Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer discuss a poll where 1 in 3 New Jersey conservatives think Obama might be the anti-Christ:
The whole anti-Christ thing has always struck me as absurd. Christians have labeled so many leaders throughout history as “the anti-Christ” that you’d think they would have learned to stop doing that — they always turn out to be wrong. But I suppose that would require knowing history and having humility, two things these folks lack.
Schaeffer labels these conservatives “beyond crazy.” That’s pretty harsh, but I tend to agree — at least in this one area of their lives. Many of them are normal people in other areas, but when it comes to religion and politics they seem to lose all sense of rationality.
MADDOW: How do you work to move people off of that position? It doesn’t seem like facts are relevant [to them] in trying to move people away from these beliefs.
SCHAEFFER: You don’t work to move them off this position. You move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It’s as simple as that. And we have a village idiot in this country called fundamentalist Christianity…. There is no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has as its fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts. They believe in a young earth 6,000 years old with dinosaurs [living at the same time as] human beings…. This is la-la land.
Many of us here are evidence that there is a way to reach these people with reason. It takes a lot of deprogramming and soul-searching, and above all, a commitment to follow the truth even if it doesn’t fit with current beliefs. It’s difficult, but it can happen, in spite of what Schaeffer says.
The question is, how can we reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture?
Ha ha! Daniel you beat me to it!
Note what he says about homeschooling.
“The question is, how can we reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture?”
Of course, my answer was public education with integrity (which means limiting what la-la land people can teach their kids.)
Unfortunately, that didn’t work for me. It was self-education that got me out of it.
So you think that fundies teaching their own kids (sheltering them from facts) is ok? At least with public education they’d be exposed to the facts.
I agree LRA. Homeschooled kids are likely to be doomed to indoctrination into whatever beliefs their parents hold, instead of getting a broad education and having the option of forming their own.
I get your point re:science (although, in our last convo on the subject I pointed out that even science in public school isn’t entirely unproblematic), but there more to education that is important than science. History, civics, literature, and so forth are critical, and yet indoctrination and slant are about as severe in both settings (home or public school).
Yes, I know public schools have their problems, but they are a better option than being home-indoctrinated by irrational parents. The fundies know the power of public education, and that is why they are attacking it. Here in Texas, they are currently attacking the social studies standards. They have already attacked science and sex ed. They have been attacking literature since I can remember with their banned book list. It is anti-intellectualism, and it is bad for society.
As far as literature goes, both sides of the political divide have blood (ink?) on their hands, though it’s generally for different reasons. But I agree, the attacks on science and sex ed in public schools are fairly unconscionable.
The sticky wicket comes from the fact that parents are paying taxes and that money is being used to fund a curriculum they are opposed to. It would be one thing if they could just “take their ball and go home”, but they are stuck paying for it through the tax system. It is a hard sell to say “yes, we’ll take your money, and then use it to teach your little ones things that you abhor.” If you were on the other side of such a situation, would you take it with equanimity and grace?
Yes, because the government uses my money to do things I abhor all the time (like Bush’s “war on countries with oil… er, I mean terrorism”). If some school was teaching religious stuff to my kid, I would set my child straight with the facts from primary sources (and then I would sue). I suppose that this is what fundie parents do as well, except using the bible. But again my point is that at least a student has exposure to the facts when in public school.
But they CAN take their ball and go home. They are choosing not to.
But they CAN take their ball and go home. They are choosing not to.
And if they could “get their money back”, that might actually make sense to do. As it is, many are too poor to do so, or are otherwise in a situation where this would be infeasible.
————-
Yes, because the government uses my money to do things I abhor all the time (like Bush’s “war on countries with oil… er, I mean terrorism”). If some school was teaching religious stuff to my kid, I would set my child straight with the facts from primary sources (and then I would sue). I suppose that this is what fundie parents do as well, except using the bible.
Hold the hell on. You’re telling me that if your school district was teaching religious doctrine at school you would not attempt to change that by protesting, joining organizations that are attempting to change it, and generally raising holy hell (so to speak)? I know I would, and I’m pretty mild mannered.
But again my point is that at least a student has exposure to the facts when in public school.
This is the point on which I keep getting stuck. When it comes to science (and to a lesser extent, sex ed) I agree, but in nearly all other areas I would say that public school, even in the presentation of *Facts*, leaves as much to be desired as the average homeschooling situation.
Nope– I would sue the district. But I was trying to address your thought experiment about the reverse situation. Assuming I lived in a theocracy that taught stupid crap to my kid, I would teach my kid the facts. That’s what I was trying to say there.
