Share

Reaching Out to Conservative Christians: A Time for Healing Old Wounds

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Painting: Michelangelo Buonarrotti)

    Obama's recent reversal of the Bush administration's ban on stem cell research offers progressives an opportunity to reflect upon our relationship to religion. We can take this moment to consider how our views of religion differ from those of many conservatives - and how we might start the healing process with these fellow Americans while working to address our most important issues.

    The perspective I will share is informed by the cognitive sciences - a crosscutting field of research that explores the workings of the mind. This is a powerful lens that offers many insights into the nature of political discourse around religion and morality.

    Distinguishing Fact From Belief

    A common criticism progressives make about conservative religion is what we see as a stubborn blindness to facts. We have been known on occasion to call fundamentalists stupid, or worse, because they place belief over fact. What we fail to realize is that we are similarly blinded by our faith in the power of facts.

    Many progressives believe that human beings are "rational actors" who consciously weigh the pros and cons of every decision to "maximize our self interest." This view is based on the notion that all people reason in the same way, which leads to the belief that people only need to get the facts and they'll reason to the right conclusions.

    This view of human nature is a belief. And it flies in the face of the facts! Research in psychology, linguistics, anthropology and a host of other fields, has shown that this view of the mind is inadequate at best, and is fundamentally wrong in many important respects.

    So what happens when a belief is confronted by a fact? The belief trumps it. This should make sense because every fact requires a context to make sense. And the foundation of every context is some idea about how the world works. Beliefs are this fabric of our inner worlds.

    My goal here is not to criticize progressives for holding a faulty view of humanity (though I do want to help improve upon this deficiency), but rather to make the point that human beings are "believers" before we are "knowers." Our beliefs, often called presumptions, shape what we consider to be valid and what we consider to be suspect. This is a basic truth of human nature. And it is something we share in common with our fundamentalist neighbors.

    Painting Demons (The Distortion of Truth)

    If I had to pick one word to describe the political discourse around religion in the US, I'd say that it is toxic. Conservative Christians paint liberals as godless and devoid of morality. We tend to paint Conservative Christians as radical hate-mongers completely devoid of compassion. We each see the other through our own worldview. And we tend to focus on the negative.

    Last year I had a conversation with my brother, an intensely religious person who considers himself to be a fundamentalist. It was one of those heart-to-heart talks intended to get to know each other after years of growing apart. I was a bit surprised to discover that my brother actually believed that I had no morality because I don't believe in God. I pleasantly discovered that he is strongly motivated by his concern for the suffering of children in sub-Saharan Africa, where he does missionary work. Through the conversation, we learned as much about ourselves as we did about each other.

    Progressives have a similar opportunity if we can get beyond the stereotypes that paint our opposition as demons. The truth of each side has been grossly distorted by the vitriol of toxic discourse. And it is hurting all of us.

    The existence of stereotypes is not the problem. Cognitive psychologists will be quick to tell you that human reasoning is always shaped by "heuristics" that guide our understandings of complex issues. We use stereotypes, idealizations and simplifications all the time. Our brains cannot generate fluid streams of consciousness without packaging knowledge "on the fly." So stereotypes are here to stay.

    We can, however, be more sensitive to the stereotypes that shape our thinking. Religious distortions are commonplace today; just as many racist and sexist stereotypes were prominent in times past. And they are just as destructive to our politics as the old relics were to previous generations.

    While we're at it, we might also want to challenge the idea that progressives aren't religious. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean that progressives are godless. In truth, I am in the minority. Most of my progressive brothers and sisters apply their faith to guide them toward a more just and compassionate society.

    Reclamation of Faith

    Progressives are all too familiar with the damage done in the name of God. Many of us, even our Christian brethren, are appalled at the travesties committed by the religious right. We have watched the legal sanctioning of discrimination against the GLBT community. Scientific integrity has been replaced by attitudes left over from the Dark Ages, and our security is now compromised because of it with a destabilized climate, tainted foods and toxic toys. And the lifeblood of innovation, fundamental research, has been stalled by a fear of losing authoritarian control of the human story. These are lessons we should not - and must not - forget.

