Fundamentalism Blows

[Scoobmaster]

Welcome

Welcome GM!

I am fairly new around these forums also (but I admit to a long history of lurking )

You echo my sentiments perfectly. I frequently have "over-the-partition" debates with my co-worker (a die-hard Christian fundy) and the close-minded thinking is scary. On one afternoon I told him that if enough indisputable evidence ever turned up I would have no problem accepting that he was right (I quickly added that I think it HIGHLY UNLIKELY - but not IMPOSSIBLE) I then turned the question around on him and asked that if irrefutable evidence turned up that FALSIFIED his beliefs would he yield and change his mind. His answer (a scary one, but one I expected) was a resounding NO! followed by NEVER. He then began rambling on about "truth is truth" and he KNOWS THE truth............

 

[MLynn]

Re: Welcome

Welcome GM!

I am fairly new around these forums also (but I admit to a long history of lurking )

You echo my sentiments perfectly. I frequently have "over-the-partition" debates with my co-worker (a die-hard Christian fundy) and the close-minded thinking is scary. On one afternoon I told him that if enough indisputable evidence ever turned up I would have no problem accepting that he was right (I quickly added that I think it HIGHLY UNLIKELY - but not IMPOSSIBLE) I then turned the question around on him and asked that if irrefutable evidence turned up that FALSIFIED his beliefs would he yield and change his mind. His answer (a scary one, but one I expected) was a resounding NO! followed by NEVER. He then began rambling on about "truth is truth" and he KNOWS THE truth............

You've brought up some things I've been thinking about a lot lately. Before the terrorist attack on 9/11/01, I was sort of in the moderate to fundie realm of christianity. Since then I have done much thinking and although I know in my very deepest being I will always be a Xian, I am more moderate in my beliefs and practice. If someone were to give me the proof I needed to be an a-theist - well, then I'd have to do more thinking (I like to think). On April 1st I "pretended" to be an atheist for the day and it was an interesting experience. The worst part was being stuck with De_Bunk's Gellar avatar most of the day!

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by GM

...everything that my folks did in regards to my religious tutelage came from a position of love. In true abuse situations, it isn’t about love, it’s about control.

I agree. In fact, perhaps one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalism is the lack of any distinction between love and control.

My personal experience as a parent is that there is often a very blurry line between doing what I feel will make the child a better person and doing what I feel will make me a better parent. It seems inevitable that at least some of the time, my focus will be on the latter. That is fine and dandy as long as my motivation for being a good parent is entirely for my child's benefit -- but I would be lying to myself and to you if I claimed that this is always the case. The truth is that I also have some purely selfish reasons for wanting not only to be a good parent, but to be seen being a good parent. When the kid isn't going along with that game plan is when the (unavoidable) control aspect of parenting can become destructive.

 

[tdn]

I agree. In fact, perhaps one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalism is the lack of any distinction between love and control.

It's not so much a characteristic of fundamentalism as it is of abuse, but often times the two go hand in hand.

This book explains the correlation beautifully, although it certainly does have a bit of a left wing bias. I recommend it because it is a great read, and in no way endorse it purely for the fact that my girlfried wrote it and if you buy lots of copies then she will get millions in royalties and then I will get to live with her in a beach house in Hawaii.

Honest.

 

[Checkmite]

Greetings, GM.

We've all had run-ins with fundamentalists. Although I was never raised in a fundamentalist-saturated environment, a short while ago I had my own run-in; you can read about it in this thread.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by GM

I think open communication can occur with fundamentalists of all stripes if relationship building occurs first.

I'm not sure if relationship building is a necessary precursor to open communication, or if it's the other way around. I have a hard time seeing fundamentalism as being conducive to either:

(Jesus said):
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter againds her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
-Matthew 11:34

All too often though, the first order of business seems to be along the lines of protecting oneself against individuals who have chosen to cling to such a doctrine; any communicating or relationship building that is going to happen needs to follow along after. Having said that, I will also share with you that several of my closest personal friends are fundamentalist Christians. With one in particular, I have had many stimulating theological discussions, which occassionally have become rather heated. There seems to be a mutual understanding that we both stand to gain from learning to disagree with a system of beliefs (or lack thereof) without disrespecting the person as an individual. That isn't always easy, yet we have both somehow been willing to work on it. (The key word there being 'both').

