Clue for 'Bimms'
Desertphile
freedom" does not exist in USA public schools is because
CHRISTIANS do not want it to: they prefer actual religious
freedom, not the fake façade of "religious freedom" you advocate.
If you don't like it, take it up with the hundred million
Christians in the USA who want it the way it is.
Other than that, please sod off mate.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Bloopen...@juno.com
> The reason your sub-standard and fascist version of "religious
> freedom" does not exist in USA public schools is because
> CHRISTIANS do not want it to: they prefer actual religious
> freedom, not the fake façade of "religious freedom" you advocate.
> If you don't like it, take it up with the hundred million
> Christians in the USA who want it the way it is.
>
> Other than that, please sod off mate.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
What hundred million Christians, exactly?
snex
the ones that moderate christians invent so they can feel secure in
shirking responsibility for fighting for freedom of religion
themselves.
chris.li...@gmail.com
I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would get a tad
upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools were being
indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism. That's a fair number
right there.
Chris
Bloopen...@juno.com
Yeah, you're right, but so far we're up to only 70 million.
bi...@juno.com
> I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would get a tad
> upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools were being
> indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism. That's a fair number
> right there.
But my scheme would include Catholic parents sending their kids to
Catholic Schools.
>
> Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
But your scheme is a sophomoric, infantile, superficial solution to a
problem that does not exist. You have made much of your rage (have
you shed tears of rage?) about having "to pay for evolution" when you
hate it. Welcome to society. We pay taxes but have limited say about
how they are spent. I opposed the creation of Homeland Security from
the start. I opposed the vast, out of control spending in the defense
budget. I agitate for more spending by the US Department of the
Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs- all to no avail.
On a state level, I want more spending for mass transit. I don't seem
to get any of this, yet I live with it. I don't propose that we all
get our own Homeland Security Departments to run how we like; I don't
propose that we all get a little National Park that we can run how we
like.
On the other hand, you have an option- homeschool your kids. (Better
yet, don't have any.) If you homeschool, you can choose (within *very
loose limits) exactly what you want them to learn. Go for it dude. As
I said before, someone's gotta fix burgers for my kids.
Chris
Mark VandeWettering
Lots of Catholics already do that. Your proposal does nothing to
enhance their ability to do so.
Mark
>
>
>>
>> Chris
>
>
snex
> On 2007-04-16, b...@juno.com <b...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would get a tad
> >> upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools were being
> >> indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism. That's a fair number
> >> right there.
>
> > But my scheme would include Catholic parents sending their kids to
> > Catholic Schools.
>
> Lots of Catholics already do that. Your proposal does nothing to
> enhance their ability to do so.
everybody should be sent to catholic school - thats the best way to
make atheists.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> >> Chris
Desertphile
Speaking in general:
50,873,000 Catholics
33,830,000 Baptists
04,647,000 Protestant
14,150,000 Methodist/Wesleyan
09,580,000 Lutheran
14,190,000 Non-denominational Christians
00,217,000 Quakers
I have left out the fascist Christians such as the Evangelicals,
Pentacostals, Asses of God, Jehovas' Witnesses, and two dozen
other minor sects of the Christian cult.
The above list represent mostly moderate Christians who loathe the
kind of theo-fascist world that "bimms" advocates here in
talk.origins
There are more than 159,030,000 Christian adults in the United
States. If they wanted the public schools to be the occult-based
hell-holes that "bimms" advocates, they *WOULD* be already. The
vast majority of Christians reject "bimms'" evil and despicable
pretense of "religious freedom."
The religious freedom American students now enjoy in public school
exists because Christians want it the way it is.
--
Bloopen...@juno.com
> On 16 Apr 2007 10:35:38 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:33 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > The reason your sub-standard and fascist version of "religious
> > > freedom" does not exist in USA public schools is because
> > > CHRISTIANS do not want it to: they prefer actual religious
> > > freedom, not the fake façade of "religious freedom" you advocate.
> > > If you don't like it, take it up with the hundred million
> > > Christians in the USA who want it the way it is.>
> > > Other than that, please sod off mate.
>
> > > --http://desertphile.org
> > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
>
> > What hundred million Christians, exactly?
