Is there such a thing as an acceptable fundie?

[fundies_like_zombies]

Just reading about on the forum I have seen some fundies described as nice and genuine.

Do fundie type beliefs (no gays, lots of going to hell) stop them being really nice or are there exceptions like someone who has been brought up in that way?

Do the nice and friendly seeming bloggers just hide the bad stuff and not post it on their blogs? Some like Zsu Zsu and Hearts Desire are open with the things that aren't acceptable under their beliefs but others only seem to stay on shallower and less controversial topics.

[formergothardite]

I think many fundies are better at sugar coating their hate, which just makes them seem nicer. I'm sure there were lots of racists who seemed nice too, but if you are willing to take rights away from people who are different than you or treat women as second class citizens or remove a woman's right to her body, then you aren't nice.

[Rosa]

I think a lot of people have a big gap between their beliefs and their actions.

You get the Ezzo-pimping moms who say they are scheduling and promote spanking, but when you ask them detailed questions without labels, they have spanked maybe 2x in their whole lives and gave "snacks" between scheduled feedings. And the anti-gay folks who figure it's a private sin on the level of premarital sex, who support their nice gay neighbors right to marry and take them soup when they're sick and in other ways act just like a non-homophobic person. And the "complementarians" who claim to be practicing headship but in real life the headship would *never* overrule his wife's decisions.

Just like from the other side you get people with feminist beliefs who discriminate against women, or supposedly nonracist people who just can't shake the feeling that Obama's inherently not Presidential...

I am related to a divorced, lesbian Evangelical who totally believes in "traditional marriage" - that is, she believes it's ideal, just not for her. I have known pagans who don't believe in global warming because "Mother Earth is more powerful than us" and my mother-in-law is a YEC Catholic who *also* believes in evolution and is a Universalist - that is, she believes all good-hearted people go to Heaven. Also dogs.

I just don't think most people's beliefs actually rule their actions.

[August]

If they have an internet presence, then no, there's no way someone can be nice and also cruel and hateful. If they've never been allowed to read a newspaper, meet anyone outside their church or go online, then they could be the sweetest, nicest person in the world who will instantly deconvert the momentthey realise there's a word outside their own.

I just don't think most people's beliefs actually rule their actions.

If their beliefs become actions, by voting a certain way, by publically supporting a hateful thing, by influencing others, then it's notjust a belief. Those Ezzo mothers who don't actually schedule but say they do are actively promoting scheduling, and they're even worse than the ones who actually follow the rules, because their growing, breastfed, non-traumatised babies are a living ad for the system.

[Lady]

I would say yes, it's a tinfoil hat sort of person living in the woods by themselves. Basically, living in a way that their actions and beliefs won't cause harm to others.

[tabitha2]

an acceptable fundie stays off the internet.

[formergothardite]

If a person wants to believe being gay is a sin for them but won't teach their kids that or vote against gay marriage, then they are pretty harmless. But the people who are all nice to their gay neighbors but teach their kids that being gay is wrong and when it comes time to vote won't vote for gay marriage, no those people are not harmless. I think they are actually a more bitchy than the openly hateful people because they will be all nice to their gay neighbor's face while on the other hand they are trying to destroy the gay neighbor's life by voting to remove their rights.

[lilwriter85]

I really like Dayna Grayson, the fundie lite blogger at Pleasant Boundaires. But she hasn't blogged since last September. Dayna's blog didn't really focus on certain issues, but she seemed to have a warmth about her and her family that I don't get from people like Lori or Kelly C.

I also liked certain things about the late Barbara Curtis from Mommy Life. She condemned the Pearls and I liked some of the things she did for her sons with Down syndrome.

[tabitha2]

honestly, lias blogs about family and kids cute stuff 85% of the time and she is not a bad writer.

[fundies_like_zombies]

What made me think of it was the thread about hiswayserves.

I wonder if some bloggers actively choose to hide the nastier views.

[crazyforkate]

I'm sure there are lots of people out there who behave really well, are good to their neighbours, and could be called on in a jam, but still have absolutely abhorrent beliefs and indulge in rotten behavior/speech behind closed doors. Living in a highly evangelical town, you quickly learn to discern what's what. My friend's parents loved all their children and vowed to stand by them no matter what, as good parents do, and seemed like the perfect family...but wouldn't you know it, the moment he came out as trans he was out the door.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Some fundies can come across as nice, seem to love their children and dont spew hate all over the internet. They still have awful beliefs, and probably wouldnt be so nice if they knew I was gay/atheist/feminist/anything they dont approve of, but theyre more acceptable than the ones who treat their kids like crap and make every other blog post about which groups they hate.

The only acceptable level of fundie is what we would call just a regular religious person

[GenerationCedarchip]

What made me think of it was the thread about hiswayserves.

