2 of 3

If people truly believe that abortion is the same as mass murder, then you can see the awful logic of the terrorism it has spawned. This is the same logic as bin Laden's. If faith is that strong, and it dictates a choice between action or eternal damnation, then violence can easily be justified. In retrospect, we should be amazed not that violence has occurred—but that it hasn't occurred more often.

In another New York Times opinion piece, Alan Wolfe also argues that we're in a war against fundamentalism of all religious stripes, equating the early Puritans with the Taliban regime. (Yes, this is the same Alan Wolfe who wrote The Atlantic Monthly cover story on Christian colleges.) "The war now going on between Americans and the forces of Osama bin Laden is not between belief and nonbelief," Wolfe wrote in the October 14 edition. "It is instead about two different ways of believing, only one of which allows for individual conscience and freedom. The refusal of the other to make that allowance is what makes terrorism against nonbelievers possible." Wolfe admits that "many evangelical Christians" still allow for individual conscience and freedom (um, yeah, that's kind of the point of modern evangelical Protestantism, isn't it?), but he describes the evil Christian fundies as those "who evangelize, persuaded that those who do not believe as they do are destined for hell." The good guys, he says, "believe that whatever their own path to God, other people will choose different paths that deserve respect." These are mutually exclusive ways of believing? Somebody forgot to tell Weblog.

The latest volley against exclusivism comes from The International Herald Tribune. "The basic problem resides in the claim by every religion not merely to be the true religion but to be the only true religion," writes Antonio Garrigues Walker. "This claim reduces to a minimum, or eliminates altogether, any possibility of dialogue and understanding. It leads to an impasse and must be corrected." But unlike other writers who fault Islamic fundamentalism as the immediate threat and Christian "fundamentalism" as a potential threat, Walker takes aim squarely at exclusivist Christianity, essentially blaming it for the breakdown in global peace.

Christianity … has to recognize that 70 percent of humanity professes or is influenced by other religions, and that this percentage is likely to increase. … Christianity should assume magnanimously its vocation to usher in a new and profound ecumenical movement. In doing so, the Christian churches should make every effort to show generosity to other religions by ensuring whenever possible—and it is almost always possible—that no emphasis is placed on questions that separate religions, and by encouraging the vast possibilities of cooperation on issues vital to humanity.

First assignment for Mr. Walker: learn what ecumenism is. The word refers to cooperation between Christian churches, not between Christianity and other religions. Second, Christians believe that the issue most vital to humanity is getting people to meet Jesus Christ himself. Whether or not that "separates religions" is beside the point. (A sidenote for conspiracy theorists: Walker is deputy chairman of the European branch of the Trilateral Commission.)

Sullivan: At least Bush isn't a fundamentalist
Though Sullivan attacked evangelicals as fundamentalists in "This Is a Religious War" article, in an article for this week's issue of London's The Sunday Times, he is quick to put President Bush outside the fundamentalist camp. "Nobody should confuse the faith of George W with more conventional Christian right belief," he wrote. "There are times when Bush seems almost embarrassingly ecumenical." But Bush, Sullivan says, is still driven by his faith—especially since September 11.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

October (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45