>
> Speaking in general:
>
> 50,873,000 Catholics
> 33,830,000 Baptists
> 04,647,000 Protestant
> 14,150,000 Methodist/Wesleyan
> 09,580,000 Lutheran
> 14,190,000 Non-denominational Christians
> 00,217,000 Quakers
>
> I have left out the fascist Christians such as the Evangelicals,
> Pentacostals, Asses of God, Jehovas' Witnesses, and two dozen
> other minor sects of the Christian cult.
A lot of those Baptists and non-denominationals are evangelicals.
Evangelical is an extremely loose term. I use it to refer to Christian
denominations that stress a conservative, strictly Bible-based
religion and that owe a lot to revivalist preachers of the 18th-20th
centuries. "Fundamentalist" is, the way I've heard it used,
essentially a pejorative for these people. They can vary in their
conservatism, though most don't like evolution. At my local library
there is a book written to defend the King James Bible against modern
textual criticism, whose author, with a straight face, advocates
geocentrism. B...juno appears to be a bit further left.
The reason I asked is that I live in a basically "Fundamentalist" area
of Appalachia in the United States. Non-denomonationals and Baptists
predominate, and they most certainly are evangelical around here. So I
was interested in hearing your figures demonstrating that in fact much
of American Christendom is not like that.
Geoff
Episcopalians are basically Catholics. What's the count now? How about
Presbyterians? Northern Methodists?
All of these are moderate.
You do realize that fundies are a minority in the extreme right?
--
Geoff O'Furman
Head Coach, Varsity Hockey
University of Ediacara
AA #22??
snex
how many george w bushes need to be elected before you people admit
that fundies are NOT a minority?
Bloopen...@juno.com
No, I don't. What is your definition of "fundamentalist?" According to
what I've read (lots of encyclopedia articles, lol): Historically,
"fundamentalism" refers to an early 20th-century wave of American
Protestantism that was distinctly conservative. They opposed modernist
teachings. I don't believe modernism was ever very popular in the US,
or anywhere, really, outside of Western Europe. So quite a few
American Protestants are "fundamentalist" by this historical
definition. Sometime around the mid-20th century, the term became a
pejorative. It was also extended to Catholicism and even other
religions like Islam. These days I can't see how the word can really
be defined except as a pejorative meaning "evangelical," with
connotations of ignorant, narrow minded, hypocritical, Ted Haggard,
etc. And there are tens of millions of American evangelicals.
There's just one mark I can think of that would tend to distinguish
fundamentalists from mere evangelicals. Fundamentalists tend to expect
that the Second Coming will be very soon--sometimes they think they
know the exact date. This is an important psychological factor in
fundamentalist churches. A plain evangelical, although by definition
he must believe the Bible when it says that there will at some point
be an apocalypse, may not believe that the Second Coming is quite so
imminent.
Bobby Bryant
Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
> There's just one mark I can think of that would tend to distinguish
> fundamentalists from mere evangelicals. Fundamentalists tend to
> expect that the Second Coming will be very soon--sometimes they
> think they know the exact date. This is an important psychological
> factor in fundamentalist churches. A plain evangelical, although by
> definition he must believe the Bible when it says that there will at
> some point be an apocalypse, may not believe that the Second Coming
> is quite so imminent.
I don't think that's correct.
Fundamentalism started as a reaction to liberal protestantism. AFAICT,
these days it is synonymous with biblical literalism.
Evangelicalism, AFAICT, is about getting off your duff and converting
people to your sect.
The two can overlap. Around 1970 there was an evangelical streak
among the Southern Baptists in my home town, mostly among the younger
crowd but with a few adult leaders. They had a big focus on The End
is Near, which I think tends to run among evangelicals, and some also
went for glossolalia, which I think tends to be limited to
evangelicals, but isn't particularly widespread among them.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
JTEM
> I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would
> get a tad upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools
> were being indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism.
> That's a fair number right there.
There aren't 100 million Catholics in America, though there will
be soon enough...
You have to add the other obvious ones: Orthodox Christians,
Jews, Muslims and, yes, even non-fundamentalist Protestant.
None of them want fundy dogma shoved down the throats of
their children, either.
JTEM
> The reason your sub-standard and fascist version of "religious
> freedom" does not exist in USA public schools is because
> CHRISTIANS do not want it to: they prefer actual religious
> freedom, not the fake façade of "religious freedom" you
> advocate.
It's even more simple then that: Religious education is a
solution without a problem.
