All together now. Please take out your copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and turn to page 213 (in the edition currently on my desk) or look up the “religious movements” reference.
There you will find the following, which has been quoted many times here at GetReligion:
fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.
I have been planning to bring this up all week because of MSM coverage of the death of cartoonist Johnny Hart, but have been delayed by sickness, academic work and various online issues.
Thus, it is no surprise that a journalistic friend of this weblog, Frank “Bible Belt Blogger” Lockwood at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette beat me to it. Here is a part of what he had to say:
A reminder to the New York Times and the Washington Post — Many American Christians consider the terms “fundamentalist” and “fundamentalism” to be pejorative. In the 1910s and 1920s, the term referred to a Christian who believed in the “fundamentals” of the faith — the Virgin Birth of Christ, his sinless life, his atoning death, his bodily resurrection and his second coming in the clouds of glory.
Since then, however, the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked. Today, it is an insult, a slur, a code word the Manhattan media and others use to marginalize people. It’s not nice to call someone a fundamentalist when they’re alive. It’s even worse to use the term in an obituary.
Here’s the key paragraph in the Times, located at the end of a piece by Charles McGrath titled “An Appraisal — Johnny Hart and His Wham-Wham World”:
In his later years, Mr. Hart’s religious fundamentalism got him into hot water more than once as he insisted on incorporating Gospel messages into his strips, most famously one that depicted a menorah morphing into a cross. But his literalism also enabled a kind of comic daring in which he could imagine his cavemen playing baseball and football, worrying about Noah and the flood, wisecracking about 21st-century dining habits. They lived in an eternal present that was also a kind of prehistoric paradise.
Note the word “insisted,” which is a strange thing to say about the work of an artist who never hid what he believed and, come to think of it, named the cartoon strip in question “B.C.” — which stands for “Before Christ.”
Meanwhile, over at the Post, Adam Bernstein included the following reference:
For a strip whose tone was lighthearted, “B.C” suddenly became controversial in the 1990s when Mr. Hart included themes influenced by his fundamental Christianity and literal interpretation of the Bible. He did so sparingly, often around holy days, but its inclusion was perceived by many readers as making him far more frank about Christianity than any of his mainstream contemporaries.
Some newspapers canceled the strip. Others, including The Post, pulled it selectively. On at least one occasion, the Los Angeles Times relocated it to the religion page. The Times initially canceled the strip — scheduled to run on Palm Sunday 1996 — showing Wiley drafting a poem about Jesus’s suffering on the cross.
And so forth and so on.
There is no question that Hart was a controversial figure, and it is easy to find fierce and often valid debate about some of his statements, debate in which he stood his ground. Hart was also one of the most popular cartoonists alive, if one considers the number of newspapers that carried his work. His work pleased millions of people, and it offended many as well.
So be it. The obvious point is that free speech is free speech and Hart had as much right to defend traditional Christianity as other cartoonists have the right to attack it, something that happens rather frequently in modern media.
The journalistic question, however, is more basic. What do the editors at these newspapers think the word “fundamentalist” means? Is the mere defense of the ancient Christian belief that salvation is found through Jesus alone enough for a person to be labeled a “fundamentalist”? Do journalists have a right to redefine words in this manner, even when guides to journalistic style and ethics urge them not to do so?
Thus, let me echo Lockwood and note that the leader of The New York Times has already voiced his concern about this issue. Remember that 2005 memo by editor Bill Keller to his staff?
Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist “inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme.” We often apply “religious fundamentalists,” another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.
By the way, before I end, let me note that I thought the Associated Press piece on Hart by Mary Esch was very newsy and fair and the Los Angeles Times piece by Claire Noland was also quite good, which is important in light of that newspaper’s role in the disputes over the cartoonist’s work. Noland wrote:
Cartoonist Johnny Hart, who created the popular Stone Age comic strip “B.C.” and generated controversy in recent years with overtly religious themes reflecting his evangelical Christian beliefs, died Saturday, the day before Easter. He was 76. …
Hart began imparting Christian messages, especially at Christmas and Easter, in the 1980s, after experiencing a religious conversion. Some Jewish, Muslim and secular readers complained to newspapers and to the syndicate, saying his views were offensive or inappropriate for the comics page and better suited for the op-ed pages.