Right now, I have a better feeling about the secular social studies in Texas than I do about the fundie version of it. Here’s why:
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/important-progress/
I keep tabs on what kinds of things the fundies want taught in our classrooms because I want the kids in my state to get a good education. Being a teacher, it is something that concerns me.
Honestly, the link seems to discuss more generic right-wing whackaloonery than a particularly religious stripe. Right-wingers whining about Cesar Chavez goes back to the original conflict in California (and the black eye it gave their wonderboy, Ronald Reagan, who notably didn’t give a fig about religious issues). The Thurgood Marshall stuff is just out-and-out racism.
Well the specific mission of TFN is to fight the *religious* right. That’s what they do!
I get that. What I’m saying is that the example you provided has little to do with the religious right per se, and much more to do with normal ultra-conservative bellyaching about liberalism. Perhaps the particular guys who introduced those curricula were themselves known for being affiliated with the Religious right and that’s why it appears on the anti-RR site.
Well, no, because one of their primary concerns is teaching how Christianity was supposedly the major force in the founding of this country (as if the enlightenment wasn’t)
Maybe you gave the wrong link, then? The example you linked to dealt with an attempt to remove Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez from the curriculum, neither of which had anything to do with the “Christianity as a founding doctrine” narrative, since both lived in the latter half of the 20th century.
“But while we made some progress today on one front in the far-right’s curriculum “culture war,” the board’s far-right faction continued to pressure curriculum teams to rewrite the history of the relationship between religion and government in the United States. They insisted that the teams include standards suggesting that our nation and government were founded on conservative Christian biblical principles. Those efforts to distort history — and undermine important protections for religious freedom in our country — are likely to continue until the final vote on new curriculum standards in March.”
Yeah, I saw that bit at the end, but it is literally informationless. The two examples provided in the article have nothing whatsoever to do with the Religious Right. So, if it was meant as evidence of the above statement, it was at best a non sequitor and at worst an epic failure. That’s my point.
The equivocation generally has been going [Religious Right] == [Right-wing], which is a compositional fallacy. And historically messy, to say the least (considering that up until about forty or so years ago, the Religious Right was actually the Religious Left). But even speaking currently, while all religiously rightist things are also rightist (broadly speaking, that is, excluding libertarians and Straussians), not all rightist things are attributable to the religious right.
omg, Nope, you are such a pain sometimes!!! :P
Here is Barton’s website, will that convince you of the connection???
http://www.wallbuilders.com/
omg, Nope, you are such a pain sometimes!!! :P
LOL. Why, yes. Yes I am.
—————
Here is Barton’s website, will that convince you of the connection???
No, I get that. That’s why I wrote:
“Perhaps the particular guys who introduced those curricula were themselves known for being affiliated with the Religious right and that’s why it appears on the anti-RR site.”
The reason I am insisting on the distinction is because these particular items (Chavez, Marshall) have precious little to do with *religion*. So, they very well may be being peddled by a religious whackaloon, but they themselves have little to do with religious conservatism. It’s much like if you have two parties, and they argue about policy all the time, and then one of them comes out for something unrelated to politics (“we all like vanilla ice cream, isn’t it great?!”) and so the other party, whoever they may be, predictably will respond with “let me recount for you the several damnable evils of vanilla ice cream!!”
In this case, the RR nutball is hawking vanilla ice cream, and the anti-RR doodz are responding with the litany of interminable evils of vanilla ice cream. Neither organization has anything to do with ice cream, but there it is regardless.
Yes, in this example, Chavez and Marshall are indeed vanilla ice cream. :)
Yes, but the multiculturalism that the religious right is fighting is also problematic. I stated that I feel better about the curriculum because people are fighting back, one idea at a time. That means that (hopefully, crossing my fingers) Barton won’t distort history to suit his fundie agenda. That agenda includes a reduction in holding up minorities as great examples of civil rights leaders and an increase in studying dead, “Christian,” white men. That’s what I was trying to show.
Ah, I see. I hope you are right. I have a suspicion, though, that the efforts are intransitive, mainly because most people don’t break down along the convenient ideological fault lines necessary for it to work with any sort of consistency.
“And if they could “get their money back”, that might actually make sense to do. As it is, many are too poor to do so, or are otherwise in a situation where this would be infeasible.”
LOL! Magical poor people.
Rich enough to bitch about the taxes they pay to support the general education of children, yet too poor to relocate to a theocratic state they wish we all had to live in.
I weep for these imaginary poor people who suffer under an enormous tax burden yet receive so little from the state. I really do.
While children may be subjected to slanted information in public schools as well as in a homeschool setting, they are still much more likely to get a broader range of information from the school and their peers. Schools don’t have the time to teach every subject from every angle, nor would it be reasonable to expect that, but I believe public schools are much better at exposing children to a broad range of opinions and attitudes than one might find in a homeschool setting.
