To the editor,
In response to Leo Sandy's America's four fundamentalisms: From reading Leo Sandy's columns it sounds to to me like he gets very little from life experience and most of what he writes from what he's read or what he's been taught. He talks about Fundamentalist Christians as if their influence on the Republican Party is the sum total of their influence on society. I'm not disowning the affect of Christian fundamentalism on politics, for it largely flows from a ...
To the editor,
In response to Leo Sandy's America's four fundamentalisms: From reading Leo Sandy's columns it sounds to to me like he gets very little from life experience and most of what he writes from what he's read or what he's been taught. He talks about Fundamentalist Christians as if their influence on the Republican Party is the sum total of their influence on society. I'm not disowning the affect of Christian fundamentalism on politics, for it largely flows from a Christian's understanding of a human nature that is corrupt and not changeable outside of a rebirth, that is the Holy Spirit coming to live in your heart through Jesus Christ. This human nature, it is clear that our founders were familiar with. They gave us a republic based on our Creator given rights for all men to be treated as equals under the law. As a practical matter they distrusted our human nature and set up a constitutional republic of limited government with checks and balances that would best protect us from our own human nature, for politicians are humans also. They further added a bill of rights.
This government worked. It also allowed religion — and we were by in large a Christian nation — to shape our society and our laws. This helped to keep in check men's inclination toward licentiousness. This licentiousness, it was recognized would cause a downward spiral that would end in tyranny. Here fundamentalist Christians and Leo Sandy, whom seems to think that our human nature is something that evolves to the good through education and that the limited government and the checks and balances set out in our Constitution are no longer needed, have a disagreement, but it's not unthinking. He mentions Creation verses science meaning evolution. I do do not have enough space in this letter to deal with that. Suffice it to say there is a real question as to what is actually science.
He judges fundamentalists Christians as, "bigoted, patriarchal, uncritical and insensitive to real social problems such as poverty, racism, the crisis in health care and the increasing impoverishment of America's children." It seems that he believes that the leviathan entitlement state is the answer to these problems and because we don't subscribe to this political philosophy that we don't care about these. I suggest that Leo should get to know some fundamentalists Christians before he writes scandalous things about them. If he did he might find Christian churches functioning in the community with food pantries to feed the poor, pastors visiting prisoners in jail, Christian's networking with Christian pastors from around the world, some black, some brown, some white, forming bonds of friendship and sharing across cultural boundaries. He might find Christians struggling with how to show God's love to a homosexual friend or relative without tickling their ears with the lie that homosexuality is not a perversion of God's design and purpose. He might find Christians giving generously to feed the hungry and those suffering persecution around the world. He might find Christians struggling to provide health care for their families, yet still not believing that Obamacare is the answer to this problem. He might even find that Jesus still heals. He might find dedicated teachers in Christian schools whom with financial sacrifice to their families teach in Christian schools because that is where they feel that they can make the most difference for our future generation. Clearly he's not getting this side of the story from Henry A. Giroux.