'Growing Up Fundamentalist'

Last weekend, after months of pestering, I got my old Christian Service Brigade uniform shirt out of the attic. My wife never quite believed it was real, so finally I had to show it to her, struggling to remember what all of the various achievement patches I had earned were for.

The slacktivixen finds the whole idea of Christian Service Brigade hilarious. “Fundamentalist Boy Scouts?” she says, laughing. “What — the Boy Scouts were too worldly?”

Yep. For our church, they were. But I’m still kind of proud of all those patches. Worked hard for those. And I kind of regret not sticking with it all the way to Herald for Christ. (That would be the fundie version of an Eagle Scout. Stop laughing.)

So with that going on here, an old book caught my eye on the shelf. I’d read Stefan Ulstein’s Growing Up Fundamentalist back when it first came out in 1995, and I’ve just finished re-reading it.

It’s not a memoir. Or, rather, it is, but it’s not Ulstein’s memoir. He interviewed more than 100 former fundamentalists, selecting 22 of those interviews for the book.

“No two stories are identical,” he says, “but the reader will probably see common threads woven throughout the narratives.”

Ulstein proves to be an encouraging and accommodating interviewer, getting his subjects to open up and tell their stories in their own voices without intruding or trying to steer the conversation in a particular direction. He’s not trying to prove a thesis in this book, just to let these people talk so that others can listen.

Ulstein himself is almost invisible in the chapters of this book, but when he does appear, he comes across as a friendly, compassionate fellow. He likes these people, and he is determined to respect them by getting their stories right.

One of the rare instances in which we catch a glimpse of him comes from a section where he surfaces briefly, mainly just to give us a better sense of the personality of the woman he’s interviewing. Where that really comes through is in her zinging him after he asks a dumb question. He cut have cut this section to make himself look better, but he left it in to provide readers with a clearer picture of this awesome woman. Ulstein’s questions and comments are in italics.

One woman had a very abusive husband, and she had gotten the idea, from a Christian seminar, that she should endure it. She had taken the whole ‘submit to your husband’ teaching very literally, so she would have sex on demand with this guy who hit her and wouldn’t let her get a driver’s license.

Then, here’s the part that makes me want to scream: a local Christian counselor told her to kneel and assume the position of Christ in Gethsemane while her husband beat her. This was supposed to increase her knowledge of Christ and be a witness to her husband.

I take it this counselor was a man?

She looks at me like I’m the village idiot. Yes, as a matter of fact he was a man — now that you mention it. She grins, wondering if I get the sarcasm.

Dumb question. Please continue.

I can’t imagine a female counselor coming up with a crazy … fantasy like that, can you? …

It would be difficult to read all these stories without coming to share Ulstein’s affection for this diverse set of storytellers. Some of them have reclaimed some new, healthier version of their earlier faith. Others have embraced other spiritual paths. Some left fundamentalism for intellectual reasons, others due to the horrible treatment they received in that tradition. Some of the stories are funny, others are harrowing. Some are — remarkably — both.

But these are strong people and few of them seem bitter — not even those who have every right to be. They’re an impressive bunch, as most people are when you get to know them with the care and attention Ulstein gives to his interviewees.

I know from discussions in comments that I’m not the only one around here who also grew up fundamentalist. If you did too, I think you’ll find this collection of stories encouraging and insightful.

Your own story probably isn’t exactly like any of these, but as Ulstein says, “the reader will probably see common threads woven throughout the narratives.” I share some of those common threads. If you think you might as well, then you might want to check out Growing Up Fundamentalist.

  • Beatrix

    Impressive.

  • Lori

     Because most people would just hear “blah blah blah nation debt blah blah welfare/military blah blah blah” and not understand it, or _care_.  

    blah blah blah there’s a Democrat in the White House blah blah blah And OMG he’s Black blah blah blah. 

  • Anonymous

    Considering that the same person who gave me that book, also gave me a copy of a book that treats the “Prayer of Jabez” as a magical spell to Make Everything Right…..no, they don’t.

  • Beatrix

    Yes, Lori.  You’re not entering the worst existential and financial crisis in over a century.  You’re just up against a bunch of hillbillies who hate a President with a tan. 

  • Lori

     Considering that the same person who gave me that book, also gave me a copy of a book that treats the “Prayer of Jabez” as a magical spell to Make Everything Right…..no, they don’t. 