Fact is, kids already get a religious education. Well, at least
the children of people who want their kids to get a religious
education. Protestants have their Sunday School, Catholics
have their CCD, and even Jewish kids have their own religious
classes that their parents force them to take.
Then there's the religious teachings directly from their parents,
not to mention any religious services their parents send them/
take them to.
Quite simply, religious education is NOT missing from their
lives.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> In article <1176781377.361924.43...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bloopenblop...@juno.com writes:
>
> > There's just one mark I can think of that would tend to distinguish
> > fundamentalists from mere evangelicals. Fundamentalists tend to
> > expect that the Second Coming will be very soon--sometimes they
> > think they know the exact date. This is an important psychological
> > factor in fundamentalist churches. A plain evangelical, although by
> > definition he must believe the Bible when it says that there will at
> > some point be an apocalypse, may not believe that the Second Coming
> > is quite so imminent.
>
> I don't think that's correct.
>
> Fundamentalism started as a reaction to liberal protestantism. AFAICT,
> these days it is synonymous with biblical literalism.
Yes, but literalism (another word generally used as pejorative, since
why would someone wish to be defined by their style of reading?) is
quite common among Evangelicals. Daily reading of the Bible, even by
uneducated laymen, is very important to them. But if metaphorical or
allegorical interpretations are allowed, then who gets to decide what
the correct reading is? They have no clerical authority like the RCC
does to decide these things. So the concept of "inerrancy" is very
important.
>
> Evangelicalism, AFAICT, is about getting off your duff and converting
> people to your sect.
>
No, that's evangel-ism. Evangel-ical-ism is a loose word with a long
and confusing history dating back to the Reformation. It was
originally applied to Martin Luther's churches (evangelisch in German)
and therefore was roughly synonymous with Protestant. In German it is
still used that way, and many Lutheran groups still have "evangelical"
in their names, but in English they are in general no longer what is
meant by evangelical. Most of the groups we normally call
"evangelical" were spread by revivalists in the 18th, 19th, and 20th
centuries, and have as a major characteristic a very strong emphasis
on personal reading of the Bible as absolute, final authority. Thus,
it is not easily distinguished from fundamentalism.
Evangel-ism is practiced in theory by all Christian groups, since
Christ commanded it (the "Great Commission"). However, since, for
example, the RCC is very organized and heterogenous, there tends not
to be the strong pressure on individual church-goers to "get off your
duff and convert people to your sect." They have missionary groups,
like the Jesuits and Franciscans, to do that. Evangel-ical churches
have only two classes, really, ministers and laymen, so in order to
propagate, every church-goer has to be encouraged to evangelize. And
here in modern America they seem to be very eager to influence
politics.
> The two can overlap. Around 1970 there was an evangelical streak
> among the Southern Baptists in my home town, mostly among the younger
> crowd but with a few adult leaders. They had a big focus on The End
> is Near, which I think tends to run among evangelicals, and some also
> went for glossolalia, which I think tends to be limited to
> evangelicals, but isn't particularly widespread among them.
Yeah, that's Pentecostalism, which I would say is clearly a
subcategory of fundamentalism.
Bobby Bryant
Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
> Yes, but literalism (another word generally used as pejorative,
> since why would someone wish to be defined by their style of
> reading?)
Last I checked, literalists and fundamentalists took pride in being
literalists and fundamentalists. It's only to outsiders that the
words are pejoratives.
And in the stuff I snipped, I still think you have fundamentalism
and evangelicalism essentially backwards.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> In article <1176815767.358115.131...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bloopenblop...@juno.com writes:
>
> > Yes, but literalism (another word generally used as pejorative,
> > since why would someone wish to be defined by their style of
> > reading?)
>
> Last I checked, literalists and fundamentalists took pride in being
> literalists and fundamentalists. It's only to outsiders that the
> words are pejoratives.
>
Really? I've never seen someone self-identify with either of those
labels. The closest I've heard is Bob Jones University, which
describes itself as "fundamental," but not fundamental-ist.
So what are your definitions of fundamentalism and evangelicalism?
Bloopen...@juno.com
> So what are your definitions of fundamentalism and evangelicalism?
Oh, right, you just told me. Okay, never mind on that second part.
edwar...@verizon.net
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would get a tad
> upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools were being
> indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism. That's a fair number
> right there.