Schools don’t have the time to teach every subject from every angle, nor would it be reasonable to expect that…
I’m not saying teachers should comb the minutiae of history and force-feed it pop quiz style to kids in order to call an education sufficient. That would be silly.
But when it comes to the big, important stuff, the biases in what gets taught and what is left out is pretty consistent across public schools. When you spend, for example, six times as much time and effort on WWII as on WWI, when understanding WWII is literally *impossible* without getting a good handle on WWI, is a biggee. Understanding the Shoah without studying the Armenian Genocide is extremely difficult, and yet most people aren’t even aware of the existence of the second, and fall into the trap of teaching the first as an historical aberration. History classes breeze through 1865-1914 on fast forward, because to linger would mean to discuss the history of labor, socialism, and business in America; taboo subjects, all. In fact, understanding any of the broad strokes of history without some economics is a bit like trying to understand chemistry without knowing what an electron is…and yet, if there are economics classes in your school, you are a lucky child indeed.
…but I believe public schools are much better at exposing children to a broad range of opinions and attitudes than one might find in a homeschool setting.
Perhaps, but it’s hard to measure such things. I personally went to a public school for most of my education, and didn’t experience a great variety of opinion, and in fact there was great structural pressure to leap into some stereotype or another. I cannot speak directly to the homeschool experience. I tend to think there is some cognitive bias going on, with “the sorts of people who homeschool” being used as license to assume conclusions about what effects homeschooling has on its pupils, though I’ve seen precious little evidence on any side that didn’t amount to anecdote or assumption..
I watched that interview on the Maddow show the night it aired – I actually clapped afterwards.
My own experience with “de-conversion” is perhaps a bit unusual — I went from Baptist as a child [though not of the fundamentalist variety] to neo-pagan [Wiccan] in my teens and twenties to atheism in my thirties. I had an emotional need for some kind of spirituality, and I was drawn to the pro-environmentalist, pro-feminine, and generally tolerant nature of Wicca. This was in the 80s, before neo-paganism really caught on big with young people. I also saw it as connecting me to the “wisdom of my ancestors,” returning to what they believed before an imagined forced conversion to Christianity. What started the process of unraveling all that for me was my encounter with a neighbor, a Mormon girl who was desperately wanting to get married and ASAP. It struck me how ridiculous and arbitrary her beliefs seemed, and suddenly I saw myself through the eyes of a non-believer. I began to voraciously read any book I could get my hands on related to ancient paganism, to the Christian conversion of Europe, to medieval witchcraft, to arguments for and against theism and atheism. Eventually I saw how wrong all of my ideas were [Wicca was invented in the 40s by Gerald Gardner; we know little about real ancient pagan beliefs; the transition to Christianity in the British Isles at least was a generally peaceful one; medieval witchcraft was not a "survival" from the pre-Christian period; Marija Gimbutas was wrong; Margaret Murray was wrong...]. Luckily, academic studies of neo-paganism and witchcraft began to appear in greater numbers about the same time as I was ready to read them [Ronald Hutton's books are a great example], and now it’s just as easy to debunk neo-pagan beliefs like Wicca, Asatru, etc, as it has long been to debunk Jewish and Christian and Islamic beliefs.
The point of all this is that all of the above came from within me, not from anyone trying to change my views. I wanted to know the truth of things for myself, and so I sought out the answers on my own. I believe that most people, at least teenagers and adults, would strongly resist someone trying to change their minds on basic questions like ‘Is there a God?’ or ‘Is there a Goddess?’ as the case might be. I think the only way to rid ourselves of the fundamentalist Christian idiot in our national village is to either separate the children of that group from their parents at an early age, or to stand back and hope that on an individual level, they will come around on their own. I don’t think we’re going to change their minds through arguments or facts or evidence.
You get a round of applause from me for that, Steve.
Usually the human race has advanced generationally, i.e., we like to think that we are moving inexorably toward a more liberal, rational and saner existence as our forebearers die off. This has succeeded in issues such as slavery, sufferage and civil rights. But religion is one of our traits that holds us back to ancient thinking with all its mistakes and inequalities. Tribalism is the other.
So as to your question of how we can “reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture”, I answer that we can’t until we banish religion and tribalism from our genetic makeup.
That’s a a pretty heavy lift.
I think people overestimate the generational advance. In some cases, it’s more of a cyclical advance and retreat.
There have been various periods of tolerance and intolerence — enlightenment and dark age — that have punctuated history.
The one thing we can say for sure, is that when the populous is fed, clothed, educated and in control of their own lives (i.e. free of tyranny [religious, social, or political]) people are much better towards each other.
