's worthless. He also rails against what he calls "fundies".
Problem is, they don't seem to recognize that the "fundamentals", or fundamental precepts, of religions are different. It's the fundamentalist's supposed inability to grasp the "nuances" that makes them dangerous.
Personally, I find it hard to find any nuance in a suicide bomber or the Ft. Hood Jihadist.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Who cares what an Ivy League liberal, secularist theologian says
November 10, 2009 - 06:57 ET by MindsBiggerHockeyKid,
You're spot on with the corrupt theology flowing from the once Christ honoring halls of most of the Ivy League universities. This is what were told to avoid in 1 Timothy 6: 3-5;
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
I often wonder if the students passing through these academic institutions have any idea of the fundamental beliefs of our Founding Fathers?
Too bad these liberal/socialist prof's are so stupid!!
November 10, 2009 - 10:03 ET by Patriot IISomeone tell this overeducated idiot, that islam is not a religion...its a political game designed to take over the world...with the help of maggots like this!!! imo
This is exactly what I was
November 9, 2009 - 20:20 ET by ricklailThis is exactly what I was talking about on the OT earlier today. Our lesson yesterday in SS was on Psalms 1: 1-6 We never got further than the verse 1:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful."
I am not going to preach on it just read it. When they cut us down for being fundamentalist it is because we believe in the fundamentals of the faith which is a belief that the Bible is the infallable Word of God, the virgin birth, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt, salvation is through Jesus Christ by faith, and so on. We are hated for that by liberals. Yes many of those who claim to be Christians hate us too.
I just try to remmber Jesus's words when he said they hated me first.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
This article is yet another
November 9, 2009 - 20:34 ET by bse5150This article is yet another argument FOR Palin.
Palin never came from an Ivy League school.
Palin has REAL work experience.
Palin is a REAL person with a REAL family.
Palin gets her hands DIRTY.
Look at what these Ivy-League schools have been turning out the last 50 years. They run our country. Look at our country now.
The best leader you can vote for in any area is a 'non-Ivy-Leaguer'.
An aside to the insanity of the Christian argument here
November 9, 2009 - 20:36 ET by Gary HallAn aside to the insanity of the Christian fundamentalist argument here.. noting:
What does the 20th century have to do with anything here? The years 1993 - Dec., 2000 (OK - I included one year of the 20th, just to finish with the Clinton era here) were a lot more violent for the world of radical nuts (Rwanda (800 K); Tens of thousands killed in each of Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Chechnya, Colombia, Bosnia, Afghanistan (over 60 K slaughtered in mid-90's), and Iraq.
Fewer people died during the Bush era, the beginning of the 21st century, in world conflicts and genocidal maniacs.
(;~/ gary
PS (hey Dave) - and indeed Dave is on it here. According to Wikepedia, there are 7 murders attributed to the pro-life movement in the Clinton years; from 1993 to 2000 - and one such murder during the Bush years. On the other hand there would be hundreds of thousands of lives taken by the pro-abortion fundamentalists during both decades.
Harvey Cox. Oh yes. I
November 9, 2009 - 20:46 ET by celatorHarvey Cox. Oh yes. I remember this old coot very well from the radical "God is Dead" movement and the anti-US pronouncements in the 1960's. He was a hero of the radical left and the loony tunes theological deconstructionists, and a generally weird personality. He is now retired from Harvard, I believe, but obviously still vomiting his intellectual bile. A total phony and, in my opinion, a long time fellow traveler. He never fooled me for a moment.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
The Christian who killed the abortionist
November 9, 2009 - 21:02 ET by CO2Makerkilled a specific individual. How wrong is that?
For Islamic jihadists, any ol' bunch of Jews in the wedding party will do, or any people in the pizzeria will do, or anybody choosing to live where the Gazamite's Katyusha rocket wants to come down will do, or anybody in the WTC, or the Soldiers Processing Center.
Here's the deal. The Christian killing of the abortionist was really a selfish, narcissistic act focused on one person. The suicide bombings are actually acts of social justice, because they strike at the representatives of the unjust society.
Yadda yadda yadda. (You know, when you get the hang of it, it's easy to spiel out this cucamonga logic.)
Actually, since no one
November 10, 2009 - 03:22 ET by RowaneActually, since no one else will do it, i say the man who killed the abotionist was doing a good thing.
******************************************************************************
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you
know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket
Christianity, in its fundamentals, produces peace.
November 9, 2009 - 21:16 ET by Mike BrattonIslam, in its fundamentals, produces death.
There are different types of "fundamentalists," depending on whether you're a member of the Christian faith or a follower of the socio-political system called Islam. You'd think a Harvard divinity professor would be able to understand the difference.
Oh, wait. No, you wouldn't think that at all. Sorry.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
RE: "... gunning down
November 9, 2009 - 21:25 ET by metaphorsbwithuRE: "... gunning down abortion doctors in church..."
Exactly! Someone should call the professor out on how many abortion doctors have been gunned down in recent decades.