>
> Chris
Naw, they should teach the TRUTH of the Old Testament. Let the kids
amuse themselves by pointing out the lies. Then they can go onto the
New Testament.
richardal...@googlemail.com
The best option is, of course, not to have any faith schools, and not
teach anything other than comparitive religion in schools. And, of
course, invest in the school system and teaching teachers to teach so
that only utterly moronic parents will deprive their children of the
advantages of a decent education.
If you think that teaching evolutionary science is teaching a
religion, you would have the option of taking the matter to the courts
and making your case. Needless to say you'd fail, and that's because
it is not religion. It's sound science, and as any honest scientist
who knows anything about the subject will tell you. You don't win
cases in court by shouting down the opposition and telling them that
they are going to burn in hell, and by lying blatantly and
systematically as is the habit of creationists.
If you want to teach your children your religious beliefs, do it in
your own time.
We have faith schools in the UK. They lead to social division. They
are one of the main reasons for the divided communities in Northern
Ireland. They teach children that the "others" are wrong, and
misguided, and probably evil, as good a recepie for social conflict as
anyone could devise. Politicians like them because they save the state
money, and appeal to the lowest common denominator in society.
The world would be a better place without them.
RF
rappoccio
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:17 pm, b...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > I have a feeling that the Roman Catholics in the USA would get a tad
> > > upset if all of a sudden their kids in public schools were being
> > > indoctrinated into Protestant Fundamentalism. That's a fair number
> > > right there.
>
> > But my scheme would include Catholic parents sending their kids to
> > Catholic Schools.
>
> > > Chris
>
> But your scheme is a sophomoric, infantile, superficial solution to a
> problem that does not exist. You have made much of your rage (have
> you shed tears of rage?) about having "to pay for evolution" when you
> hate it. Welcome to society. We pay taxes but have limited say about
> how they are spent. I opposed the creation of Homeland Security from
> the start. I opposed the vast, out of control spending in the defense
> budget. I agitate for more spending by the US Department of the
> Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
> Agriculture, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs- all to no avail.
> On a state level, I want more spending for mass transit. I don't seem
> to get any of this, yet I live with it. I don't propose that we all
> get our own Homeland Security Departments to run how we like; I don't
> propose that we all get a little National Park that we can run how we
> like.
There's a difference here, though... these things are all within the
realm of human interaction, to which democracy applies. Science is NOT
a democracy. The facts are the facts. ALL of the facts about the
origin of species points to evolution. NONE of them point to ID. The
fact is, regardless of how this person feels about the outcome of
science, science doesn't really care. The answer is the answer. There
is no debate.
>
> On the other hand, you have an option- homeschool your kids. (Better
> yet, don't have any.) If you homeschool, you can choose (within *very
> loose limits) exactly what you want them to learn. Go for it dude. As
> I said before, someone's gotta fix burgers for my kids.
>
> Chris
Yeah, I wouldn't expect children like this to go anywhere. They might
just end up making asses of themselves like the Schafly's on
conservapedia.
But hey, I'm all for less competition in the better schools, might be
easier for the rest of us to get our kids into.
Geoff
>> You do realize that fundies are a minority in the extreme right?
>
> how many george w bushes need to be elected before you people admit
> that fundies are NOT a minority?
Are you kidding me? They most certainly are. While they are his core base,
they aren't even a majority in the GOP.
The largest Protestant denomination is Baptists at 34M and plenty of those
are not fundamentalists. There are only 3M Pentecostal/Charismatics, 2.5M
Morons, 2M Church of Christ (no idea where they stand), 1.3M jaydubs and a
smattering of others.
If the liberal Baptists cancel out the conservative Catlicks, there are
certainly no more than 50M fundies and probably less than 40M.
Of course, 40M is 40M too many.
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families
Geoff
>> You do realize that fundies are a minority in the extreme right?
>
> No, I don't. What is your definition of "fundamentalist?"
Those who adhere to a strict literal reading of a book written by a bunch of
Bronze Age sand-eaters. It's right from Enc. Brit. ;)
> According to
> what I've read (lots of encyclopedia articles, lol): Historically,
> "fundamentalism" refers to an early 20th-century wave of American
> Protestantism that was distinctly conservative. They opposed modernist
> teachings. I don't believe modernism was ever very popular in the US,
> or anywhere, really, outside of Western Europe.
It was among Catlicks when I was growing up...relatively speaking, John
XXIII was pretty progressive.