[Godwin's law] Pre-WWI Germany was a thriving center of art and liberal thought, as well as a tolerant refuge for gays and other traditionally persecuted minorities. However, after the war, with a decimated economy and a people who felt completely disempowered, they turned inwards on themselves and began persecuting each other in ways the world has yet to rival.
A more statistically testable butress for the opinion that disempowerment leads people to ‘lash out’ is the strongly noted prevalence of violence in inner-city and low-income neighborhoods.
Or, the fact that domestic abuse is usually perpetrated males who feel their lives are out of their control. http://bit.ly/911KR
Or that hate crimes against gays are often committed by individuals who are latently homosexual; individuals who are likely lashing out against their own feelings of oppression by overly rigid sex-roles. http://bit.ly/1zbmPZ
The point is, when people feel disempowered, or out of control of their own lives, they behave irrationally and sometimes violently. The United States has a huge disparity of wealth problem, and the problem is only getting worse. http://bit.ly/11TnJU Unless we turn it around, we could be headed for another period of heightened intolerance and loony behavior, like calling the president the Anti-Christ. Or religiously latching on to that Ayn Rand bullshit. I sure as hell hope not, because that just leads to a positive feedback loop of economic polarization: the poor get poorer, so they believe all the more fervently that the rich shouldn’t be taxed. Crazy.
I wonder if the polling company who asked this question also asked the respondents their income levels, because I betcha the ‘Anti-Christ’ people weren’t the most empowered individuals in the poll.
WIN!
Excellent post! I found it very informative. However, I question the role of disempowerment as it relates to fundamentalist christianity. Many of the people who sail the fundie boat are far from being poor or disempowered. In fact, it seems that many people who are quite affluent are starting to climb on board. Fundamentalist churches spread their message on the dimes of people who have plenty of money to donate to said cause.
I’d like to see the demographics of fundamentalist christians. I have a sneaking suspicion that they’re primarily middle class caucasians. However, I do wonder if many of these people feel disempowered by the president’s race. Racists are likely to feel they’ve lost control of the country because a black man is president. Maybe that’s why they keep ranting about how they want their country back.
Good point.
I’m not sure how fundamentalism plays into it, either. It could be a crutch for the disempowered, or it could be a means of imposing forms of intellectual and social disempowerment.
In the end, it probably does a bit of both.
I’m a first time poster, so go easy on me.
Generally, I’m not sure that there is anything to be said or done to make or help people think their way out of extremism. I’ve never had to do so myself, but suspect that for people who have it’s something that came from within; a feeling that the knowledge being taught was somehow false or incomplete and a desire to search for more. That can’t be taught. Though I’d like to believe otherwise, I think most people are not that smart, hence why they get so caught up in the rhetoric to begin with and fail to question values, morals, leadership, etc. Most people seem content with being sheep.
I’m a first time poster, so go easy on me.
Welcome!
Generally, I’m not sure that there is anything to be said or done to make or help people think their way out of extremism. I’ve never had to do so myself, but suspect that for people who have it’s something that came from within; a feeling that the knowledge being taught was somehow false or incomplete and a desire to search for more. That can’t be taught.
Agree.
Though I’d like to believe otherwise, I think most people are not that smart, hence why they get so caught up in the rhetoric to begin with and fail to question values, morals, leadership, etc. Most people seem content with being sheep.
Disagree. There are a plethora of examples of otherwise intelligent people who jump on this or that bandwagon, whether it be religious, political, or social, and become blithering idiots about that one subject or part of life (to be clear, by this I mean shutting off these beliefs and stances from evidence, rational criticism, and a general intolerance of them being challenged). Doesn’t mean that it cancels out their intelligence in other areas.
Seeking leadership or ceding authority is a more complicated phenomena than just “being sheep”. Honestly I think most of it is some manifestation of not having the time or inclination to think about particular things. If a person doesn’t feel adequate to the task of critically dissecting this or that political stance, it could be because they just don’t care that much about it or do not feel it is worth the time to become conversant with all the facts; in such situations a person may be much more willing to just take the word of someone that they trust because they share other areas of agreement.
A desire to search for more is definitely something that can be taught. My father valued facts and knowledge over feelings and assumptions. I learned to be a critical thinker from him, and from some teachers I had in public schools. It’s up to parents to teach their children to dig deeper. Other than our love, it may be the best gift we can give them.
I understand repub, christian and right wing activist and politicians have right to protest against things they feel are unfair. However I think that the extreme right wing like Beck and Limbaugh are attempting to start a race war. I also think the fact that the republican top officials wont pull the leash back on their pit bull political hacks is part of the problem.
