Fundamentalism

Part of writing is understanding words, both their meaning and inference, then running with some idea as an offshoot of either one. I hope it is taken in the spirit given, which is more than a little satirical and ironic, as well as contemplative.

The word fundamentalism has gotten a bad wrap in recent years. When people in the West hear fundamentalism, certain images spring to mind, intolerance and violence, jihad and theocracy, crusade and divine right, the extremes Islam and Christianity. Ok, perhaps some if not all of that reputation has been earned.

But the word is merely a label, one which both sides find convenient in supporting their cause. A label which distorts the meaning of word. To many fundamentalism has become a bogeyman, a bedtime story to scare small children by conjuring primeval specters and summoning the hobgoblins of fear.

Stripping away the layers, fundamentalism reveals fundamental which becomes fundament, a word that came to us from Middle English as Latin translated through Old French. And we wonder why we get confused. Even in Latin, the word goes through several derivations, as only Latin can. "Latin 'fundmentum,' from 'fundre,' to lay the foundation, from 'fundus,' bottom" (Am. Heritage Dictionary). "Fundus" can also mean a piece of land, giving rise to the English "fund" in all its senses, but not to "fun" as any Middle English fool would know.

At its heart, fundamentalism is getting back to basics, stripping the building back to its foundations, returning to the land.

What we in this country tend to associate with Christian fundamentalism has more in common with what would be Jewish fundamentalism if such a thing existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not. Who says irony is dead in this country? Oh, yes, there are Hasidism and Orthodoxy, but as I understand them, neither goes to the extreme of enforcing all six hundred plus commandments as written in the Books of Moses, only two hundred or so of which are positive (thou shalt) rather than prohibitive (thou shalt not). I don't remember any recent stonings in New York City or Miami or Tel Aviv. Of course, I might not be paying strict attention.

If nothing else, the Jewish scriptures capture the human condition in all its inglorious ignominy. Love, lust, adultery, slavery, rape, murder, incest, genocide, the Tanakh has all the bases covered. Kind of a one-stop shopping on human behavior as old as the dawn of history. I think that's why it still resonates with people and endures. And for anyone who thinks I'm picking on Judaism, I would hope my support for the National Holocaust Museum would speak for itself. I respect its pragmatic outlook and its people's struggle.

So back to Christianity. It would seem to me that Christian fundamentalism would more correctly be based on the first four books of the New Testament, skipping the Old entirely. Even the Epistles could be viewed as suspect. Paul, while inspired, was an A-type personality setting up an organization in harrowing times while spreading a message to people beyond those for whom it was originally intended. Even Jesus could be one cagey dude but his parables can make you think. Two or three basic principles, how much more straightforward can you get? But turning the other cheek seven and seventy times perhaps will leave a mark.

Now that I've started this hole, I may as well keep shoveling my way to Islam. Here I will only say that twenty-three years of writing might create some seeming inconsistencies to the uninitiated. Eastern philosophers wonder if we are the same person we were yesterday, even an hour ago, whether each experience however insignificant changes us indelibly. Today, it can be hard for us to remember that in the context of history, Muhammad was a champion for women's rights and equality. With all the Celtic traditions conquered or converted, where in seventh century Europe could a woman initiate a divorce for more than a thousand years?

Which led me to think about Buddhist fundamentalism, the primary corollary of which would seem to be: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Siddhartha sees his way to enlightenment as an experiment, a unique path that each individual must find for themselves based on their own experiences. In that light, perhaps the Dalai Lama might be considered a Buddhist fundamentalist. After all, he does say we should accept what science proves as fact even if it contradicts scripture. Who says that science and religion are required to be at war?

Or fundamental Daoism, which has no gods, no immortals, no alchemy, no deified Jade Emperor, only five thousand words and a few dozen parables illustrating the underlying connection between all life and nature, extolling the benefits of simplicity with each moment lived in the present, and government with an extremely light touch.

I'm sure there is even a fundamental Hinduism, though perhaps given the cyclic nature of that religion, it is like the weather; if you don't like it, wait a bit and it will change. There I'm

sure I am wrong and at least one person reading this will enlighten me. But the core of that belief, too, seems simple and positive, at least to me, an outsider. We reap what we sow, and are all divine and connected though we like to fool ourselves into thinking that we are not.

And what would fundamental secular humanism look like? If love and hate are just a physiological reactions, shouldn't we be able to acknowledge the feelings and just move on unaffected? In that way, how could there be any difference between someone we love and someone we hate other than the soup running through our brains? Shouldn't our goal then be to transcend those chemicals and treat everyone with the same compassion, whether we agree with them or not? Or should we honor our evolution and go with the mind-altering, if sometimes Nietzschean bio-chemical flow? I can see where having logic rule emotions and animal impulses in that classical Greek sense may require more discipline in practice than in theory.

At least no one talks about fundamentalist paganism and drenching the sacred grove in blood. Human sacrifice is not among the best qualities attributed to the Celtic traditions. But nature is cyclic and we depend on it for our survival, a fundamental idea I think those whose ancestors migrated to this country from elsewhere too often forget.

If there is a fault with some of these traditions, perhaps it is that each of their foundations is too simple, yet with a goal that is difficult to attain, so that people create complexity to distract themselves from the daunting task at hand: their own improvement.

Where many see only hypocrisy in religious traditions, I find within them all fundamental seeds of wisdom and hope. They are a part of our shared history, the deep lines and wrinkles etched onto humanity's face as it laughs or cries while the comedy and tragedy of each moment unfolds before our collective eyes.

In the end I can only bow to each and say, "Namaste."

Or as the Daoists say: Many paths, one mountain.


© 2008 Edward P. Morgan III