> So quite a few
> American Protestants are "fundamentalist" by this historical
> definition. Sometime around the mid-20th century, the term became a
> pejorative. It was also extended to Catholicism and even other
> religions like Islam.
There are certainly conservative Catholics, but few resort to literal
interpretation of the Bible. Likely less than a few percent on the fringe.
As far as Islam goes, I don't think there really are any non-fundamentalist
Muslims. It's rather a contradiction in terms.
> These days I can't see how the word can really
> be defined except as a pejorative meaning "evangelical," with
> connotations of ignorant, narrow minded, hypocritical, Ted Haggard,
> etc. And there are tens of millions of American evangelicals.
Cite please. They are a noisy bunch, but their numbers aren't as big as you
think.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> The largest Protestant denomination is Baptists at 34M and plenty of those
> are not fundamentalists. There are only 3M Pentecostal/Charismatics, 2.5M
> Morons, 2M Church of Christ (no idea where they stand), 1.3M jaydubs and a
> smattering of others.
The Churches of Christ can refer to two (related) groups, both from
the same early 19th century Campbell-Stone revivalist tradition. One,
usually called simply the Churches of Christ, is extremely
conservative and doesn't use instruments in services, because after
all, the New Testament never says you should. The other, sometimes
called the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, is
more moderate and uses instruments, but still fairly conservative. The
latter group has the largest church in my town (c~250 regulars on
sunday). They've grown pretty fast in the last few decades.
Ernest Major
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> writes
>Bloopen...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>> You do realize that fundies are a minority in the extreme right?
>>
>> No, I don't. What is your definition of "fundamentalist?"
>
>Those who adhere to a strict literal reading of a book written by a bunch of
>Bronze Age sand-eaters. It's right from Enc. Brit. ;)
>
>> According to
>> what I've read (lots of encyclopedia articles, lol): Historically,
>> "fundamentalism" refers to an early 20th-century wave of American
>> Protestantism that was distinctly conservative. They opposed modernist
>> teachings. I don't believe modernism was ever very popular in the US,
>> or anywhere, really, outside of Western Europe.
>
>It was among Catlicks when I was growing up...relatively speaking, John
>XXIII was pretty progressive.
>
>> So quite a few
>> American Protestants are "fundamentalist" by this historical
>> definition. Sometime around the mid-20th century, the term became a
>> pejorative. It was also extended to Catholicism and even other
>> religions like Islam.
>
>There are certainly conservative Catholics, but few resort to literal
>interpretation of the Bible. Likely less than a few percent on the fringe.
>
>As far as Islam goes, I don't think there really are any non-fundamentalist
>Muslims. It's rather a contradiction in terms.
It seems to me that that hypothesis is contradicted by observation.
>
>> These days I can't see how the word can really
>> be defined except as a pejorative meaning "evangelical," with
>> connotations of ignorant, narrow minded, hypocritical, Ted Haggard,
>> etc. And there are tens of millions of American evangelicals.
>
>Cite please. They are a noisy bunch, but their numbers aren't as big as you
>think.
--
alias Ernest Major
rappoccio
> Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
> >> You do realize that fundies are a minority in the extreme right?
>
> > No, I don't. What is your definition of "fundamentalist?"
>
> Those who adhere to a strict literal reading of a book written by a bunch of
> Bronze Age sand-eaters. It's right from Enc. Brit. ;)
>
> > According to
> > what I've read (lots of encyclopedia articles, lol): Historically,
> > "fundamentalism" refers to an early 20th-century wave of American
> > Protestantism that was distinctly conservative. They opposed modernist
> > teachings. I don't believe modernism was ever very popular in the US,
> > or anywhere, really, outside of Western Europe.
>
> It was among Catlicks when I was growing up...relatively speaking, John
> XXIII was pretty progressive.
>
> > So quite a few
> > American Protestants are "fundamentalist" by this historical
> > definition. Sometime around the mid-20th century, the term became a
> > pejorative. It was also extended to Catholicism and even other
> > religions like Islam.
>
> There are certainly conservative Catholics, but few resort to literal
> interpretation of the Bible. Likely less than a few percent on the fringe.
In fact, the Papacy is in general acceptance of evolution, as well as
every other current scientific theory. Obviously there are those that
dissent and don't follow that recommendation, since it's not part of
papal law.
<Switches to Captain Barbossa voice>
They're more like guidelines than actual RULES.