    Yet, it is vital that we realize that fundamentalism in the United States is not a monolith. It is vibrant and diverse. And it can change. As the American story returns to its progressive roots, we have the opportunity to break the religious right's stranglehold on religious language. They talk about "family values" but refer only to a narrow impression of strict father homes where daddy knows best. They speak of being "pro-life" as the myopic view that every choice is black or white.

    We know better than this. And it is our responsibility to expand the discussion of family values to include living wages and healthy communities. It is in our power to build a nation on the premise that life is precious and should be celebrated in all its forms.

    I may not believe in God, but I am a man of faith. I have faith in the basic goodness of people. I can work alongside my religious friends as we lay the foundation for a new economy based on the principles of human dignity and the common good. This is a faith that deserves to be reclaimed by the religious and secular alike.

    Bridging the Great Divide

    For too long progressives have abandoned the landscape of morality in political discourse. It is time for us to make our values clear and put them at the forefront of our agenda to address society's ills. But we must also realize that we can't succeed on our own. We're going to need the trust and support of those who have opposed us in the past. The work is just too vast for us to do on our own, especially if we continue to be opposed by a group of misinformed and fearful people who don't really understand what we're about.

    The first step to bridging the divide between progressives and conservative Christians is to admit that we haven't taken our end of the conversation seriously. Blaming them for their faults has been easy, and generally it hasn't done us much good. Getting them to see that we have values too, some of which they are likely to agree with, is a much more difficult (and promising) piece of work.

    All these years of "only the facts" and "pushing policy platforms" has alienated those who don't already see things the way we do. It's not a very effective way to show people how our hearts work, which is how they'll know if they can trust us. It is time for a new strategy that recognizes the importance of belief and the centrality of values in knowing where a person stands - and why.

    Barack Obama has done this admirably. He often speaks of the empathy deficit, responsibility to the people, and the basic goodness of Americans. It's pretty easy to see where he stands. All you have to do is listen to what he says.

    We can do this too.

    The United States needs a progressive vision more than ever before. We have eight years of political devastation to undo. And it has to happen while creating jobs, ending military occupations in the Middle East, addressing the climate crisis, and transitioning our cities and towns toward greater resilience and prosperity.

    Our responsibility as citizens is to make politics civil again. Our fundamentalist neighbors have been manipulated and lied to by the powers that exploit them, often for personal gain. They are generally good-hearted people who have been fed distorted messages about who and what we are for as long as they can remember. These people - our neighbors - need to know that we are good-hearted people too. They need to know that we stand for something. And we need to let them know exactly what it is.

    While the media machine spins out its stories about what Obama's renewed commitment to stem cell research means, we can tell our own stories. Neighbor to neighbor. Person to person. Heart to heart.

    It is time for the healing process to begin. We can change the nature of our politics and move beyond historic lines of division. A good place to start is with members of our local communities. All it takes is a little trust and an open heart.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

  

»


Joe Brewer is the director of Cognitive Policy Works and a former Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. He is working to train the next generation of political professionals in the art and science of social change strategies. Keep up with his work

here

.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

"Many progressives believe

"Many progressives believe that human beings are "rational actors" who consciously weigh the pros and cons of every decision to "maximize our self interest." This view is based on the notion that all people reason in the same way, which leads to the belief that people only need to get the facts and they'll reason to the right conclusions. This view of human nature is a belief. And it flies in the face of the facts! Research in psychology, linguistics, anthropology and a host of other fields, has shown that this view of the mind is inadequate at best, and is fundamentally wrong in many important respects. Yeah, thats interesting, but am I to believe that the author has specific examples in mind where people actually had the "right facts" and then reasoned to a bad conclusion. There are many other factors besides faith based rejection of "facts" that cause facts or objective information to be rejected-- big business and politics come to mind.... but most importantly, I know I sure dont want people in powerful places basing major decisions on the irrational, i.e. faith, versus reasoning within the context of "facts", --even if there distorted by other factors, they're at least tangible unlike faith

Progressives were NEVER in

Progressives were NEVER in an unhealed relationship to conservative Christians to begin with, for your information. On the contrary, we progressives want Christians to have the right to worship as deeply and often as they please, just not in the town square, on City Hall's steps, or in the classroom. It's the aggressive Christians that pose the threat to living in an unhealed relationship with progressives. We validate their right to exist whereas they are against our right to exist. Christians exist in a state of internal and even external warfare with other groups, gays, women, scientists, doctors who practice women's medicine. They are inherently intolerant and extremely dangerous by virtue of their theologies.