Of course one murder is too many, but how disingenuous it is to condemn a whole segment of society for the act of one person, and to equate that act with (while being apologists for) horrific patterns of violence executed daily by a radical sect against innocent people for the purpose of instilling terror.
It's amazing how these intellectuals can make victims out of mass murderers but condemn others simply because they disagree with what they believe. And make no mistake - that is exactly what is going on here.
<metaphorsbwithu
"If some seem ready to die
November 9, 2009 - 22:17 ET by Jerry"If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it.."
Isn't this the very definition of an abortionist? Ready, willing, and legally able to kill for their religion of infanticide? Or at the very least, for the all-mighty dollar.... Dollar Akbar!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
secular blind spot
November 9, 2009 - 22:20 ET by konoHarvey Cox is quoted: "If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for
it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and
exploding bombs at weddings. For plenty of thoughtful people,
fundamentalism has come to represent the most dangerous threat to open
societies since the fall of communism."
What he seems to overlook is the grave threat of fundamentalist secularism, the kind that allows people to rationalize a process that tears a baby limb from limb inside its mother's womb, without the benefit of painkiller, after subjecting it to severe chemical burns by dousing it in a caustic saline solution.
Agnosticism, atheism, and secular humanism are all religious ideologies, and we err gravely by treating them otherwise.
Even More
November 10, 2009 - 07:33 ET by GeneralAlYou can tare the screaming baby from the woumb, you can leave the baby on the table alive and let HIM?HER die, but if a young woman leaves it in a garbage can, shes tried for murder! Would one of you educated, elite intelligent, Harvard intellectuals please explain to me [A mine numbed robot Conservative] the difference?
Islamic extremists hijack
November 9, 2009 - 22:34 ET by JerryIslamic extremists hijack planes and destroy the twin towers - death toll 3000+
Islamic extremists hijack planes and fly into the pentagon and an attempt on the white house - death toll 100's.
Islamic extremists sniper roams the DC area, indiscriminately killing Americans
Islamic extremist opens fire on unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood - death toll 13
Christian shoots abortionist - death toll 1
U.S. Muslim population 0.5% (1/2 of 1 percent)
U.S. Christian population 77%
Houston, we have a problem... Christians gone wild.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry
November 9, 2009 - 22:51 ET by MrShyWe all totally forgot about Muhammad and Malvo, the D.C. Snipers....
That Muhammad guy was, indeed, a Muslim. He was also a vet of some kind, and had all sorts of sob stories, but he was basically of the same POS mindset as this latest guy. And THAT was true terrorism, back in '02.
Apparently, the Supreme Court refused to block his execution. Let's hope he gets the volts, and the sooner the better.
MrShy, There was also
November 10, 2009 - 00:06 ET by JerryMrShy, There was also flight 990, I think, which left from NY and was crashed into the ocean by the pilot. Black box recordings indicated that he was yelling Allah Akbar, but that was quickly white-washed by the MSM.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry... Wow...you
November 10, 2009 - 00:24 ET by bigtimerJerry...
Wow...you brought back memories I had forgot about ...you are so right.
Plus plenty of us know as far as I am concerned that there were a few more planes that were brought down with this crew....and we white-washed it...as this country is prone to do...depending on the masses to move on.
Party, Power...that is all that matters in the end.
Agenda.
Period.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
BT, Of course if it had
November 10, 2009 - 00:48 ET by JerryBT,
Of course if it had been one of those right-wing conservative Christian extremists that are so "prevalent" in society, they would still be doing weekly news stories on it as an example of religious bigotry and hatred.
The MSM (D) is very selective with it's white-washing brush strokes.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry... Precisely. Bt
November 10, 2009 - 00:59 ET by bigtimerJerry...
Precisely.
Btw...is anybody else having problems with this site lagging...or is it my computer and I need to refesheh or some-such?
Not having problens like this elsewhere.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Muhammed The DC Sniper meets Allah today, Nov 10, in person
November 10, 2009 - 08:19 ET by SickofLibsMuhammed The DC Sniper meets Allah today, Nov 10, in person
Cox himself is a fundamentalist
November 9, 2009 - 22:41 ET by Dim BulbCox's attitude concerning other people and religions is based on his own ideaology, and he seems incapable of seeing any value in the thoughts, beleifs, and ideaology of anyone who doesn't share his perspective. Perhaps this is wy the famed 20th century Catholic theologian and ecumenist, Cardinal Henri De Lubac, once described him as "the least ecumenical of the ecumenists."
The problem is that Cox, and may other people, tend to give the term "fundamentalism" a very narrow definition. In fact it has a wider range of meaning: A strict adherence to or interpretation of a doctrine, set of
principles, etc., as of a social, legal, political or religious group
or system. In other words, anyone who thinks, acts, judges, etc., in strict accord with personal or social principles, beliefs, etc., be it religious, secular, political, atheistic, etc., is by definition a "fundamentalist". Simply by narrowing the definition people like Cox can paint others as evil and narrow minded, while maintaining the facade of their own open-mindedness.
distinctions
November 10, 2009 - 01:17 ET by WesenHarvey is not the only one running with this tripe. The recent proclivity of liberals to conflate mooslims with Christians is simply an attempt to blur distinctions.