</end Barbossa voice>
In any case, they're low on the list of evolution opponents (if they
can be considered to register at all).
Bloopen...@juno.com
All right then, it looks like I was confused. I'm going to need to
take another look at the history and sociology of American
Christianity. I thought I knew it better than I did.
As for cite on tens of millions of evangelicals, well, first we need
to know what evangelicals are. ReligiousTolerance.org quotes a
Princeton study that recognizes the following groups as evangelical:
Assemblies of God, Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, black
Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal
Zion; Church of Christ, Churches of God in Christ, Lutheran Church -
Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, National Progressive Baptist
Church, Nondenominational, Pentecostal denominations, and the
Presbyterian Church in America. http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_e.htm.
(scroll down, it's a glossary). It says that fundamentalism is the
most conservative wing of the evangelical movement, and that most
evangelicals aren't so literalistic. All right then, I admit defeat.
For the numbers, I'm drawing them from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Religious_bodies.
They in turn got them from the US census.
(numbers in millions, rounded to nearest 100 thousands, does not
include groups with less than 100 thousand members)
2.5 Assemblies of God
15.7 Southern Baptists
2.5 African Methodist Episcopal
1.4 African Methodist Episcopal Zion
1.5 Churches of Christ
5.5 Churches of God in Christ
2.6 Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
8.2 National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc
3.5 National Baptist Convention of America, Inc
2.5 Progressive National Baptist Convention
0.3 Presbyterian Church in America
----------------
= Subtotal of 46.2 million American evangelicals explicitly named as
such by the study. The following groups, I believe, also qualify as
"Independent Baptists, black Protestants, nondenominational, and
Pentecostal," which were also named by the study, as well as a few
who, although not named by the study, were rather obviously
evangelical:
1.2 Baptist Bible Fellowship International
0.1 Baptist General Conference
0.2 Baptist Missionary Association of America
1.0 Christian Churches and Churches of Christ
0.7 Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
0.2 Church of God (Anderson, IN)
0.8 Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
0.6 Church of the Nazarene
0.2 Conservative Baptist Association of America
0.2 International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
0.1 General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
0.2 International Pentecostal Holiness Church
2.5 National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
1.5 Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
0.1 Pentecostal Church of God
----------------
= subtotal of 9.6 million
Grand Total: 55.8 million. Some of the figures were old (1987 appeared
to be oldest) and possible overlap because of churches with several
missionary conventions. Still, we have the idea of somewhere between
50 and 60 million American evangelicals. For comparison, we have 66
million Roman Catholics.
Oy. That took a while.
Geoff
> Grand Total: 55.8 million. Some of the figures were old (1987 appeared
> to be oldest) and possible overlap because of churches with several
> missionary conventions. Still, we have the idea of somewhere between
> 50 and 60 million American evangelicals. For comparison, we have 66
> million Roman Catholics.
But do we agree that only a small portion of that 56M are fundamentalist in
that they only accept a literal interpretation of the Bible?
Geoff
>> As far as Islam goes, I don't think there really are any
>> non-fundamentalist Muslims. It's rather a contradiction in terms.
>
> It seems to me that that hypothesis is contradicted by observation.
Personally, I have never met a Muslim that didn't believe that the Koran is
the inerrant word of their god. That, by my definition, is a fundamentalist.
Bloopen...@juno.com
Well, that might be difficult to find out easily. But let's try.
Regardless of how many churchgoing evangelicals are literalists,
according to a Gallup poll, 53% of respondents said that the best
description of their views on human origins was that God had created
humans exactly how the Bible describes it. Source:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21814&pg=1. Note that this would
not necessarily constitute a complete repudiation of ToE, just human
evolution. More important for the purposes of this discussion, 54%
believed that Creationism should be taught in public schools.
Furthermore, 28% of respondents held that the Bible was God's word and
to be taken literally. Source: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1690&pg=2.
There are about 300 million Americans, so if these results accurately
reflect America, then there are about 160 million human evolution
skeptics, 162 million people who want Creationism taught, and 84
million literalists in America. That seems absurd, given that only
about 20% of Americans (60 million) actually get off their duff and go
to church, any church at all, on Sunday. (Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac.htm#poll). My guess is that
a substantial portion of those claiming that they believe in Biblical
creation don't honestly believe it, or if they believe it, they
believe it superstitiously, in the same way that they believe in
astrology.