But many Christian readers gave overwhelmingly positive reaction to his unapologetic statements, and free speech advocates spoke up for his right to express himself.
And all the people (hopefully not just conservatives) said, “Amen.”
 | Posted at 11:29 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (31) |
April 11, 2007, at 12:10 pm
I have always enjoyed B.C., especially the Gospel-centric panels at the high holy days on the (Western) Christian calendar. While Peanuts and Family Circus also touch on religious themes, with Johnny Hart and B.C. there was no doubt that the cartoonist believed Jesus was his Lord and Savior and the only way to heaven.
And the obits also highlight, once again, that double-standard. When I read or hear the term “fundamentalist” today I think of the group of Christians that not only adhere to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity but go so far as to promote a socio-political agenda. I did not see that agenda play out in B.C.. I only saw a proclamation of a Gospel that saves people’s souls.
What would be a positive way to express someone who holds to such views of faith? That Johnny Hart held to the historic tenets of the Christian faith?
The use of labels in such a selective way does demean the audience such periodicals seek to embrace. Gee, you think that might be a reason people aren’t so eager to pay for said papers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:08 pm
I just wish the WPost had added that they *did* drop the Sunday strip - too Christian apparently - and that we here at the WTimes immediately snapped it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:10 pm
What would be a positive way to express someone who holds to such views of faith? That Johnny Hart held to the historic tenets of the Christian faith?
I think the use of the term ‘orthodox’ would serve well here, provided it didn’t get capitalized accidentally and make the person a member of the Eastern Church if they were not.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:26 pm
The old meaning of fundamentalist was useful, but today in most contexts it just means something like “having a degree of religiosity, or adhering to particular religious doctrines or behaviors, that seem strange to urban elites.” While this may convey useful information to urban elites, it doesn’t do much of anything for the rest of us.
What’s a fundamentalist Muslim? A Salafist, a jihadist, an Islamist, a Wahhabi, someone who rejects certain modernizing interpretations of the Koran, one who has a certain view of women, or what?
Is a fundamentalist Christian a biblical literalist, a socially conservative Christian, or a loudmouthed Christian?
Truthfully I don’t see how the obit would have been at all changed by just calling Mr. Hart a Christian and leaving it at that.
P.S. Mormon fundamentalist does mean something to me. Its a member of any Mormon splinter group that still advocates polygamy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:29 pm
Evangelical is accurate.
Conservative Christian in accurate.
A Presbyterian evangelical is really accurate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:55 pm
I agree that “fundamentalist” has virtually no place in a news story these days, unless it is inside a quote. As for “Presbyterian evangelical,” that may be really accurate, but it’s journalistically useless, Terry. How many of our readers would have a clue about what that exactly means? I’d go with “conservative Christian,” along with an example or two of some of positions/behaviors to illustrate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 1:58 pm
JEFFREY:
Is it meaningless to say someone is a Presbyterian pastor?
Or are you saying that this word now requires a further denominational qualifier?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 2:26 pm
Hello, if the strip is called B.C>, how the heck are the cavemen constantly talking about Christ? Are these cavemen psychic? It makes no sense. I don’t mind someone injecting a religious message into their work, but it angers me to think that he didn’t respect the very premise of his comic strip: people living before Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 2:42 pm
Carl - I hope you’re making a joke… It’s difficult to determine your “tone” in the comments section.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 2:43 pm
Agreed, the word “fundamentalist” should be banished from all news copy apart from direct quotes and, I suppose, anyone who self-identifies as a fundamentalist (are there any left?).
But I would have liked to see a little more about Hart’s specific beliefs. “Conservative Christian” is convenient shorthand, but it’s vague and subject to many interpretations. “Evangelical Presbyterian,” I think, does the job nicely. Admittedly, though, America’s confessional IQ is probably pretty low at this point.