     

    You have to admire Bruce Wilkinson in a way. He took 2 measly verses in 1 Chronicles (a book most people never read) which record a prayer which is completely unremarkable save for it’s obviousness and the fact that it may be the most selfish prayer in the entire Bible. He turned those verses into not one book, but a whole series. The whole prayer can be summed up in 1 word, gimme, and Wilkinson has made millions turning that into multiple books aimed at people who are supposedly Christians. 

    There’s true evil genius in that. 

  • Beatrix

    Total global catastrophe will be awful for everyone, but I will have this to comfort myself:  Lori was wong! Hahahahahahaha

    But then I’ll remember that Lori’s a lefty, and no lefty has ever admitted to being wrong about anything.  Herded into a burqa or starving in a ditch, Lori will go down blaming Bush.  Or The Patriarchy.  Or Capitalism.  Or Sexism.  Or Racism.  Or Something.

    Fiddle-dee-fucking-dee.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    “Worst existential crisis”?  You mean compared to getting into a war with two sets of genocidal megalmaniacs and Italy or being in a planet-spanning nuclear standoff with the Godless Communist Evil Empire?  

    Smoke a bowl of Perspective and simmer down.

  • Lori

     Yes, Lori.  You’re not entering the worst existential and financial crisis in over a century.  You’re just up against a bunch of hillbillies who hate a President with a tan.  

    You know how you keep complaining when I call you ignorant? The fact that this is what you’ve gotten out of the last few threads about the budget crisis is a perfect example of why I say that. Your reading comprehension skills are not up to the task of participating effectively in written communication.  IOW, you are a total waste of time here.  

  • Beatrix

    Yes, dear.

  • Lori

     and no lefty has ever admitted to being wrong about anything  

    Thus speaks the person who said that the shooting in Norway was obviously the work of violent Muslims, then when the shooter was found to be a Norwegian who self-identifies as Christian (of a sort) reiterated the belief that there must be some Islamist connection, never took that back and has since repeatedly claimed to stand by every statement she’s made while posting here. 

    Pot. Kettle. Black.   

  • hagsrus

    Beatrix has adopted “yes, dear”…

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    My experience of trying to explain it is that many people are simply not prepared to listen.

    Either they have an ingrained “debt = bad” reaction which they project from personal debt onto government debt, which is strongly encouraged by politicians who have an agenda involving cutting spending; any time you see the national debt computed as a per-capita number, or a reference to the “government’s credit card”, or any implication that the debt is a burden on future generations, you’re seeing this agenda in play.

    Or they don’t believe that the people who are supposed to be running the system (not necessarily just ordinary politicians but central bankers, finance ministers, government economists, etc.) can all be wrong about how the system works.

    Then there’s the (often irrational) fear of inflation and the concept of “printing money”; a suggestion that government’s don’t actually have to borrow to finance spending is frequently met with an immediate comparison to Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany. (Excess government spending can be inflationary, whether or not the government is borrowing an amount equal to the deficit, but only when the economy is already at or near full capacity.)

    Politicians and many economists are working in an environment where they will be vilified if they even hint that the deficit isn’t under government control or that maybe the government should tackle unemployment by employing people rather than performing monetary rain-dances. Many schools of macroeconomics are completely dominated by ideology rather than actually testing the results of their theories against the real world (this isn’t helped by the fact that you can’t easily do worthwhile experiments on real economies).

    I’ve already posted the link to Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds. Here is another link worth checking out: http://www.netrootsmass.net/fiscal-sustainability-teach-in-and-counter-conference/

  • Anonymous

    *poke*

    There are threads far more worthy of your consideration and intellect– Beatrix is currently laughing zir head off on the other side of the ‘net, because zie’s winning by keeping us from having any sort of decent, positive conversation. Zie isn’t worth it.

    (Yes, easy for me to say, I’m going to bed. But still– be strong! Totally not worth it, even just the time it takes to say “Done talking to you,” because that gives zie a foothold.)

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

     I’d settle for smaller tax increases, to get them back towards where they used to be on the top brackets. Who surely can afford to pay more, since their incomes have gone up much faster than everyone else’s.

