Edward Said

[kandrathe]

But when Said says "born again", he's talking about people who admit to this, and to Bible literalism. This is not an obscure demographic. This is a group who stand up tall and profess their belief (a fairly extreme belief) in the Bible.

I dunno. It seems to me that when Christians refer to "Born Again" they are speaking of a time in their lives when they were more capable of understanding the complexity of Christ's message, and this time really believed. In a way, a spiritual rebirth. Many Catholics make the observation of being Catholic and being a practicing Catholic, or some of my Jewish friends make that same distinction within their faith. Some people are classified as something, when their only claim to it is by being born into that tradition. So, to my mind the only true Christians are the "born again" ones. Because they have embraced the theology, and not just the label.

"Born again" is just a best attempt to find a neutral title. "Fundamentalist wacko" would probably be the charged version.

I guess I see it as a loaded generality. Why not just say "some strict or hard line Christians"? I guess to me like "Nerd" or "Geek", if I would refer to myself by those labels it might be alright. But, to be labeled by others as a "Nerd" or a "Geek" would not feel right. (I think if you add "wacko" to any other noun it would become the charged version, eg. "Game Playing Wacko").

Again, all titles are generalizations. All generalizations (except this one, of course) are, to some extent, unfair, otherwise they would be like Borges' map of the world which is the size of the world : Utterly useless.

Well, I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition. Using demographics and more proper population statistics would clarify which groups he might be talking about. 60-70 million is actually a large number of people in the US (about the same number that voted for Bush in the last election).

Again, using my mother as my window into that culture (right or wrong) -- I think their response to Said would be; "What is so wrong about wanting to live, work and raise your children in a morally positive environment?" They don't neccesarily place the same level of importance in tolerating all social vices and aberrations as people do in an urban core, but that does not mean that they are intolerant. I mean I grew up in a small town and if you are determined to be the only spike mohawked orange haired iggy pop punk in the town of 200 people, you might expect just a little puzzlement and a bit of isolation. My experiences in small town America are closer to "Northern Exposure" than "Dukes of Hazzard", yet strange that both seem to apply. I think from what I've seen from that segment of the population is that they would like to have the choice to be tolerant, rather than have political correctness forced upon them as legislation. Their social fabrics are a weave of each individuals relationships within their community, and no one gets a free pass. Everyone needs to earn their respect, even the minister.

I think some of the conflicts we have seen and will continue to see are in how social mores are established and social harmony achieved if some social viewpoints are treated as ignorant or bourgeois. Its easy to generalize them as the "religious right" or those "bible belt born again's" when it is actually a much more complicated demographically diverse population. I mean demographically, I see beyond the regional differences, the denomination, race, age and urbanization, as just a few factors that cannot all describe the same kind of "born again" Christian.

Anyway, my point is that just as there is not one flavor of Islamic Fundamentalist, "born again" does not in my mind describe Fundamentalist Christians.