Also, Carl: the strip also features talking ants who smoke pipes and go to elementary school. I think some logical inconsistencies in a comic strip should probably be taken at face value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 3:30 pm
In reading the original definition of “fundamentalist” it struck me that, though Catholics hold these same “fundamental” doctrines you never see the phrase “Fundamentalist Catholic”—usually the perjorative for a believing orthodox Catholic is “Dogmatic Catholic” or “Right-wing Catholic” or “Medieval Catholic.” In the case of Hart I don’t know why the media couldn’t simply have said “devout Christian,” or “strong Christian.” It seems that much of the MSM is determined to use words that are demeaning or perjorative when it comes to describing a Christian of any church or denomination who is not a “card-carrying” Modernist or isn’t strongly UNorthodox enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 4:02 pm
They never got around to complaining that the strip wasn’t called “BCE”, which would’ve been more politically correct…Also, I think Hart told the truth too much, as when he revealed that clams got legs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 4:25 pm
Milton Caniff did plenty of explicitly religious strips, and in full color detail, too. And I seem to remember that Johnny Hart did religious strips even back in the 70’s, and on a fairly regular basis.
Ah, the memory hole.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 5:00 pm
Fundamentalism has been applied correctly to Johnny Hart.
He is as fundamental as they come. He used the term about himself many times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 5:30 pm
George W.
Got a URL for one of those? I followed him closely for years (due to a common friend) and never saw him do that.
Gotta watch out for those fundamentalist Presbyterians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 9:39 pm
Maybe it’s just my obtuseness, but I could never really appreciate the obvious references to Christianity in B.C., that seemed a bit contrived at times, but maybe it’s just me. I’d much rather analyze the barbs against Christianity in Funky Winkerbean and Doonesbury, or the self-criticism and open-ended questions of Kudzu or Peanuts. And Dilbert has got to be a classic on human behavior. Even Garfield drops the occasional gem. I’m glad there are Christians in the profession; I just wish they’d be a little more Lewis’ like (C. S., I mean), and less Billy Graham?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 9:44 pm
Oh, and don’t use the words “conservative Christian” down here in the South. They can mean only one thing—swallowing the whole system, kind of like Islam—doctrinal views, political views, and sociological, including the practice of all of the above.
Ah, labels. They jam the machinery of daily life even more than they do my ancient, creaky, HP Ink-jet printer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 10:01 pm
Some newspapers canceled the strip. Others, including The Post, pulled it selectively. On at least one occasion, the Los Angeles Times relocated it to the religion page. The Times initially canceled the strip — scheduled to run on Palm Sunday 1996 — showing Wiley drafting a poem about Jesus’s suffering on the cross.”
I’m shocked that nobody has commented on the blaitantly Christophobic behavior of the vairious newspapers that dropped the strip.
(BTW why is it when a conservative show or strip gets cut it is “dropped” but when a liberal is cut it is instantly “censorship”…?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 10:41 pm
“Do journalists have a right to redefine words in this manner, even when guides to journalistic style and ethics urge them not to do so?”
Journalists do this all the time, of course. And then some of them justify the tactic on blogs such as this. I am tired of journalists overloading and redefining terms. It is a political tactic, and the overloaded or redefined term is almost always used in a negative way.
Did any of the obits comment on The Wizard of Id, which Hart co-authored?
I wonder if any of the obits for Charles Schulz called him a Fundamentalist or Evangelical for “A Charlie Brown Christmas”. When Schulz insisted that the climax of the cartoon would be Linus reciting the Christmas story from the Bible, CBS executives were aghast and pronounced that the cartoon wasn’t funny and would be a dismal failure. At least the knuckleheads didn’t edit the show, like the brilliant brass at NBC have been doing with VeggieTales cartoons. Heaven forbid that a child should hear a vegetable uttering, “God made you special, and He loves you very much.” Offensive to those six-year-old atheists.
Rest in peace, Johnny Hart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2007, at 11:33 pm
Obviously, Carl never read the B.C. strip.
And Dennis — I would identify myself as an Anglican Fundamentalist. I have no problem with the term. If there are still newspapers when I am transferred to the Church Triumphant, they can even use it in my obit.!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 7:53 am
I remember reading and enjoying B.C. when I was a boy. I’ve continued to enjoy it over the years. I will miss it.
I agree that the word fundamentalist has, unfortunately, become a pejorative. Some people do continue to describe themselves with the word, though. (I used to, before becoming a liberal Episcopalian. Now I boldly use the dreaded L word “liberal” to describe myself.)
I would think that the only acceptable use of the word fundamentalist in the press would be in a context like this: “Hart, who described himself as a fundamentalist Christian…” IF he did indeed describe himself that way. Otherwise, “conservative Christian” or one of the other terms tmatt suggested should be used.