    With the current state of the US economy, it’s reasonable to want to tax rich people more and/or close down loopholes used by the rich to avoid taxes, as a way of reducing wealth distribution inequality and increasing fairness; but it’s not appropriate to do it as a way of trying to reduce the budget deficit. You’d have to offset them either by reduced taxation elsewhere or increased spending.

  • hagsrus

    Sorry to be dim, but why?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    Why? Because the budget deficit is already too small (as evidenced by the high unemployment and idle industrial capacity), trying to reduce it further is unreasonable.

    Of course the entire political class in the US is populated pretty much exclusively with unreasonable people…

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Because TAXES R BAD.

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    Taxes serve specific purposes: they maintain the value of money, they free up real resources in the private sector for the public sector to use, they serve to control income inequality, they can reduce consumption of undesirable goods, and so on.

    They are necessary in that a government that doesn’t collect any taxes (or is prevented from collecting them sufficiently widely) will not be able to stabilize the value of its currency. But for a given budget deficit (as required by the condition of the economy as a whole), whether to tax more and spend more, or tax less and spend less, is primarily a political decision rather than an economic one as such.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I assume that you’ve been reading the troll’s posts like everyone else*.

    *If not you either have admirable self-control or you’re hording a killfile that works with disqus. If it’s the latter, you need to share. Right now. Please.

    Since I (unfortunately) do not have the later, then I can only assume my state to be the former, since no, I have not been following those links.  

    With all due respect to Beatrix, I often skim her posts, and do not follow the links.  The pattern that I have observed around her posts tend toward rapid-fire back and forth short comments, which taken individually are hard to follow.  Skimming to the end of the thread usually lets me get the gist of it.  

    If I had to follow every Slacktivist comment in full detail, I would spend too many hours on the site.  Hence, I need to prioritize as to what posts to spend my time studying in detail and formulating replies to.  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    With the current state of the US economy, it’s reasonable to want to tax rich people more and/or close down loopholes used by the rich to avoid taxes, as a way of reducing wealth distribution inequality and increasing fairness; but it’s not appropriate to do it as a way of trying to reduce the budget deficit. You’d have to offset them either by reduced taxation elsewhere or increased spending.

    I am still in favor of laws mandating that pay disparity within companies must be linked to ratios between how much the highest paid get and how much the lowest paid get.  If CEOs want to make more money, they are going to have to start paying their employees more.  

    At least I think that would help push the economy.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I am still in favor of laws mandating that pay disparity within companies must be linked to ratios between how much the highest paid get and how much the lowest paid get.  If CEOs want to make more money, they are going to have to start paying their employees more. 

    Here’s an interesting idea along those lines.

    ” I think we should tie the top income tax rate to the unemployment rate. Say, a baseline tax rate of twenty-five percent, with a baseline unemployment rate of five percent. Every percentage point below that, the top tax rate decreases by thirteen percent (down to a minimum of one percent, a purely token rate.) And of course, every percentage point the unemployment rate goes up above five, the top tax rate increases by thirteen percent (up to a maximum of ninety-nine percent; after all, nobody should be denied the right to make a living.)”

    I like it.  It’ll never happen in a million years, but I like it.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    From the dude Lori quoted:

    I can tell the difference between someone who says they’re homosexual and someone who says they’re straight.

    Pretty sure we can all do that, given they’re saying different things.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    What bothers me about the Tea Party is where the hell were they when Bush was cutting taxes on the wealthiest income-earners, deregulating markets, and beginning multiple expensive foreign wars that would last beyond his term?

    They were having a Republican President, that’s where they were.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    think he was a fine war President

    Certainly did a fine job creating wars. Yup.

    Christ said “blessed are the belligerent”, right?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Bush helped al Quida kill 4000 people, then murdered 4000 more in a needless (and extremely poorly-planned –see “un-armored HumVees”) war.

    Jeff, I agree with the point of your post but the way you wrote this bit implied that Iraqis aren’t considered as people. Kind of what got them killed so thoughtlessly in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    You have to admire Bruce Wilkinson in a way. He took 2 measly verses in 1
    Chronicles (a book most people never read) which record a prayer which
    is completely unremarkable save for it’s obviousness and the fact that
    it may be the most selfish prayer in the entire Bible. He turned those
    verses into not one book, but a whole series. The whole prayer can be
    summed up in 1 word, gimme, and Wilkinson has made millions turning that
    into multiple books aimed at people who are supposedly Christians. 

