Christian Right at it again (in Texas of all places)

[Thanas]

^It is a misrepresentation of the fact that many of the writers were Deists and drew from deistic morals.

Of course, being the idiots they are, they go Deist=Christian=god-given morals=constitutions is a document co-written by god, when every single one of those "logical" connenctions is unproven at best.

These people think that the US founders were evangelical Bible-believers like them. Perhaps because their entire worldview depends on their ignorance of this fact, they don't know that evangelicalism in its current form didn't exist until the 1950s, when it diverged from proto-fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, in fact, didn't even exist until the late 1800s.

I am not so sure about that - the pilgrims would certainly qualify as fundamentalists in the modern sense, as would numerous catholic sects throughout the ages.

[Lord Insanity]

I am not so sure about that - the pilgrims would certainly qualify as fundamentalists in the modern sense, as would numerous catholic sects throughout the ages.

I think he was referring to Evangelicals, the modern day fundamentalists. All the young earth creationists I know are Evangelicals.

Edit- Never mind, I get a demerit for reading comprehension today.

[Molyneux]

Anyone here in their twenties who went through the US school system might remember DARE, the anti-drug program? Imagine a "role of religion in American history" unit that was constructed that intelligently, and what the effect on students would be...

Judging by the actual effects of DARE, I would imagine such a program would increase the number of atheists in this country. You picked a bad example: DARE was such a fiasco the Bush Administration admitted it didn't work. Here.

I believe your sarcasm-fu is weak...

[Surlethe]

These people think that the US founders were evangelical Bible-believers like them. Perhaps because their entire worldview depends on their ignorance of this fact, they don't know that evangelicalism in its current form didn't exist until the 1950s, when it diverged from proto-fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, in fact, didn't even exist until the late 1800s.

I am not so sure about that - the pilgrims would certainly qualify as fundamentalists in the modern sense, as would numerous catholic sects throughout the ages.

Actually, they wouldn't. The criteria for modern fundamentalism* are:

• Evangelistic (not "Evangelical" as the movement)
• Premillenialist
• Biblical inerrancy
• Separatism.

At that point in time, premillennialism and Biblical inerrancy did not exist: premillennialism simply did not exist until the 1830s, and Biblical inerrancy did not exist until the late 1800s - it was originally called the Princeton Theology. The Pilgrims were to some extent separatist, but not in the sense of modern fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is ultimately a social reaction against modernization, in particular the Higher Criticism, the theory of evolution, changing gender roles, and the social gospel. Without these impetuses, fundamentalism could simply not exist. It's also worth note that the term "fundamentalist" was defined to describe this Protestant anti-modernization movement, deriving from the Fundamentals, a series of pamphlets published in the 1910s by Lyman Beecher - until the Scopes Trial, 'fundamentalist' was actually a badge of honor. (Beecher went on to found the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, today called Biola.)

Fundamentalism has since then been applied to movements such as Catholic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism; in that broader colloquial sense, you could certainly make a successful argument that the pilgrims, various Catholic sects, Anabaptists, and other religious movements throughout history have been sufficiently separatist and religiously extremist to be considered 'fundamentalist'. However, I was referring to the modern fundamentalist movement in particular; the pilgrims (not the Puritans!) could be considered the distant ancestors of modern fundamentalists, but only ancestors.

* See Nancy T. Ammerman, "Modern American Protestant Fundamentalism" in Fundamentalism Observed by the University of Chicago Press. Marsden, another big expert in the area, defined fundamentalists as "(Modern) Evangelicals who are angry about something".
** Note that the expertise in this area belongs not to me but to my wife, who is earning her MA in 20th century American religion

[Samuel]

the pilgrims (not the Puritans!)

Is it because the Puritans weren't sepratists while the pilgrims were?

[Surlethe]

the pilgrims (not the Puritans!)

Is it because the Puritans weren't sepratists while the pilgrims were?

Bingo. That's not the only difference, but that's why you could consider the pilgrims 'fundamentalist' but not the puritans. Actually, here's an interesting question (and if this gets too far off topic, I will split the tangent): could one consider pilgrims and puritans as analogous to evangelicals and fundamentalists? The split between fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s occurred chiefly because the evangelicals were beginning to engage society more and more; fundamentalists actually lambasted Billy Graham, for example, for being too much in society and not enough apart from it. Some similar dynamic may have characterized the difference between pilgrims and puritans: both pilgrims and puritans had a problem with the religious climate in England in the early 1600s. The pilgrims decided the culture was decadent and corrupt and merely up-and-left, while the puritans stayed behind to try to change things. Some came to the colonies in 1630, but most stayed in England and eventually won a civil war, beheading Charles I. Are they analogous to modern fundamentalists and evangelicals? More research is necessary