📜 “Atwood didn’t misunderstand Christian fundamentalism—she exposed it.”
I find this post both interesting and a little disturbing because it criticizes Margaret Atwood—a scholar of English Literature who studied 17th-century religious writing at Harvard—as if she somehow “didn’t understand” Christian fundamentalism.
I’m currently researching Religion and Misuse of Power, one of the core themes of The Handmaid’s Tale, and I can say with confidence that Atwood didn’t misunderstand Christian fundamentalism. She understood it so well that she stripped it of its euphemisms and showed its raw logic.
🔍 The misconception: “She should’ve used real-life American cults like Mormons, JWs, or the Amish”
That statement completely misses the foundation of Gilead’s belief system. The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t built on fringe “American cults.” It’s built on the roots of American Protestant theocracy—specifically the Puritan worldview that shaped early colonial law, gender hierarchy, and moral discipline.
Atwood deliberately said there’s nothing in the book that hasn’t happened somewhere at some time. She wasn’t inventing a cult; she was resurrecting history. Every law, punishment, and ritual in Gilead has a real-world precedent in Puritan or Biblical tradition.
🕰️ The Puritan legacy—America’s first theocracy
• The Puritans believed in shaping an entire society according to literal Biblical law.
• Women’s bodies and reproduction were controlled as part of a divine covenant with God.
• Dissent was punished, public confession and moral surveillance were normalized.
• The line between church and state didn’t exist—religion was government.
That’s not a misunderstanding of fundamentalism; that is fundamentalism in its purest form. Gilead isn’t some cult on the fringe—it’s what happens when mainstream patriarchal religion becomes the state itself.
🕌 The “Christianity + Islam” argument is just wrong
Nothing in Gilead’s theology comes from Islam. The rituals, greetings, and modesty codes come straight from the Old Testament and Puritan Christianity. The red garments, head coverings, and strict moral codes existed in Protestant societies long before anyone associated them with Islam.
Saying Atwood “mixed Islam and Christianity” reveals more about modern Western bias than it does about the book.
⚖️ Why she didn’t use Mormons, JWs, or the Amish
Why it doesn’t fit Gilead
Hierarchical and prophetic, but not a state-run theocracy—Gilead isn’t about one prophet, it’s about institutional power.
Why it doesn’t fit Gilead
Apocalyptic but non-violent and anti-political—opposite of Gilead’s militarism.
Why it doesn’t fit Gilead
Pacifist and isolationist, not authoritarian or misogynistic in this way.
The blueprint for theocratic America—scriptural law, patriarchal hierarchy, and state-enforced morality.
Atwood chose the Puritans because they’re the real American theocracy, the one we like to forget was real.
Atwood didn’t misunderstand Christian fundamentalism—she understood it too well. She exposed how easily its language of purity, obedience, and divine order can become a system of control.
Gilead isn’t a cult. It’s a mirror.
This post is by no means meant to criticize the original commenter. My intent is to enlighten and encourage a deeper understanding of Margaret Atwood’s work and the historical context that shaped The Handmaid’s Tale. Please accept it in the spirit that it’s given