    There’s true evil genius in that.

    Indeed.  There’s an old blog post that describes this sort of “Christianity” eerily well.  http://lightningbug.blogspot.com/2005/01/satanism-is-alive-and-well.html

    Quote from the blog post:

    “The Satanic doctrine
    promises that Christianity is easy. No changes needed in
    lifestyle or attitudes. Just call the toll-free number on the bottom of
    your screen, and have your credit card ready. Operators are standing
    by. No need to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or visit the sick or
    imprisoned, just slap a “Bush/Cheney ’04” sticker on your
    car.

    (Apologies if I borked the HTML.  I comment on a dozen different blogs and websites, and each uses a different format.)

  • Anonymous

    Taxes serve specific purposes: they maintain the value of money, they
    free up real resources in the private sector for the public sector to
    use, they serve to control income inequality, they can reduce
    consumption of undesirable goods, and so on.

    They are necessary
    in that a government that doesn’t collect any taxes (or is prevented
    from collecting them sufficiently widely) will not be able to stabilize
    the value of its currency. But for a given budget deficit (as required
    by the condition of the economy as a whole), whether to tax more and
    spend more, or tax less and spend less, is primarily a political
    decision rather than an economic one as such

    Except that government employees’ pay comes ENTIRELY out of taxes.  Also, tax money is how the government is able to:  maintain infrastructure (not that they actually FULFILL this obligation, lately); run post offices, schools, and libraries; pay out Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; run the IRS, which collects and distributes said taxes; run the various health and safety organizations (the FDA, the FAA, the TSO, OSHA, and the USDA, to name just a few) that ensure that every product we use is safe and that our workplaces do not literally kill us.  So what should we cut spending on?  I don’t see anything on that list that we can afford to cut.  The military, MAYBE.  Those things I listed above, however, are necessities to keep America from looking more like Guatemala or Ethiopia.

    We need to tax more, regardless of what we do spending-wise.  Our country literally cannot afford to pay ANY of its expenses.  As much as politicians like to talk about “budgeting” and “making sacrifices,” they tend to ignore that our country cannot survive on the current tax revenues, any more than an American can live on $1000/year.

    How about having some of those major corporations make a sacrifice too every now and then?  Why are they exempt from paying taxes, when Wal-Mart makes more money than the GDP of China?

  • Anonymous

    I am still in favor of laws mandating that pay disparity within
    companies must be linked to ratios between how much the highest paid get
    and how much the lowest paid get.  If CEOs want to make more money,
    they are going to have to start paying their employees more. 

    The one country I know of that already does this is Japan.  It seems to work out pretty well for them–sure, nobody’s insanely wealthy, but almost everyone is able to live comfortably.

    The fact that Sweden’s treating the US the way we treat Mexico (IKEA has located plants here because we are not legally required to pay workers $15/hr or give them any vacation time) should be a wake-up call.

  • Anonymous

    I am still in favor of laws mandating that pay disparity within
    companies must be linked to ratios between how much the highest paid get
    and how much the lowest paid get.  If CEOs want to make more money,
    they are going to have to start paying their employees more. 

    The one country I know of that already does this is Japan.  It seems to work out pretty well for them–sure, nobody’s insanely wealthy, but almost everyone is able to live comfortably.

    The fact that Sweden’s treating the US the way we treat Mexico (IKEA has located plants here because we are not legally required to pay workers $15/hr or give them any vacation time) should be a wake-up call.

  • Anonymous

    And what about the corporate bailouts, which were over 1000 times as much as the stimulus package?  That happened in November 2008.  What’s that you say?  Obama was already elected then?  True, but he didn’t take office until the official inauguration ceremony in January 2009.  The corporate bailouts were all W.

  • Anonymous

    And what about the corporate bailouts, which were over 1000 times as much as the stimulus package?  That happened in November 2008.  What’s that you say?  Obama was already elected then?  True, but he didn’t take office until the official inauguration ceremony in January 2009.  The corporate bailouts were all W.