I’m confused by the use of the term “fundamental Christian” ~ what exactly does that mean? Are they trying to say “fundamentalist Christian”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 12:48 pm
Did you notice _this_ strip referencing the NY Times last month?
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20070315.html
wonder if it was provoked by anything particular?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 2:29 pm
My impression, again from my own experience of the people around me, is that the popular meaning of “fundamentalist” is something like “anyone who has the effrontery to actually believe the stuff.” If this totally strains the bounds of credibility, then the target is labeled “Catholic”, no matter what his actual theology or denomination. (Then again, I have seen Tolkien called “Anglican”.)
And I have actually heard remarks like “They’re Catholics or Unitarians or something.”
I think the people who talk like this are Republicans or Communists or something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 3:19 pm
I know nothing about Hart’s politics or religion, but the phrase “conservative Christian” certainly suggests a political bent, whether intended or not.
If he was Presbyterian, the term “evangelical,” though possible, also doesn’t seem apt. Instead of characterizing Hart’s Christianity, it should be sufficient to note that he was an active Presbyterian or an active Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 5:00 pm
If you want some insight into Hart’s politics, check out this strip from the 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor: http://wizardishungry.com/blog/_/2007/04/bcstrip7dec2006lq8.png
Also I don’t see the free speech issue. No one was calling for his strip to be banned, right? Is there some hidden complication, or is this the all-too-common mistake of calling something censorship when it’s simply not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 12, 2007, at 6:46 pm
Herb, for the same reason that protesting performances of “Sister Mary Ignatius” or “The Vagina Monologues”, or a Catholic church refusing to provide performance space for Tom Disch’s tirade “The Cardinal Detoxes” is “censorship” and “a threat to free speech”, while Jewish groups objecting to a Cloisters performance of the Benediktbeuern Passion is not. Clear as Gowanus Canal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 13, 2007, at 1:45 pm
I do wonder why some people find religious viewpoints offensive in cartoons, but not social or political viewpoints. A fellow reporter at my newspaper complained about Hart “pushing his religious views.†I mentioned Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury and Berke Breathed of the late Bloom County. “That’s different,†the other reporter said. But he didn’t say how.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 13, 2007, at 4:15 pm
I know I’m jumping in this late, but I think it needs to be said that Hart was not criticized for being a Christian, but for his snarky treatment of non-christians. The only timne I think I can remember being ofended by a cartoon was opening the paper one day and seeing that hideous outhouse strip. (The menorah cross was pretty bad, too)
Hart’s christianity was not expressed thoughfully or wittily, it was often confrontational and coarse. Another commenter asks about Charles Schultz, whose gentle evangelizing WAS mentioned in obits, and afaik, without any criticism. Where Hart snarked, Schultz communicated a sense of wonder, I don’t recall that he ever used his strip to criticize or denigrate other faiths.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 13, 2007, at 6:53 pm
James, I think I can answer your question- Doonesbury et al are social commentaries, so mention of these topics was expected. BC was, the vast majority of the time, a joke/gag strip, where the author’s pov was mostly neutral, so religious commentary sticks out. The comic is sold as a funny, and when it gets pointed, it’s a bit of a betrayal. I think it would have been equally jarring if Calvin and Hobbes made Dan Qayle jokes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 15, 2007, at 4:19 pm
“Hart’s christianity was not expressed thoughfully or wittily, it was often confrontational and coarse.”
That’s your opinion, Jennifer. Also, the decision by Schulz was made in 1966, when the press was more accepting of works with blatant Christian themes. “Ben-Hur” was just six or seven years earlier. How many Academy Awards would it win today? How would a cartoon with a child reading the traditional Christmas story and stating, “That’s what Christmas is all about” be received (by the press) today? It probably would not be characterized as “thoughtful”. It certainly wasn’t witty, because Schulz didn’t intend it to be.
“I do wonder why some people find religious viewpoints offensive in cartoons, but not social or political viewpoints.”
They find it offensive only if they disagree with it. And then they label the cartoonist with a term that is used only in the pejorative sense by their publications.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 16, 2007, at 12:29 pm
Another perspective on Johnny Hart:
http://www.dickstaub.com/culturewatch.php?record_id=1130
Like or Dislike:
0 
0