But how many Americans are true "fundamentalists?" I don't think you
can really be a fundamentalist if you don't even go to church. The
criteria for determining a fundamentalist could be a member of a
church that only accepts literal interpretations of the Bible. But, we
should ask, which parts are being literally interpreted? In Matthew
5:38-48 Jesus seems to advocate complete pacifism (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48;&version=31;
) yet only few groups, like the Amish, have actually gone through with
that. They are usually not thought of as "fundamentalist" (they're too
nice), and most groups we think of as fundamentalist support or
tolerate members who join the army and fight in Iraq. They interpret
that passage as a sort of broad exhortation toward kindness and mercy,
in general.
If we were to classify "fundamentalism" as a subcategory of
evangelicalism, then that problem will be solved, for Amish are not
really evangelical in the modern sense of the word. In that case, our
criteria are now "a member of an evangelical church that only accepts
literal interpretations of the Bible." This study from Barna says that
only 12% of "born again" Christians DISagree that the Bible is
completely accurate in all its teachings ( http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=7
). But that doesn't tell us how many agree. This study (Lhttp://people-
press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1084 ) says that 62% of white
evangelicals and 64% of black Protestants believe that the Bible is
the literal Word of God. Furthermore, 33% and 34% respectively believe
that the Second Coming will be in their lifetime.
So--to answer your original question--no, I don't think it's at all
apparent that fundamentalists are a minority within evangelicalism, or
that they are a small minority within American Christianity.
chosp
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqydnURGeoIpVbfb...@giganews.com...
What is the percentage of all existing Muslims
that you have actually met?
Mighty broad brush you're using here.
Geoff
Going to school at Rensselaer and Case Western, there were plenty of Muslims
and non-observant/ex-Muslims. Since then I have worked with a lot of them as
well.
Being curious about Islam and non-Euro culture, I enjoy talking with both
and even played some cricket with the guys from Pakistan while at Case.
Without exception, the observant Muslims all believed that the Koran was the
inerrant word of Allah. And the non-observant ones told me that, unlike
Christianity, generally there are not degrees of faith.
I've always remembered this and it really struck me when I read basically
the same thing in End Of Faith.
So far, three different people have taken exception to my observation. I'm
more than ready to be shown that it's wrong, but so far everyone just
assumes it's not. If I'm wong, show me.
Islam is different from Christianity in more ways than just theology. There
are fundamental reasons why Islam favors theocracy. As a religion, it is
imbued with more politics than probably any other religion, thus making it
difficult to separate the two. Even in secular Turkey, local governments are
often and increasingly being run in accord with the Koran.
Similarly, Christianity has unfolded along with the ascendancy of secular
institutions and thought. As a result, there is a spectrum of adherence to
Biblical inerrancy vs. rational explanations for the world as we see it.
Not so for Islam. The Islamic world has been thrust into the post-industrial
world and is in many respects (certainly theistically, politically, and
socially) still mired in the 15th century.
Geoff
> So--to answer your original question--no, I don't think it's at all
> apparent that fundamentalists are a minority within evangelicalism, or
> that they are a small minority within American Christianity.
Roger that. I like the trends in the data though.
Geoff
> So--to answer your original question--no, I don't think it's at all
> apparent that fundamentalists are a minority within evangelicalism, or
> that they are a small minority within American Christianity.
But 28% is still a minority (although a whole lot bigger a minority than I
thought) contrary to snex's post.
It stretches credulity to think that such a large proportion of Americans
can still be so brainwashed. It just shows to go ya what a powerful meme
religion is.
Ernest Major
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> writes
There is a Muslim participant in this newsgroup who appears to provide a
counterexample.
Apart from that see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
>
>Islam is different from Christianity in more ways than just theology. There
>are fundamental reasons why Islam favors theocracy. As a religion, it is
>imbued with more politics than probably any other religion, thus making it
>difficult to separate the two. Even in secular Turkey, local governments are
>often and increasingly being run in accord with the Koran.
>
>Similarly, Christianity has unfolded along with the ascendancy of secular
>institutions and thought. As a result, there is a spectrum of adherence to
>Biblical inerrancy vs. rational explanations for the world as we see it.
>
>Not so for Islam. The Islamic world has been thrust into the post-industrial
>world and is in many respects (certainly theistically, politically, and
>socially) still mired in the 15th century.
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major