View Full Version : A Call To Arms

September 23rd, 2001, 03:29 AM
Isaac Bonewits has a new Essay out regarding the current actiona being taken as a result of the attacks on America..........
It is very interesting and deeply thoughtful...... I would recommend reading the entire thing prior to commenting .......
here is an INTRO and the entire Essay can bve read here http://www.neopagan.net/Call-to-Arms.html

A Call to Arms


Treating the Disease
version 1.4.1

Copyright © 2001 c.e., Isaac Bonewits

The attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington DC by Muslim
Fundamentalists have crystallized a number of ideas that have been drifting
around in my head for several years. This “911 call” wasn’t just a wake up call
about terrorism, it was a sign that the Culture War between Modernity and
Fundamentalism has become irredeemably deadly. Though there are multiple
non-religious motives behind Islamic terrorism, this essay will focus on the
religious factors sanctifying and justifying mass murder.

The Problem is Fundamentalism

As I discussed in another essay, Understanding the Religious Reich,
Fundamentalism, whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic (or Marxist, for that
matter), has become the primary threat to world peace and even to civilization
itself. Let’s put this as clearly as possible: a bunch of religious lunatics murdered
around 6,000 people on September 11, 2001. There is absolutely no reason to
believe that they won’t do something just as awful again if given the chance.

Here is what I said there, so you don’t have to jump over and back:

Throughout this essay I’m going to be referring to “Fundamentalists,”
so perhaps I should clarify the term. Let me start, as I so often do,
with a historical review of the term — on this occasion quoting from
the 1964 edition of A Handbook of Theological Terms, by Van A.

“Fundamentalism is a name that was attached to the
viewpoint of those who, shortly after the turn of the
[19th-20th] century, resisted all liberal attempts to modify
orthodox Protestant belief or to question the infallibility of
the Bible in any respect. The name is derived from a series
of tracts published between 1912-14, entitled The
Fundamentals that aimed at defining and defending the
essentials of Protestant doctrine. The most important of the
fundamental doctrines were (1) the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, (2) the doctrine of the Trinity, (3)
the virgin birth and deity of Christ, (4) the substitutionary
theory of the atonement, (5) the bodily resurrection,
ascension and second coming of Christ (parousia).

Since most of these beliefs have been a part of Christian
orthodoxy [for fifteen centuries], historians have seen the
uniqueness of Fundamentalism to consist in its violent
opposition to all beliefs that seem opposed to some teaching
of the Bible. In the twenties and thirties, this opposition was
focused particularly on any theory of man’s [sic] origins,
especially evolution, that seemed incompatible with the
account in Genesis. Consequently, Fundamentalism tended
to be identified with blind opposition to all critical inquiry.

Because of this identification, certain conservative
theologians who share the above-described beliefs but who
think they can be defended in a rational manner have
tended to shirk the name “fundamentalist” and call
themselves “evangelical conservatives.” They generally
oppose the spirit of ecumenism and any theology, including
neo-Reformed theology, which does not regard the Bible as
the absolute and infallible rule of faith and practice.”

Notice that 40 years ago he was mentioning the “…violent
opposition to all beliefs that seem opposed to some teaching…” The
term “Fundamentalist” has since been extended by the mass media to
refer to “Fundamentalist” Jews, Moslems, and even Hindus! In each
case, the inference is that some people refuse to budge from the most
conservative version of their faith that is available to them and resist,
even to the point of violence, all competing worldviews. Non-Christian
examples include some Orthodox and Hassidic Jews and most Shiite
Muslims in Iran (most Sunni Muslims elsewhere). Christian but not
Protestant examples would be ultra-conservatives within both Roman
and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, as well as some Mormons (though
non-Mormons often consider all members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints “non-Christian”). Non-theistic examples
would include many Marxists and Secular Humanists, as well as other
fervent atheists.

For the purposes of this essay, I could simply refer to
“ultra-conservative monotheists,” but “Fundamentalists” is somewhat
shorter and extremists among the modern Christian Protestants who
call themselves by this term were — at least until the World Trade
Center attacks — the primary threat to our lives and freedom. So on
those occasions when I don’t specifically mention it, you may keep in
mind all the other types of Fundamentalists mentioned in the preceding

Love and light
Swannie ........

Yvonne Belisle
September 23rd, 2001, 03:59 AM
Overall I find this to be a very well written essay. I have differences in opinions on several minor points and would like proof of several points one way or the other before I comment on them. I have long been disturbed by the self rightious of any group he calls them fundamentals but to me they are the same thing and I have met them in the pagan path too. They are the ones that insist that they have found the only true path and the rest of us have it all wrong. I personally agree that the actions of these people have been terrorist type behavior for a long time and they all need to be stopped but there must be some type of rules and order to it. The way he suggests to wage war against these peoples is something I can agree with he is not suggesting physical violence but a campain of knowledge. Knowledge can be a light in the dark an open door or a sword against ignorance. Let's put it to good use.