To say that my folks abused me is unfair to them and also unfair to real victims of abuse. I’m no victim.

I think the term currently in fashion is: survivor.

The reason he clings to his beliefs is because of fear, I guarantee it.

That is a point well taken. I consider it forgiveable (if somewhat rude and presumptuous) when a so-called 'believer' seeks vicarious relief from the torment of his own doubts by trying to win me as a convert to his belief system. I may even discuss it with him if I have time, and if I am in the mood (which may or may not be the case if he has accosted me on my front doorstep or in some other inappropriate manner). But if I do, it will be with the awareness that his emotional investment in the outcome of the conversation will be greater than mine; he has come to me, driven by his own emotional needs. In years past, I think I failed to recognize my responsibility in such a situation; youthful self-centeredness was an obstacle to compassion. But even now that I am able to see the sufferring that drives that sort of behavior, it still isn't easy to decide what the most compassionate course is. In any case, I will do something no child is capable of doing, and that is whatever is necessary to insure that he understands that I will expect him to respect my personal boundaries. Conversion by forceful coercion doesn't fly in the free society in which I live, a point which apparently still manages to escape some fundamentalists.

 

[The GM]

Dynamic,
We're all 'survivors' in a fashion, aren't we?
I admire people who have been brutalized in one form or another and pick up the pieces and move on, really I do. Because of this, I won't put myself on the 'woe is me' train. Yeah, fundamentalism has scared me, I think it's designed to do exactly that. What I don't understand is why so called faith 'leaders' feel the need to use scare tactics to get their message out. I refuse to live in fear, so I guess fundamentalism couldn't keep its hold on me. Also important to note that my break with that way of thinking was not pain free. There was lots of self doubt and what ifs going through my head. In the end, it was compassionate people, not abrasive ones who helped me think it through. So when I see people go on flame bait campaigns to these fundy sites, I cringe a bit because I know they are driving the people they want to help away.

On a slightly related topic, I have a JW who comes to my home the second Monday of every month like clockwork. He's an old guy, pretty polite. Knocks on the door, asks me how I'm doing and other small talk. He drops off a copy of the Watchtower and Awake and tells me to give them a read. He never tries to enter my home, he respects my personal space, and as a result, I'm nice to him. By definition, he's a fundy, through and through, but damned if he acts like it. I bet he gets the 'word' out more by being friendly than by doing crap like what happened to Joshua in the mall. Sometimes I read his magazines, sometimes I don't have the time and pitch them. Point being, fundies don't have to scare people to get them to listen. This particular JW has figured that out...not that I'm going to join their cult anytime soon! Why do other fundies assume they have to scare Jesus into you? I would again cast the spotlight on their leadership, who teaches them by word and deed to do those kind of acts.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

We're all 'survivors' in a fashion, aren't we?

Actually, not all of 'us' are.

 

[The GM]

Yeah, that's some pretty sick $#!+. Clearly abusive and insane. I never was a part of or witnessed anything like that. Even with my faith healing experience, I was still taken to optomitrists and doctors.
Although would you agree that such degrees of fanatacism are the minority even in the fundamentalist community? I think this is clearly the case otherwise we'd be hearing about this sort of thing all the time. Also, as a caveat, I would add that child abuse isn't the sole providence of fundamentalist parents by a long shot. (Not that I think you're implying that.)
Some people are abusive, some kids die. This blows, no matter the religious leanings of those involved.

 

[the_ignored]

Oh, thank you - you are SO much nicer than those so-called Xians at RR! And yes, I will bring chips galore!

The irony is, if you use the word "Xian" on RR, they get mad!

From Christine, a mod there<~~from one of the most messed up threads I've ever seen on that site:

Take your arguments to the Apologetics forum. You won't be asked again.

Oh, and if I see you refer to the members of this board anywhere on this board by the derogatory term, "xians" again, you are outta here. If you want to stay, have a bit of respect for your hosts.

We, on the other hand, even tolerate "death threats", right, Riddick?

Too bad Christine seems ignorant of history: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/xmasabbr.asp

Oh yeah, Welcome to the forum "The GM"! I just keep getting off into these rants. That's why they ignore me. Yeah, the people here won't give you any trouble...the one who would are the very few who give all of us trouble! Heh


With thanks to WinAce for help in digging up some info...