When republican politicians spread lies at health care meetings, when they allow lies to be spread and when they don’t tell folks on their side of the isle to not bring semi automatic guns to town hall meetings about health care while parading around with signs saying ” the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants” what do folks really think is brewing. When I say spreading lies this is the type of behavior I am talking about. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/08/jean-schmidt-birther/
I think Limbaugh and Beck are trying to start a race war.
I don’t know if Limbaugh and Beck are trying to start a race war; however, I think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences. These are two people who are accustomed to a certain level of fame, notoriety and money. Also, they live in a society where all kinds of identity baiting is part of so-called “talk” culture. I think they obliquely play around the edges of racism, occasionally dipping their toes in and coming really, REALLY close to being overtly racist. They do this knowing that such quasi-racist rhetoric will fan the flames of notoriety; that said, I don’t think they intend for whites to go apeshit on blacks–I don’t think they can or want to envision the logical consequences or the feared consequences of their rhetoric.
Of course, I can’t conceive of someone actively trying to start a race war, especially these two loons. Simply put, I think they’re fame hungry, and will do anything to acquire and retain fame.
…umm, White Supremacists and wackaloons in survivalist compounds excluded.
I tend to agree…not that that makes them any less nauseating.
Good point but it really does seem to me that Glen and Rush are trying to stir up hatred towards Obama. If something happens to Obama I hate to say this, but thier will be riots and when you have nut cases bringing guns to meetings about health care, along with Beck and Rush ginning up hatred, trust me that could very easily spiral into riots.
Oh, I agree, mark. But here’s what would happen if something happens to Obama: the idiots Beck and Limbaugh would immediately decry the violent act, act as thought they NEVER said anything that could remotely be construed as ginning up white supremacist hatred and that THEY were ever only concerned about the nation’s best interests. Maybe then they would understand the price their desire for notoriety; however, I doubt it, for if they had that kind of critical thinking, they wouldn’t do what they’re doing now.
Right now, they’re like the idiots you might have known in high school who got off on stirring up trouble–but when it got out of hand (as it usually would), they’d scurry like the roaches they are and if they were confronted on the mess they incited, would fold like a cheap suit. Limbaugh and Beck are cowards, hacks and nauseating little worms the likes of which the world would be better off not being plagued with. Look at Beck–not a full year ago, he’s going on and on about how health care in America sucks–NOW? No, he’s singing a different tune, on a different station, because he knows that that’s how he’ll be able to afford whatever gets him off/high (I’d love to know what dirty secrets he’s hiding). Same with Limbaugh–the fool has an oxycontin addiction, yet Good Christian Patriotic Americans of Patriotism ™ follow him as though he was the messiah.
And why weren’t these idiots who carried guns to town hall meetings arrested? I seem to remember protesting GW Bush and there being armed police circling about our small group. I’d bet a good fortune that had any of us had a gun in plain view, we’d be under the jail…in Guantanamo.
And why weren’t these idiots who carried guns to town hall meetings arrested?
Because…what they did wasn’t illegal.
I seem to remember protesting GW Bush and there being armed police circling about our small group. I’d bet a good fortune that had any of us had a gun in plain view, we’d be under the jail…in Guantanamo.
While police tactics and priorities have precious little to do with the president, generally speaking, the difference in reaction only suggests, if anything, that the current administration respects the rule of law more than the last one did (which is not saying much, admittedly).
” Because…what they did wasn’t illegal. ”
mark: It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it is helpful or thoughtful to have a gun at a debate about health care. It may not be illegal to fart or pick your nose at a business meeting but that doesnt make it helpful and it doesn’t mean you should do it.
The reason why those nutcases brought guns to those town hall meetings is because they wanted to intimidate people. Also the message sent to the other nutcases is what really bothers me.
It especially bothers me since that nut case murdered the abortion doctor in church earlier this year.
I think some of those bringing the guns with them were actually wanting to be arrested. It would have been to their advantage if they had been. Then they could have said see he is trying to take our guns from us. I agree it was childish and uncalled for but morons tend to be that way.
” Right now, they’re like the idiots you might have known in high school who got off on stirring up trouble–but when it got out of hand (as it usually would), they’d scurry like the roaches they are and if they were confronted on the mess they incited, would fold like a cheap suit. ”
mark:Great observation they are really tough behind their tv cameras and microphones. It appears to me that repubs are so holier than though until they have some issues think Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford and Rush Limbaugh. I mean when rush has a drug problem the flesh is weak or its a private matter but let others he doesnt like confront the same or similar drug problem see how much sympathy he and the right wing has.