I'm sorry, a fundamentalist

I'm sorry, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that every word of the bible is factually true and given by God. They may be 'generally good-hearted," but it is hard to respect their minds or ideas. If they bothered, for example, to READ the bible, they would see that it is full of contradictions and variations, all of which cannot simultaneously be the case. Fundamentalists have had a terrible effect on US education, on science funding, on reproductive and sexual health, women's rights, and the separation of church and state. If you believe you can "work alongside" fundamentalists to make a better society along prniciples of human dignity, you must not think women's rights are part of that dignity. As for your "faith in the basic goodness of people," oh give me a break. It's got to be a little more complicated than that.

IMHO, the reasons so many

IMHO, the reasons so many people are disassociating with the current version of Christianity, NeoChristo, or Christianism, are: 1. the blantant HYPOCRISY 2. the proud ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM

This author needs to clarify

This author needs to clarify the difference between Conservative Christians and the Christian Fundamentalists who have been dominating the conversation about stem cell research for the past eight years. Joe, you have my blessings to try and convert the end time believers (who are ready and willing to make Armageddon a self fulfilling prophesy) to be civil in this discourse. Have they ever treated you as you would treat them? Personally, I think these clap trappers should be marginalized and completely eliminated from the debate.

In response to David

In response to David Spaethica: I agree that the asymmetry you describe exists. We are more tolerant and accepting, while they often see themselves on a crusade to wipe out the infidels. This point is well accepted.

My point in this article is to draw attention to ourselves as members of the progressive movement. We have a responsibility to communicate our values - as citizens and as civic leaders. Over the past three decades, I've watched our representatives (members of the Democratic Party) as they expressed their views through focus-group driven, public-polling supported, issue platforms. Their values were hidden three levels deep in calculated assessments of how not to offend those who might disagree with them. We've seen what happens when this strategy is used... our values are hidden from view so the other side tells a story about us as "lacking in morality".

We were painted as a political community that doesn't stand for anything.

As a result, conservative Christians (the citizens, not the elites) have come to believe that we lack morality. This is an impression that we can change. Rather than letting the Rush Limbaugh's of the world say what we are, we can show it ourselves. Along the way, we're likely to find that we have more political power than we thought we had. And we might even find that those "religious nuts" share our values on important issues. They may continue to speak a different language than us, but they do want safe communities, healthy children, and a prosperous society. We can show them how we understand these issues.

If we don't, they'll continue to misunderstand us. And we will have contributed to the problem by remaining silent.

Best,

Joe Brewer

Founder, Cognitive Policy Works

The biggest challenge in

The biggest challenge in dealing with Christian fundamentalists is their iron-clad belief that anyone not of their faith is destined for Hell. Tends to put a bit of damper on communications. It also creates an uncomfortable double bind: if they don't like you, they tend to gloat in their self-satisfaction that God will eventually take care of business and damn you for eternity; and if they do like you, then they will try to convert you. Either way, they project their beliefs onto you rather than seeing you as you are. You may even be a fundamentally more balanced, more compassionate, more generous and loving person than they, but they would never know it for their blind-spot. This is true not only of Christian fundamentalists, but all groups that draw cultural, religious, political, economic or intellectual lines around themselves. The basic trap is exclusivity itself.

Good luck with that, Joe. As

Good luck with that, Joe. As a youngish progressive raised in an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian environment, I can assure you that folks who adhere to that kind of dogma have no interest in compromising or trying to understand you or your morality. Yes, I can have some conversations every once in awhile where I think *by gosh, I've just had a breakthrough!*, and then a day later, everything is erased. Willful amnesia. As far as they're concerned, any compromise is a failure. They will NEVER compromise on abortion, they will NEVER acknowledge that this is a highly nuanced issue, so any demagogue who stands on the soap box to condemn abortion automatically gets their vote, no matter where he stands on anything else. They are willfully duped, they are willfully ignorant, and they are stubborn as hell. How's the saying go? "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw