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

...I never was a part of or witnessed anything like that...

I understand. While what you described in your opening post is merely disturbing, the examples shown on the site I linked are deeply disturbing. So it is a matter of degree.

Although would you agree that such degrees of fanatacism are the minority even in the fundamentalist community?

I guess I tend to consider 'fanaticism' and 'fundamentalism' to be roughly equivalent in meaning, though I am prepared to be corrected on this if I am mistaken.

Some people are abusive, some kids die. This blows, no matter the religious leanings of those involved.

I certainly agree with that. I am of the opinion that abuse can be emotional or psychological as well as physical. I also feel that certain kinds actions of may qualify as 'abuse' even though they do not result in death, and they may qualify as abuse even though far worse examples may be found.

Maybe we can take it as a given that parents who become abusive are emotionally unbalanced, and perhaps even go so far as to speculate that the same types of emotional imbalance which drive people to substance abuse and other forms of self-destructive behavior may as easily lead them to fanaticism and fundamentalism, whether the focus be religious, or political, or even something to do with celebrities, or Star Trek, or whatever.

When a crack addict mother lets her children go hungry because she spent all her money on dope, one way of looking at it is that she was doing the best she could with the emotional tools she had, just that her best wasn't very good. It might well be that heaping blame upon her would not serve as part of a solution -- but then, neither would denying the fact that she neglected her kids.

But this thread really isn't about crack addict mothers or any of those other things, it's about fundamentalism, and why it 'blows'. I think one of the reasons it blows is that it encourages a style of parenting which causes deep emotional scarring. As is the case with domestic violence and substance abuse, this creates a self-pepetuating cycle -- which may go a long way toward explaining how such primitive superstitions have persisted for so long. Identifying the perpetrators as such might not be of much value in the healing process, but on the other hand, neither is denying that they did anything wrong -- the pedagogy of fire and brimstone is a form of brutality (period).

 

[The GM]

Thanks again for the warm welcomes!


Back to Dynamic’s thought provoking points. Let’s toss some definitions out there.

fa•nat•i•cism (f -n t -s z m)
n.
Excessive, irrational zeal.

fun•da•men•tal•ism (f n d -m n tl- z m)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

So while fanaticism can certainly be a part of fundamentalism (we’re seeing a lot of this in the Middle East right now, for instance) fanaticism can also apply to any number of non religious situations. Fundamentalism is a philosophy, fanaticism is more like a mental disorder, no religion required.
As for blame, I think it should be assigned. Would I blame the parents? Sure, ignorance is no excuse for what happened to those kids. But the people I’d really go after are the ‘leaders’ who these people consulted in each one of those case studies who specifically told them not to seek medical help. The leaders were looked upon as the ‘authority’ on such matters, they willfully accepted that position of authority, and they should pay the consequences, period, end of story.
This leads back to my point, which is that I have trouble dumping on Joe Fundy. He lives in fear, fear propagated by the authority figures in his church/mosque/temple/ whatever. It’s the leaders, those who assume power and control over those living in fear who should be directly challenged, whether that be through debate, litigation, or incarceration. In the meantime, what do you do with old Joe? I think you use patience and compassion to punch through the fear. It’s easier to reach out when someone is already reaching for you.
I could be rambling again, though.
I am interested in solutions the fundy communication block. I’ve read all of the RR threads, obviously sarcasm and trading of insults doesn’t work. It drives people like that deeper into their fears for a whole host of reasons that I talked to Atlas about earlier. Any thoughts on solutions? Bueller?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

This leads back to my point, which is that I have trouble dumping on Joe Fundy. He lives in fear, fear propagated by the authority figures in his church/mosque/temple/ whatever. It’s the leaders, those who assume power and control over those living in fear who should be directly challenged, whether that be through debate, litigation, or incarceration. In the meantime, what do you do with old Joe? I think you use patience and compassion to punch through the fear. It’s easier to reach out when someone is already reaching for you

I'm with you, and I agree, it's a tough one. For one thing, challenging leaders often seems only to serve to reinforce the hold they have over their minions. But as soon as we start thinking in terms of 'punching through', we may already be off on the wrong track. I find that keeping my own side of the street clean is usually enough to keep me pretty busy, and I feel that before I can ever be of much help to anyone else, I need to start there.