Bunch of wind bags
I like Schaeffer’s notion of “just move past them” but sadly, I don’t think we can do that. It’d be kinda like ignoring a toxic waste dump. You can move to the next neighborhood, but you know sooner or later, your water’s going to be poisoned, too, if you don’t take care of the dump.
The thing is, even with this, it is still wholly dependent on the person receiving the information to, in some small part, be open to it. Again, if the “village idiots” are steadfastly going to refuse to listen, then it would be more productive to bash your head against a brick wall, or just move past them. Personally I’d prefer a quarantine from them. Can we decalre them a public hazard?
i question that very many of us are truly evidence that it is possible to overcome fundamentalist beliefs because i don’t think it’s that simple. for example, let’s face it: a lot of us didn’t really believe a lot of that stuff. i know i sure as hell didn’t, even despite what i may have said back then. while i called myself a christian, i stopped believing in the bearded guy in the sky… i don’t know when, really. it was only through deliberation on what christianity is — and what it is not — that caused me to stop doing so.
i disagree with dan gilbert, however, because i think paying the village idiot any mind strengthens his resolve. if everyone regarded the idiot as such, however, he would be kept in his rightful place.
I doubt that can be said of every ex-Christian, Ineely. I can only speak for myself, but I did believe everything I was taught. It wasn’t until I had to come to terms with a)my sexuality and b) the fact that Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims aren’t exactly busting down the doors of Protestant churches in order to worship the baby Jesus.
I think the ‘just move past them’ idea could be the key to reaching some. I was raised a Pentecostal, and in my teens wasted an enormous amount of time constructing ridiculous arguments to justify my faith. The problem was, I read a lot. The thing that convinced me was not a direct line of argument, it was the sheer volume of literature that simply ignored the insanity of my position. Over time, I realized that it was all a crock, and decided to move on with my life.
Sadly, the rest of my family have descended even further into their delusions and I have no idea how to reach them.
The question is, how can we reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture?
Growing up, I bought into conservative evangelicalism’s views on the end of the world, the apocalypse, etc. I personally know people who think Obama could be the antichrist — or if he’s not, he represents the type of person who will be someday. I no longer think that way, but I understand the perspective from the inside.
There are those who think the only way to end this type of thinking is to end religion — which certainly would work. But I think it’s entirely possible to work within the framework of Christianity to challenge and overcome these views.
When I have these types of conversations with other Christians, for example, I don’t both challenging one’s assumption about Scripture — obviously, a certain mode of reading Scripture produces these types of ideas — instead, I challenge whether or not their views have any basis in Scripture. I’ve found this to be the most effective way to go; arguing about whether or not the bible is literally written by God is usually fruitless. It’s more effective, I think, to argue: if the bible really is God’s Word to you, isn’t it important that you actually understand what it says?
I point out to them that the bible simply cannot support the idea that Obama is the antichrist (Two good online articles here and here). Daniel also makes a valid point about history as well. Perhaps every generation of Christianity has suspected the end of the world would come in their lifetimes; they have all been wrong.
Anyway, that’s my long way of saying that I think these ideas can be overcome from within Christianity. We don’t need to end religion to end these types of bad ideas.
” Anyway, that’s my long way of saying that I think these ideas can be overcome from within Christianity. We don’t need to end religion to end these types of bad ideas. ”
mark: The problem in my opinion is that you have repubs who are outright lying about Obama and his plans for America while at the same time you don’t have very high level republicans saying clearly that members of their own party are spreading lies.
When you have christian republican politicians questioning whether or not Obama was born in America that tells you all you need to know. At least that’s my opinion.
mark: The problem in my opinion is that you have repubs who are outright lying about Obama and his plans for America while at the same time you don’t have very high level republicans saying clearly that members of their own party are spreading lies.
I agree, that is a big problem.
When you have christian republican politicians questioning whether or not Obama was born in America that tells you all you need to know. At least that’s my opinion.
I don’t follow your logic, and I don’t think I’m seeing your point. Are you saying that Republican politicians are the barometer by which we should measure Evangelical Christians? If so, I would respond thus: Republican politicians are certainly influential in the American Evangelical church — but not all Evangelicals are Republicans, and not all Evangelicals believe in the Left Behind-esque eschatology, let alone that Obama is the antichrist.
” I don’t follow your logic, and I don’t think I’m seeing your point. ”
mark: I say this because a whole lot of repubs wear their religion on their sleeve. Also they try to imply thru their family values messages that they live up to a higher standard than dems or non christians.
The fact that you have a group of elected officials who actively claim they base a great deal of their lives and philosophies on Christianity who are outright lying says a lot. When people who are supposed to be responsible lie about things such as death panels,abortion funding being in the health care bill and gin up hatred against the president that tells you all you need to know.
