Is Fundamentalism failing?

In a recent essay for the Boston Globe, Harvey Cox asserted that fundamentalist religion is and will fail. Interested readers can access the article at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/.

Cox believes that:
The very nature of human religiousness is changing in a way inimical to fundamentalist thought. The most rapidly growing spiritual groups today focus not on someone else’s authority, but on a direct encounter with the divine. Whatever else it may mean that so many people call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” it suggests they still yearn for contact with the sacred, but are suspicious of the scaffolding, the doctrines, and hierarchies through which it has often been conveyed.

He concludes:
But a tectonic shift in religion is underway, and the fundamentalist moment is ending. A new and promising chapter in the long story of human faith is beginning. Its untidiness often reminds me of the exuberant earliest years of Christianity. Maturity comes with time. Future historians may look back on the 20th century as a time when something called “fundamentalism” interrupted, but only briefly, the age-old human search for a way to live in the face of mystery, and to envision what Martin Luther King called a “beloved community.”

As one who came from a very conservative Christian community and who studied "fundamentalist" expressions of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism and who has seen the power of that type of religion, I would not be as confident as Cox is. What do you think?

Culture Wars

Conservative Christians in America, and elsewhere, define the "life-or-death" issues for the world as: homosexuality (and all things relating to equal rights for the LGBT), abortion, and the perceived discrimination against conservative Christians.

In case you doubt that, an influential group of conservative Christians crafted and signed a declaration - the Manhattan Declaration - proclaiming they were no longer going to acquiesce to the depraved culture and were going to stand up for their rights. Quoting from said declaration:
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

I read this declaration this week as I read two other pieces. One was a news piece about pending legislation in Uganda. According to a story by Geoffrey York in the Globe and Mail,
The Commonwealth convenes for a summit this week amid growing furor over a proposed law that would impose life imprisonment on homosexuals in Uganda, whose President is chairing the gathering.

The law, proceeding through Uganda's Parliament and supported by some of its top leaders, would imprison anyone who knows of the existence of a gay or lesbian and fails to inform the police within 24 hours. It requires the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" – defined as any sexual act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

The second was an essay written by John Shelby Spong who proclaimed,
The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

So, who do you think is right?