" I may not believe in God,

" I may not believe in God, but I am a man of faith. I have faith in the basic goodness of people. I can work alongside my religious friends as we lay the foundation for a new economy based on the principles of human dignity and the common good. This is a faith that deserves to be reclaimed by the religious and secular alike. " This statement actually outlines the real difference between Progressives and Conservatives. Progressives, irregardless of their faith, believe in the basic trustworthiness of their fellow humans. Conservatives believe that their fellow humans are not worthy of their trust. These differences often fall along religious lines, since non-religious people have no choice but to trust other humans and religious people tend to put their trust in God over other humans. Saying it is time for progressives (like me) to make peace with religious people (like me) obfuscates this point. It is indeed time for progressives to teach conservatives that humans are worthy of their trust by being thoughtful and trustworthy...especially with the money the stimulus bill will provide to us humans...but hardly a time to extend a condescending hand to conservative Christians. This is especially true if it is coming from the hand of an atheist progressive who is obsessed with the difference between fact and belief. Conservatives, religious people, and progressives like facts just like anyone. Facts can solve a dispute and can be twisted to achieve one's agenda. This is why it is not about facts v beliefs, it is about trust. Conservatives need to know they can trust progressives...plain and simple. We need to show as many of them as possible that we can be trusted. Moral judgment is an afterthought for those in our lives that we trust. Jesus made choices I didn't like. My parents did too. So has my wife, and so have my friends. I even placed a bit of judgment on each of them when they did. But my trust in them stayed the same, and when it came time for getting things done they were all there for me.

Dear Joe, You need to read

Dear Joe, You need to read some articles by Frank Schaeffer. He grew up with and even wrote some of the ideologies of the Religious Right. His is a reality that I have seen over the years. I don't believe most religious radicals have any inclination to listen to anyone who believes differently from them. Neither does Frank. I also don't believe that only progressives put their trust in facts.

It is about trust, Andrew.

It is about trust, Andrew. Thank you for drawing out this distinction.

There have been several interesting and insightful points in this discussion thread so far, but I think this one is my favorite.

When I drew a distinction between facts and beliefs in the article, I was thinking about the fundamental importance of trust. This is perhaps the most vital psychological issue in all of politics - who do you trust and who don't you?

Ultimately, we progressives need to be trustworthy in the eyes of people who have historically disagreed with us or misunderstood us. And we are not likely to be trusted if our values remain obscure. This further reinforces my main point, which is that people who call themselves conservative (including many people of faith) have had a difficult time assessing the nature of our moral character because our side has been silent about our values.

We can do something about this.

Thanks for all the great comments so far. I hope this discussion continues to draw out important insights into the thorny relationship between politics and religion.

Best,

Joe Brewer

Founder, Cognitive Policy Works

On the one hand, Mr. Brewer

On the one hand, Mr. Brewer says we have to treat conservative Christians with respect and work together. On the other hand, he talks about them as "misinformed and fearful." That sounds pretty condescending to me. I think it is a lot more honest to say that our belief systems and moral codes are in profound disagreement. For example, Mr. Brewer talks working together with conservative Christians to build "a nation on the premise that life is precious and should be celebrated in all its forms." Does that mean he is anti-abortion, that he is willing to force rape victims to carry their pregnancies -- just so he can form a coalition with conservative Christians? I can't bring myself to have a lot of trust in people who think this is or should be a Christian country, who want my tax money to support their so-called faith-based charities, who think that they know the will of God and that I am damned to Hell because I don't believe in their Jesus, or because I am gay. I don't need to spew vitriol at them -- there are plenty of hypocrites, ignoramuses, and haters all over the political spectrum. But I won't paper over my differences with them either.

Many of the comments hit the

Many of the comments hit the mark. It will be a very difficult process as the creation/evolution discussion plainly shows. The bible was written 100 -500 years after the death of Christ, based on oral gospels. It is preposterous to take the bible literally. The main bible message is the message of love and inclusiveness of all human beings. If religious fundamentalists would take their belief serious then there would be no hate towards other human beings nor in the world. God is THE only and ultimate judge, not humans. No matter how much fundamentalist would like to judge others. Jesus threw the pharisees out of the temple! Do you remember your bible study classes? The final judgment will come later!!! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said:" If everybody were to sweep in front of their own front door, what a neat, clean world we would have." Translation if everybody were to take care of their own issues then we wouldn't have any problems in the world. Fundamentalists, always remember!!!