 

[JAR]

If a religion is true, I should take it seriously and be a religious fundamentalist.

If a religion is not true, then I shouldn't practice it all.

There is no in-between. A diety doesn't kind of exist and kind of not exist. He or she either exists or doesn't exist.

 

[MLynn]

Hey, GM - I read your 6:53 a.m. post and thought about what might break through the fear. I even went back to the RR website to get an idea of the where the posters' heads are at. Sorry to say that even I, a christian myself, would not fit in at RR. The word, "entrenched" comes to mind.

I don't think I could get through to them, so how could anyone else? Being at JREF is a breath of fresh air. Checking out RR with all the flaming, angry "smilies" was kinda creepy.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I just posted a thread on peoples' opinions that atheism will doom us all.

Reading GM's posts reminds me of why people think that, but I've seen people express the opposite in this thread.

My son started going to a church with another family a few times a month. He saw a kid accidently drip some icecream onto a car, and my son said that kid wasn't a christian because he was bad.

I had a few things to say. He now says he is basically agnostic.

All I can say is, even with the extremism GM grew up questioning it.

There was a debate once over whether people are born religious or not. It seems to me people are born and they can be prone to go one way or the other.

Were some people born skeptics? Seems so. Skeptics can be religious as I've seen a lot of religious folks here that are also wonderfully skeptic. Would that be the best of both worlds?

I don't know. No matter what, I cannot come up with how there can be any gods or deities or whatever. Cannot reconcile that with my other knowledge on how things work. I love science labs. They make sense.

Keep that critical light burning!

 

[Fordama]

If a religion is true, I should take it seriously and be a religious fundamentalist.

If a religion is not true, then I shouldn't practice it all.

There is no in-between. A diety doesn't kind of exist and kind of not exist. He or she either exists or doesn't exist.

Whether or not one is a fundamentalist isn't a measure of how "serious" one is about god. It's a matter of how the religious texts that you believe are to be translated. Fundamentalist tend to be literalists to an extent, and yes, if you think you are getting exact information from god's mouth I guess it would tend to make anyone more fanatic. If one thinks the writings are more like parables to help guide people through their lives then one is probably going to be less fanatical.

Fordama

 

[Atlas]

What makes a fanatic? Not all fundamentalists are.

There seems to be moment of awakening to a fundamental truth that changes us into zealots.

A smoker who quits is awakened to the addictiveness and destructiveness of the habit in the struggle to quit and often becomes zealous in the effort to awaken and change others. They can be rude and insensitive in their effort to "help" you see the light.

A non-Christian can find himself in a low moment where he is awakened to the truth of his own sinfulness which transforms him into a zealot for the Lord. Ready to pick up the sword if need be to "help" others meet God.

Islamic truths are just as transforming but they hold nonbelievers in even lower esteem that other religionists.

When a believer is awakened to the truth of the underpinnings of their own beliefs they can become the zealous skeptic that denies any belief that does not meet an observed standard and will seek zealously to change in others those same beliefs he once held precious.

How can you communicate with fanatics and fundamentalists. Well, with the fanatic a blunt instrument helps - or else you must become a fanatic. There really isn't any good way to communicate for they have divorced themselves from reason.

For fundamentalists it's a little different. Knowing the terrain is absolutely necessary in my opinion. If they are Bible literalists, that is the filter through which all of life is strained. Unless you know how to present ideas that will pass through the filter you'll be talking to a wall.

Within the broad terrain there is often a special path that allows for interchange. It can be the concept of authority, or love, or parenthood, or just family in general. If this filter can be found and substituted between say, Christians and Atheists, there can be mutual respect and useful exchange about all the important ideas either side may harbor. The ideas must always be presented in such a way that it will pass through the other person's filter. Otherwise the two are speaking different languages, and talking more slowly or more loudly only increases frustrations and anger.

 

[JAR]

Up above I accidentally said, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it all."

I meant to say, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it at all."

 

[Graham]

Up above I accidentally said, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it all."

I meant to say, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it at all."

I like the original version - most religions have at least some good parts buried in the ridculous supstitions and dumbass rituals.

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" - 1 Thesselonians, I believe, used to be my school motto.

Dump the crap and keep the good bits, in other words.

Graham