I don’t see any republican taking on this issue in a serious way.
Republicans figured out a while back that a large part of their constituency are so intellectually impoverished that they’ll believe anything, no matter how galactically stupid it is. I was a registered Republican for about 15 years. It seems to me that the idiotic rhetoric just got worse and worse with each passing year. Eventually, I felt as though the party was willing to do or say anything to accomplish its goals and that they don’t give a damn about income equality, equal opportunity, the environment, civil rights, racism, or anything else that isn’t directly beneficial to making rich people richer. I’m now ashamed to have had any affiliation to that party. And while I understand that not all Republicans are hate-mongering imbeciles, I find the party as a whole woefully lacking in ethical standards and true compassion for others.
That about sums it up for me, too, Lowrack.
Is the full interview available anywhere online?
“The question is, how can we reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture?”
The easiest way is to show them how they benefit from your point of view, using the language of their beliefs. As a graduate of an unabashed Christian college, I can say do just that on a regular basis here. I’m always in support of logical, reasoned arguments.
Religion and conspiracy theorists have one thing on common. They are infected by some kind of virus that distorts brain cells. If they are exposed too much to it, then they cannot separate reality from fiction anymore. Once they are that far, they are lost because they are so hardwired that for them it is impossible to accept that all these years they have thrown away their lives for nothing, so they will invent stories to convince themselves that those lost years were not that lost. It is a lost generation.
THE BEST THING ABOUT THIS INTERVIEW is that Shaeffer does great line after great line including the “village idiot” riff that Daniel excerpted.
This is a video that should be savored for it’s great language and saved for future reference, IMO.
One of the reasons people go in for this kind of thinking is that they do not have any other source of “power” or authority. In particular, the Religious Right went from running the country, in the early 2000s when Bush was president, they were the majority in Congress, and the majority of governors were Republicans. Now, they’re our of the Oval Office, they no longer control Congress (and don’t even have filibuster power in the Senate) and don’t even command a majority of the states.
This loss of power forces them to look for something else to grant them a sense of authority. They do so in this case by latching onto irrational notions that grant them a sense that they “ought to” be in control because Obama and the Democrats are in office illegitimately. Hence the “birther” crap, and now the “Obama-is-the-Antichrist” bilge. If not for their loss of power, they wouldn’t have much incentive to stubbornly adhere to these ideas.
This also explains why even the steadier minds among the Republican party will not eject the lunatics. They believe this militant, sanctimonious and irrational dissent is the only power they have left. So they’re sticking with these folks and even keeping them whipped up. While this might seem to be a rational if dangerous political calculation, they’re forgetting that all they’re doing is limiting their constituency to the c. 25% of the country which is the “Religious Right.” By getting rid of them, they might be able to appeal to the 75% who are not, and thus acquire a larger following instead.
But they don’t have the courage it would take to try that … I guess.
While I agree that there are measures we can each individually take to educate the people around us away from fundamentalism, this is a personal social endeavor. I think that what Frank Schaeffer is talking about, and I agree with him, is that politically we should not waste time trying to move these people away from their positions. I.E. within the public arena politicians and activists should be working to move the conversation past the craziness that is being promoted by these nutjobs while in the private arena we should do what we can to educate those who are caught in the fundamentalist web.
As anyone who has experience in talking to those who have been indoctrinated, they have a way of miring the conversation in place with their insistence on regurgitating dogma over and over again (since this is how they have been taught to communicate “Truth” through their own experiences) without seeming to be able to focus on the arguments being presented to them. If we allow the public conversation to be mired down in a similar fashion, the result is that the public process is frozen in place until the crazies manage to take political power again, at which point the conversation stops altogether while they march forward with whatever they perceive to be the business at hand.
@Daniel:
I hate to say this, but I genuinly believe that you and others here are among the rare few whose inate intelligence can overcome the barrier of programming from infancy. I honestly think that the vast majority of people in this world are not that bright – simply because they’ve never been taught how to think, and in a lot of cases because they’re actively discouraged from it from the youngest age. You are a rare jewell, I’m afraid, but all the more precious for that!
Why is so much hatred being hurled toward President Obama? That’s a no-brainer!
He’s a Kenyan born Arab terrorist who wants to bring DEATH PANELS to this grand and glorious land of ours so he can pull the plugs on Granny and Gramps.
HE’S A LEFT WING SOCIALIST whose education was funded by the American Communist Party, MoveOn.Org, Barbara Streisand and Ed Asner.
He named his daughters Sasha and Malia – YO! WHAT’S UP WITH THAT???
He would prefer to have dinner with Mahatma Gandhi over Ronald Reagan. RONALD REAGAN!!!