I'm disappointed to read how

I'm disappointed to read how many times you attack the conservative right. Yes, I agree with everything you have said here, but I disagree with how you went about choosing your content. For example, by writing this, "They talk about 'family values' but refer only to a narrow impression of strict father homes where daddy knows best. They speak of being 'pro-life' as the myopic view that every choice is black or white." you simplified those discussions down to a few choice words. You have taken all the color out of them, leaving us with no color; or, black. Didn't you just reprimand the fundamentalists for holding the "myopic view that everything is black or white"? that is my objection: too much name-calling. At one point, you compare the horrible names the left and right have called each other over the past couple decades. That was enough. You didn't have to include any more examples of differing beliefs or stories of bitter pasts. Why did you? Fortunately, this is an article whose targeted audience consists of progressives. And for a progressive like you or me, this article's thesis was spot-on.

Nice try, but I don't buy

Nice try, but I don't buy it. If 9/11 taught us anything, it should have been that religious fanatics are DANGEROUS. Not just Middle Eastern religious fanatics, but all of them, Joe Lieberman included. After decades of sneering at "secular humanists," we're supposed to "reach out" to these people in a spirit of peace, love and understanding? Oh, brother.

Strong feelings and a path

Strong feelings and a path forward...

This comment thread demonstrates two very important things, as I see them. The first is that our feelings about religion are very important in politics. The second is that many progressives are caught up in thinking about conservative Christians using stereotypes that blind them to commonalities.

Consider this organization of evangelicals - Christians Supporting Community Organizing (http://www.cscoweb.org/brief.html). They tend to be polarized against us on "below the belt" issues like homosexuality and abortion. Yet, their principle motivation is social justice.

While commenters in this thread are actively declaring that I am naive or off base, I am starting a dialogue with leaders of this group to bridge the historic divide. They responded to my call for reaching out by extending an open hand. I'm not sure where it will go, but the beginning is cordial. Both sides want to reduce disparities of wealth, reign in corporate governance, and reduce corruption in our government. These are all laudable goals that I can work with, even as we disagree about other important issues.

My goal is to improve our political culture without compromising my principles and values. There seems to be a path opening up before me to start doing this.

Readers in this forum are welcome to participate in the process.

Best,

Joe Brewer

Founder, Cognitive Policy Works

To Joe Brewer: I am

To Joe Brewer: I am responding to your response above: You wrote above: "And we might even find that those "religious nuts" share our values on important issues. They may continue to speak a different language than us, but they do want safe communities, healthy children, and a prosperous society." First, thank you for your clear response. The Democrats camouflage their political language perpetually in the hope to not offend: that they MUST change this sense of unnecessary self-shaming is a must and I agree with you there, if I've understood you correctly. They must confront those who play the amorality card against progressives with crisp response that evoke the kind of embarrassment the religious right is notorious for using against liberals. You might disagree here, but that is my feeling: hit them back linguistically, and hard. Show them that they are intellectually dishonest, violent and hypocritical in their use of scripture. They respond to shame and embarrassment well, so I say make them look like the idiots they ARE. I also do not believe that they want "...safe communities, healthy children, and a prosperous society." What they want is a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia. They are religious fascists and that, my friend, is really not a point we should even be discussing, given its obvious nature. The very notion that you can dialog with fundamentalist Christians is erroneous. The very concept of talking things out, sanely and rationally, is a LIBERAL CONCEPT. It's a liberal strategy. If you invite them to talk things out they will respond by demanding you accept and pray to their god. They have no desire to get along with those who do not share their beliefs; mortal fear (and ignorance), along with a very big superiority complex is the key to understanding the fundamentalist Christian agenda.

To David Spaethica: Thank

To David Spaethica:

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I would like to draw attention to this point that you bring up, because there is a valuable lesson for all of us in it:

"The very concept of talking things out, sanely and rationally, is a LIBERAL CONCEPT. It's a liberal strategy."

My impression from your comment is that you feel this will fail. I have a deeper strategy in mind, based on what I call cognitive policy (learn more here: http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/what-we-do/cognitive-policy). A key element of this perspective is to live your values and you will create a space for these values to make sense to others.