  • Anonymous

    If the government were insane enough to try and balance its budget
    anyway by either large tax increases or large spending cuts, the effect
    would be roughly equivalent to shooting the economy in the head and
    chopping both legs off the shuffling zombie corpse; imports would drop
    because nobody had any money to spend, and private savings would drop
    because nobody had any money to save. One-off cuts or tax increases
    wouldn’t do the job; either one would worsen the deficit by reducing tax
    revenue due to shrinking the economy.

    Except that the wealthiest Americans are literally earning money faster than any human being can spend it.  Surely we should help them lighten their wallets of some of the cash that they cannot even think of anything to spend on?  Or does the fact that Egypt, of all places, is more equal than the United States in terms of income distribution somehow not bother you?

    Corporations earn more than small countries, and they don’t pay a DIME in taxes.  Close the corporate tax loopholes, and you’ll go a long way towards fixing the debt crisis.

  • Anonymous

    Been there, done that, still have the textbooks – I think for me it’s
    that I have a more visual way of thinking than the diffie-que books are
    set up in. (So I ended up in computer science – which still requires
    it.) FWIW, that’s as advanced as math usually gets for engineering. It’s
    the other stuff you have to learn that may be a problem.

    I remember DiffEq.  It was the course in which I started drawing pictures of the Greek letter Sigma being killed in a variety of horrible ways.  Summation is not my friend.  (And this from a math professor!)

  • Anonymous

    They waited until Calc II to tell us the First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.  I literally (literally, literally) almost wept when it was explained to us.  A year and a half of miserableness, summed up with the FFToC.

    This being said, I’m finding myself wanting to go back and re-take Calc.  I want to go back and try again now that I have a better idea of what Calculus and Differential Equations are.  Maybe it’s a weird sort of mid-life crisis.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    I think the fact that companies are actually building plants and hiring people here will probably be cited as a reason why we shouldn’t make any changes. Sure, you could probably do better in the long-run, but politicians aren’t rewarded for the success of their policies decades after they leave office. If you’re a local legislator, having some jobs in your district now is more attractive than having more jobs in your district years later.

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

     Except that the wealthiest Americans are literally earning money faster
    than any human being can spend it.  Surely we should help them lighten
    their wallets of some of the cash that they cannot even think of
    anything to spend on?  Or does the fact that Egypt, of all places, is more equal than the United States in terms of income distribution somehow not bother you?

    As it happens I’m not in the US, but the same issues do apply where I live.

    Income and wealth distribution inequality do bother me, and I’m entirely in favour of raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes. However, in the current US economic situation, any such increases have to be matched either by decreases in taxation elsewhere or by spending increases, since the goal should be to increase the deficit rather than to decrease it.

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

     Except that the wealthiest Americans are literally earning money faster
    than any human being can spend it.  Surely we should help them lighten
    their wallets of some of the cash that they cannot even think of
    anything to spend on?  Or does the fact that Egypt, of all places, is more equal than the United States in terms of income distribution somehow not bother you?

    As it happens I’m not in the US, but the same issues do apply where I live.

    Income and wealth distribution inequality do bother me, and I’m entirely in favour of raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes. However, in the current US economic situation, any such increases have to be matched either by decreases in taxation elsewhere or by spending increases, since the goal should be to increase the deficit rather than to decrease it.

  • Anonymous

    I ended up taking Calc twice because I took college courses while I was a senior in high school but my real college’s engineering program didn’t accept outside calc transfers.  I’m actually quite glad that I took it a second time because it really made a difference.  I technically passed the first time, but a C-level understanding makes all the courses that build on it much more difficult.

    Differential Equations were probably the hardest two courses I ever took.  I remember walking to the final exam feeling like I was gonna puke, and wondering what my life would be like if I just dropped out of college, married the first guy who came along, and became a housewife.  But I ended up actually getting an A in DiffEq 2 and I literally did a double take when I saw the grade.  I thought it was a typo.  But in the following two years, I realized how much easier it makes everything else.  All the other engineering courses built on that stuff, and it would have been really difficult to excel in any of those classes with only a C-level understanding of DiffEq.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Income and wealth distribution inequality do bother me, and I’m entirely in favour of raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes. However, in the current US economic situation, any such increases have to be matched either by decreases in taxation elsewhere or by spending increases, since the goal should be to increase the deficit rather than to decrease it.

    Wait, what?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    Except that government employees’ pay comes ENTIRELY out of taxes.