He wants to start a TROTSKY FOR TOTS program for our children.
He’s just an evil person!
EVIL, I SAY! My fellow Americans, heed my warning,
The Big, Black, Bolshevik Bogeyman is gonna git’cha!
It has not a thing to do with race.
I am a white person. I would not lie to you.
But seriously, folks….
Are you realy white?
You might look white but so does Michal Jackson. LOL
Where did your ancestors come from? LOL
LOL I’m not even going to watch the video, I’ll pay no mind to such asinine fatuity.
If they try and force it on me however, that’s a different story…
“The question is, how can we reach others and help them think themselves out of their extremist subculture?”
My brother told me the grand canyon could have been formed with a couple of floods. And yes, he’s been there.
There is another reason this end times madness is part of American political culture, because it is blindly pro Israel. Some moderate and liberal American Jews, as well some in the Israeli government work with these end times wackos.
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_Summit_2009_summary
http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/eng/about/endorsementsnew/
To many secular supporters of Israel, the Christian Fundmentalists are useful idiots. Not only does the Republican party need to disown them, so does the American Jewish Community and the Israeli government.
Mark D – why dwell on “Israel”? Why worry about a little plot of land? It’s a plot of land you speak of – A PLOT OF LAND.
Israel is just a plot of land like a diamond is just a rock.
Human conventions give Israel its value JC. Humans create borders. In time “Israel” will disappear – just like you and I will.
I see you’re still wandering in the desert of human reasoning Vid, you’re saying what YOU think my friend, that’s what got us in this mess in the first place. All the best.
Human reason is the greatest gift we have JC. If you believe in a Creator then it is by far the most beautiful gift endowed to us.
Well, that works. A diamond IS just a rock. Only our human perceptions and weird fascinations (“oooh, shiny”) give it a value above and beyond a chunk of granite.
Well, that and an enormously powerful cartel dedicated towards increasing its value for their own gain.
You know, this analogy just keeps looking better.
And Christ is Israel’s Rock. They just don’t know it yet since the veil is still over their eyes. But once that veil is removed…what a sparkling Stone indeed.
A diamond IS just a rock – well said. Ultimately human perception is the root of all value to other humans. That check for a million dollars = just a piece of paper with ink printed on it.
A diamond would mean nothing to a squirrel.
I’m with vorjack. its a good analogy.
:)
“Well, that works. A diamond IS just a rock. Only our human perceptions and weird fascinations (”oooh, shiny”) give it a value above and beyond a chunk of granite.”
Show most people a diamond in its naturally form and they won’t be very impressed, well except when the find out how much it’s worth; have a diamond cut and then people are impressed. Take some rock carve into a statue and again people will be impressed. The real difference is why people prefer diamonds over cubic zirconia or gold over copper.
lol you guys are fixating on his little anology and missing his whole point. His point was that he values Israel. Israel is important to him. This little plot of land, with its borders created by humans, is meaningful to JC for some reason. God liked to dwell on mountains in this region…maybe that’s why? I’m not sure. Maybe JC can tell us why this little region of dirt is important to him. In any case it’s just a piece of land… no matter what human values you want to project on it.
I tend not to take much notice of what JC says …
I tend not to take much notice of what JC says …
It’s better that way, I think.
@Roger
Why converse with someone when the majority of his posts are repeating the same thing, which isn’t even interesting, over-and-over again kicked off by what seems like keywords in posts. This must be a new tactic in witnessing, bored into belief. Of course JC has already admitted that he doesn’t really read posts but people still reply to him.
I am not dwelling on Israel. Just pointing out that the religious right has many enablers including some in the Jewish community. To many fundamentalist Christians, Israel must exist in order for Jesus too return. This belief system is about 150 years old. If this belief system were to end, a large pocket of support for Israel in America would dry up.
Back to the original topic – this Anti-Christ crap. Schaeffer is right about one thing. These people are impervious to reason. That is the nature of delusionalism. Their antannae are only tuned to receive information, true or not, that supports the delusion. I am a counselor and a former fundamentalist. I get anti-Obama emails all the time from some of my old friends. I have, against all my experience and training, tried in vain to reason with them. We will have to go around them or ridicule them into shamed silence.
Delusions are fear based. If you want to get a glimpse into the origins of that fear in fundamentalists, you might take a look at my latest blog page, which has a searing but accurate account of what I learned as a child about God. Unless you can swim above that sewage and get a breath of air, your mind will die, and you will believe any brainwashing that supports the delusions, which help distract you from the fear. It is easier to fear and fight Obama than a two-faced, sadistic God who is omnipotent. Take away the delusion, and those people must face the God of their childhood nightmares. –Fontaine