A major finding in the cognitive sciences is that our brains fundamentally shape the kinds of minds that we have. Another is that our brains make sense of things by matching persistent patterns from our experience onto patterns of neural firing in our brains. As a result, our experiences shape what things mean to us.

This is important here because the very experience of acting as though my liberal values will work is an important first step toward making them feel like common sense to those who interact with me. I can create a social space for interaction where my values make sense - and contradictory values don't.

This is the brain-based account of the old adage, "Be the change you wish to see." It is excellent advice that is well supported by cutting-edge brain science.

Hope this helps clarify what I'm doing.

Joe Brewer

Founder, Cognitive Policy Works

I have to agree with the

I have to agree with the comments David made. Fundamentalist Christians may share your values, but they will find it difficult to trust you unless you are a Christian yourself. And as we have established, trust is key to bridging this torn relationship. I believe that these differences usually fall away in small close-knit communities but they are magnified when it comes to making broad sweeping policy decisions. It is easy for fundamentalist Christians to mask their distrust of the local grocer who is not a Christian because they always sell great meat, but you would not find any of these fundamentalist Christians trusting a non-Christian because they say they will make great decisions for their community.Unlike the grocer, a politician has a broader reach on the fundamentalist Christian's world. Politicians can enact policies that have a real effects on fundamentalist Christian's lives. The solution to this is for progressives to show conservatives that they can be trusted. When I think about conservatives and progressives, I think about their main commonality...each group wants the policies of their community and nation to match up with the policies of their own home and family life as much as possible. These are both wholly unrealistic goals that will never be realized unless we all had our own private islands. (Maybe global warming could speed up this process? J/K) Until then patience, listening, understanding, integrity, and trust are the only tools we have to work with. Like the article you wrote on the hidden agenda behind tax cuts, I have to thank you Mr. Brewer for your thoughtfulness and insightfulness that has sparked such a lively discussion.

Faith is tangible. Values

Faith is tangible. Values and morality are real. Intelligence is not a "green light" to be condescending and negative. Do you feel that Muslims "exist in a state of warfare with other groups, gays, women, scientists, doctors who practice women's medicine"? Are you prepared to tell them they can "worship as deeply and often as they please, just not in the town square, on City Hall's steps, or in the classroom"? Intolerance is not limited to religions. In fact, I think it is intolerant to push any way of thinking on a person. Why do you think there are so many conservative Christians and Muslims in the world today? I think Christians are relatively passive, especially in this country. Certainly they are declining in numbers and have lost any real zealousness. As in any "war" you should look ahead to what is coming and, perhaps, buy a burqa. Allahu Akbar.

There are two big problem

There are two big problem with fundamentalism, and it isn't that fundamentalists have a belief system grounded in the metaphysical (that which is beyond scientific inquiry). No, the two main problems are that fundamentalists maintain an absolute and unquestioning certainty that they have discovered "truth", and that doubt is somehow sinful. The second problem is that they want to impose their beliefs on others, often by force of law or with violence, rather than simply seek to gently persuade others. Even those who believe firmly that they have found "absolute Truth" can be tolerant of the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, but fundamentalists somehow think that such tolerance is incompatible with their religious agenda. I have never doubted that many fundamentalists are deeply concerned with moral issues, including those of poverty and oppression, but until they openly, publicly acknowledge that others have the right to a different theological, spiritual on non-spiritual life, then they have failed the most important test of acceptance in a free society.

Butch is absolutely right.

Butch is absolutely right. Fundamentalists are not going to tolerate different points of view, which is why they are called "intolerant." Remember Ralph Reed? He was all in favor of running religious extremists for local school boards who hide their agenda until they get elected. Look up his comment about "body bags." What a little charmer he was! These people are not going to "agree to disagree." They will stop at nothing to force their beliefs on others, which is precisely what makes them un-American.

The fundamental thing wrong

The fundamental thing wrong with fundamentalism is that is starts from an irrational assumption. That unvarnished assumption is the belief in an invisible (to the non-believer) anthropomorphic personal deity with whom one has a relationship and from whom one derives some mission. Starting out from such a point, leads, inevitably, to a place where dialogue, compromise, and agreeing-to-disagree fail to satisfy one or both parties.