    No, it doesn’t. A sovereign-currency government isn’t funded by taxes; that is an illusion that goes back to gold-standard economics. The government neither has, nor doesn’t have, any money; it spends it into existence, and destroys it by taxation.

    Also, tax money is how the government is able to: [long list deleted]

    In an economy running at or close to full capacity, taxation is what allows the government to do those things without driving up prices for the goods and labour that the government requires in order to do them (i.e. inflation).

    In an economy running well below capacity, as the US is now, there is no reason why the government cannot simply spend what it needs to spend in order to fulfill its functions.

    So what should we cut spending on?

    Nothing. Quite the reverse in fact: the government should increase spending, especially in areas such as education, poverty reduction, scientific research, infrastructure repair and maintenance (and improvement), healthcare, regulation of the financial sector, and so on.

    We need to tax more, regardless
    of what we do spending-wise.  Our country literally cannot afford to pay
    ANY of its expenses.

    This is exactly the attitude that I’ve been trying to counter since entering this thread.

    A country like the US literally cannot not be able to afford to pay its expenses. There is no operational mechanism by which the country can be prevented from paying any bill presented to it. (It can refuse to pay, as a result of having imposed arbitrary restrictions on itself, but it cannot be unable to pay.)

    The only question is what the effect of paying may be on the value of money and the state of the economy. If the government runs too large a deficit it will cause inflation. If it runs too small a deficit then it will cause unemployment and under-utilization of productive capacity. Guess which one of those is currently the case in the US?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

     

    [re. my "goal should be to increase the deficit"]

    Wait, what?

    Go read:

    Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds

    Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Counter Conference (especially sessions 2 and 3)

    There is no federal public debt problem in the US (and many other good articles at that blog)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Income and wealth distribution inequality do bother me, and I’m entirely in favour of raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes. However, in the current US economic situation, any such increases have to be matched either by decreases in taxation elsewhere or by spending increases, since the goal should be to increase the deficit rather than to decrease it.

    I thought that is what did happen earlier, with easing taxation on the lower tax brackets early in the Obama administration, on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners were about to expire. 

  • Beatrix

    Should you read this dead thread – I immediately, and on blogs I like respect than this, said I was wrong.  I was wrong.  (He was no Christian, though.  “Of a sort?”  Lori, no.  Christianity is a religion.  The Muslim terrorists do it in the name of their religion, inspired by the teaching of their religion, financed by powerful forces within their religion – Norway-guy was an agnostic, as I am.)

  • Anonymous

    While I don’t advocate violence I can totally sympathize….. oh bullshit. I would have carried the gas cans. 

  • Anonymous

    While I don’t advocate violence I can totally sympathize….. oh bullshit. I would have carried the gas cans. 

  • Anonymous

    Why should anybody honor the sick twisted parents described in books and websites like these. Those people should be dragged out for a public shaming. 

    Unlike people with varied colors of skins “fundamentalists” EARNED their reputation by the repeated heinous actions such as beating children to death rather than “sparing the rod.” 

  • Anonymous

    Why should anybody honor the sick twisted parents described in books and websites like these. Those people should be dragged out for a public shaming. 

    Unlike people with varied colors of skins “fundamentalists” EARNED their reputation by the repeated heinous actions such as beating children to death rather than “sparing the rod.” 

  • Chris

    No, the closet counterpart of Brigade for girls would have been Pioneer Girls (which is now Pioneer Clubs). They went co-ed in the 80′s. http://www.pioneerclubs.org

  • Chris

    Brigade is not a fundamentalist organization. It is evangelical.  There website is at christianservicebrigade.com  or better yet go to the leader website that shows all the history at http://www.brigadeleader.com

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    The slacktivixen finds the whole idea of Christian Service Brigade hilarious.
    She’s not the only one.

    “Just like the Boy Scouts, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

    (The most recent example of “Just like fill-in-the-blank, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!” I have encountered was a 2008 Jesus Junk knockoff called “Praise Ponies” — yes, you guessed it: “Just Like My Little Pony, Except CHRISTIAN(TM!)”  I’m going to be polling the local Brony Meet next weekend, as Twilight Sparkle, Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, Rarity, Applejack, Pinkie Pie, and Princesses Celestia & Luna are currently unavailable for comment.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X