Fundamentalism by Any Other Name
In the United States, it seems to me, we have two kinds of
fundamentalism, religious and political. It now appears that the two have
melded into one entity that is hell-bent on turning back the clock
anywhere from a couple hundred years to perhaps as many as two thousand
years.
On the one hand, we have the so-called Tea Party that is preaching a form
of Constitutional fundamentalism that basically states, "If it wasn't
written into the Constitution, it's not a legitimate issue for our
government." And where it has been written into the Constitution through
the amendment process, if they don't like the amendment, they insist
they, and only they know what was in the minds of the founders of this
nation.
Much of what these Constitutional fundamentalists appear to stand for is
related to Christian beliefs, and more to the point, fundamentalist
Christian beliefs, causing a potential Constitutional crisis by blurring
the lines between religion and government.
A case in point. The fundamentalist conservatives are adamant about
repealing a woman's right to choose even though it is the law of the
land. That argument is not based on constitutionality, but on religious
belief.
The 9th Amendment to the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of
Rights, states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."
This amendment was ratified in 1789. Those brilliant founders of our
nation understood that over time, the world would change from anything
they were familiar with. They understood that social evolution would take
place and it was impossible to write into the Constitution, or any other
document, language covering every possible change that might occur in the
future. So, they added the 9th Amendment, allowing for the flexibility of
our Constitution to adapt over time.
Another issue that the fundamentalists, be they political or religious,
rail about is the notion of same-sex couples and marriage. Again, there
is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution to either permit, or prohibit
same-sex marriage, but the fundamentalists would say that since the
Constitution is silent on the topic, then same-sex marriage is
unconstitutional.
Of course, they tend to ignore the 14th Amendment, Section 1, which
states; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It was this amendment the Supreme Court cited when ending school
segregation. When a mixed-race couple were married in Washington D.C in
1958, and returned home to Virginia, they were arrested for having sex,
an illegal act under Virginia law. The Supreme Court again cited the 14th
Amendment as the basis for ruling the Virginia law unconstitutional.
Nothing in the Constitution specifically allowed, or forbid school
segregation or mixed-race marriages, so when the states involved enacted
unfair laws, it fell on the Court to determine the constitutionality of
the law involved as it pertained to "equal protection of the laws".
The problem with fundamentalism, besides the harm it inflicts on others,
is that the ideology is frozen in time. The Constitution was written over
230 years ago, and brilliant individuals wrote it, but these were people
who lived in a world with no electricity, no radio, no television,
automobiles, air travel, or computers. In their wildest dreams, they
could not have imagined the world in the early 21st century. Fortunately,
they were smart enough to see that, and wrote into our governing
documents, the flexibility needed to amend and revise our thinking as our
nation progressed.
In the same vein, men who believed the world to be flat, and that the sun
and stars revolved around the earth authored the Bible's New Testament
some 1,700 years ago. The Torah came on the scene another 1,500 years
before the Bible, and makes up the beginning of the Old Testament. For
the most part, the major religions have held that the Bible, along with
the Torah and Koran, are the ultimate documents and must be obeyed; there
is little room for interpretation according to fundamentalists. There is
a reluctance to let any of these writings flex with evolutionary
progress.
Now, we have a significant number of religious fundamentalists entering
government, and trying to apply the same inflexibility to our
Constitution. They may call themselves constitutional conservatives, but
they are really fundamentalists, questioning modern interpretations,
and/or court rulings that try to reflect our changing society.
The Constitution, as written in the 18th century, cannot provide the
answers to 21st century problems, anymore than the Bible's teachings in
regard to a woman's role in society, or the owning of slaves, can be
applied to a modern world.
Both of these documents were breakthrough thinking for their time, but
they also reflect the often-archaic values of the time. Once the words
were written down, in terms of the ideas therein, the values stopped
progressing, philosophically, and socially. What those documents
represent are the values of ancient people, and we have to review those
values against what we know today.
Do not be influenced by politicians who want to take you back to the 18th
century through fundamentalism. The 18th century was not a good time, or
an easy life, though undoubtedly better than around 300 AD when the Bible
was written. Women had no right to vote. Children were pulled from school
and put to work at the age of 12. If you struggled with an education, or
suffered from a lack of skills, you could easily end up a beggar on the
street.
We've come a long way as a society, both economically, and in the
treatment of our citizens. There is no turning the clock back, and even a
quick study of life back then should tell anyone with a modicum of common
sense that it would be a bad idea to try.