The religion of Cain produced a murderer, the religion of Adam produced a sacrifice. The fight of our Forefathers was for freedom, liberty and life. The fight for mooslims is domination, control, and death.
How dare a liberal be allowed to define something he knows nothing of.
Killing or Murder?
November 10, 2009 - 01:28 ET by TenebrousThe Fifth Commandment says this: "Thou shalt not murder". It does not state, "Thou shalt not kill", for if that were the case, then God commanded the Israelites to violate the commandment He gave them by ordering them to purge the land of Canaan of idolaters. God doesn't do that. The term is "murder".
To understand what murder means then is the goal. Murder is the taking of innocent human life. Genesis states, "If you slay by the sword, by the sword shall you be slain." It is no far stretch to argue that those who have murdered have forfeited their own lives, for they are no longer innocent. That is one reason that capital punishment is practiced.
Now, with all that in mind, the only question that remains is: is killing (not murdering) an abortionist as a vigilante action acceptable?
Some have argued that killing a man who has forfeited his right to life when he is intent upon murder, is in itself no crime. If you stop someone from murder, is that in itself murder?
It's not as cut-and-dried as some people would like to think.
If anyone really cares about the subject, try reading the testimonies of those who killed abortion doctors. Read what they said in their own words. Judge for yourself if they were wrong to stop murder by any means necessary.
http://www.armyofgod...
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
fundamentalist atheist
November 10, 2009 - 04:05 ET by spepperCox himself is sounding more and more like a fundamentalist atheist--
Silly article by a silly
November 10, 2009 - 05:19 ET by Andrew H.Silly article by a silly man with a modest vocabulary for a so-called professor. This mediocrity is part of what is wrong in colleges today and why students of good mind should record lectures so we can test their veracity in the public debate.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Abortion doctors and
November 10, 2009 - 05:43 ET by RR GOPAbortion doctors and Jihadists...interesting bedfellows there.
Speaks volumes about the Marxist mentality. If you're part of something they agree with, everything you do is justified.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
There Is
November 10, 2009 - 07:26 ET by GeneralAlThere is one more difference that this Harvard proffessor failed to highlight! Us "Fundamentalist Christians" are not going to put a contract out on him for trashing us! So much for comparing us to Muslim radicals you looney brain Harvard outerlectual!
Just Fulfilling Biblical Prophecy!
November 10, 2009 - 10:30 ET by DaMamaThis Harvard liberal is just a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.
Isaiah 5:20 - "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter."
Job 17:12 - "They make night into day, saying, 'The light is near,' in the presence of darkness."
Amos 5:7 - "For those who turn justice into wormwood And cast righteousness down to the earth."
Matthew 6:23 - "But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If
then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"
This man is a theological and intellectual fool. He obviously has not read the Koran and it's call to kill all infidels who will not submit to the will of Allah. He obviously has not read the Bible where it teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and to esteem others better than yourself.
Mr. Cox - please tell me just what has radical Islam contributed to society these past 1300 years? Christianity is responsible for setting up hospitals, orphanages and almost every benevolent group in all of history. You will never see a Buddhist benevlent organization because they believe in karma - what goes around comes around. While working in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, 95% of all organizations there were Christian. Not one atheist organization, not one Muslim, not one Buddhist, not one Hindu. Even the Amish had come down from Pennsylvania - driven by Christians, and they were the hardest working people I'd ever seen.
This man is an ignorant fool, and fosters hatred because of his bias and lack of true knowledge regarding Christianity. What makes this so tragic is that people will listen to this old fool because of his ivy league education.
Just another secular religionist
November 10, 2009 - 10:43 ET by YephoraHarvey Cox has been betraying Bible-based Christianity for more than thirty years. Guess that's why he's fits in so nicely at Hahvad Apostate School with all the other heretics.
The point?
November 10, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Thinking.ManSo is the point that we have to clamp down on religious faith in order to have a more open society?
That could only come from the mouth of a leftist, fix the deficit by spending, have a more open society by telling people what they can and cannot believe, demonize and destroy employers to help workers.
These people really are mental cases.
I have to give it to Noam Chomsky
November 10, 2009 - 15:12 ET by Quasi-socialistAt least Chomsky said that "fundamentalism" is properly applied to the Christian religion, and that it is applied to Muslim movements like Wahabbism without much similarity. See a movement "back to fundamentals" happened in the West; in the Middle East, there has never been a lack of Muslim supremecists. The press, even as far back as late 70s always meant to use it to liken Christian conservatives to jihadis.
However, killing abortion doctors is not a fundamental of Christianity. It's hard to argue that even anti-abortion is a fundamental as well. "Do not repay evil for evil" is much more explicit than any verse used to argue against abortion.