I wonder if some bloggers actively choose to hide the nastier views.

I think there can be some of that. However, I also have known fundies who are more focused on their inner religious life and their families, and gays/abortion really just aren't the key issues to them. Not all fundies are political and even among the political ones, not all are fixated on the same issues. In my state, more than a few tend libertarian and while they may not accept homosexuality personally, really they just want the government to stay out of people's lives as much as possible. As a result, these folks tend not to favor strong regulation either from the right or the left. If you were in their fundie church and held progressive views they disagreed with, the church would likely come down on you, but outside, a lot of the fundies I know are a little more live and let live so long as outsiders treat their way of life the same way.

Edited because I hit enter too early

[singsingsing]

I think it's important to keep in mind that fundies can be unacceptable but at the same time not every single thing they do or say MUST be horrible and evil. I actually think that hurts our argument against fundamentalism, because it's kind of cheap and just not true. For example, I think most people here would agree that the Muncks are objectively 'better' than the Maxwells. That doesn't mean that the Muncks are totally unobjectionable, but it IS okay to point out that there are good things about them, especially when comparing them to 'worse' fundies. It's also important to not lose sight of the fact that fundamentalists are still human beings, many have been born into this lifestyle, and as long as they are humans with human feeling, there is hope for them 'seeing the light' so to speak and leaving fundamentalism. I hate to use the 'hate the sin not the sinner' argument, but it does kind of apply here... of course some fundies are just truly awful people, but it's not all black and white.

[Triplet3]

I think it's important to keep in mind that fundies can be unacceptable but at the same time not every single thing they do or say MUST be horrible and evil. I actually think that hurts our argument against fundamentalism, because it's kind of cheap and just not true. For example, I think most people here would agree that the Muncks are objectively 'better' than the Maxwells. That doesn't mean that the Muncks are totally unobjectionable, but it IS okay to point out that there are good things about them, especially when comparing them to 'worse' fundies. It's also important to not lose sight of the fact that fundamentalists are still human beings, many have been born into this lifestyle, and as long as they are humans with human feeling, there is hope for them 'seeing the light' so to speak and leaving fundamentalism. I hate to use the 'hate the sin not the sinner' argument, but it does kind of apply here... of course some fundies are just truly awful people, but it's not all black and white.

I agree. Someone can hold some objectionable beliefs that I completely disagree with, but that doesn't mean that they're an evil person through and through who has no redeeming features. People are complex. Also, I do think that some fundies are worse than others. For example, not all fundies are malicious like Zsu.

[laura oz]

I am so thankful that the internet wasn't around when I was younger, because I could totally see myself as one of these bloggers. I'm cringing inside at the thought that the 2013 Laura would have torn the 1989 Laura apart. And I can imagine how the rest of y'all would have tried to enlighten me. Wow, did i mention that I'm thankful?

[salsa]

No. Let's round 'em all up and send them to a Journey to the Mind retreat.

I think extremes of any religion are not what the original religion intended, but asking if a person is "acceptable" rubs me the wrong way.* We might find peoples' thoughts, beliefs, and actions to be ridiculous or reprehensible, but the person is still as much a person as is the people whose thoughts, beliefs, and actions we do find acceptable.

* and even so, what if a person IS unacceptable? Who decides? What do we do then? If they are truly unacceptable, does that mean they deserve punishment or reeducation or a stern talking-to?

Zsu can spew hatred on her blog and that is her right. Unless she is harassing or assaulting gays and lesbians, she has the right to that opinion and to still be considered worthy of living her life as she sees fit.

OK, so I don't have the gift of snark ...

[/ raining on the parade]

[jaelh]

absolutely, i think there are some lovely fundies. But it all comes down to how you describe fundies! :)

what gcc said.

i think it was slacktavist where i read an article years ago that described it as:

religious fundamentalists: your lovely neighbour family that's all dresses, hs the kids, churches all the time but are gentle and kind and never mentions it but you know they pray for your eternal salvation every night after dinner.

vs.

political fundamentalists - those who believe their religious belief require the rest of the world to change. (not them).

I'm all for religious fundies. Down with political fundies!

[nelliebelle1197]

No. Let's round 'em all up and send them to a Journey to the Mind retreat.

I think extremes of any religion are not what the original religion intended, but asking if a person is "acceptable" rubs me the wrong way.* We might find peoples' thoughts, beliefs, and actions to be ridiculous or reprehensible, but the person is still as much a person as is the people whose thoughts, beliefs, and actions we do find acceptable.

* and even so, what if a person IS unacceptable? Who decides? What do we do then? If they are truly unacceptable, does that mean they deserve punishment or reeducation or a stern talking-to?

Zsu can spew hatred on her blog and that is her right. Unless she is harassing or assaulting gays and lesbians, she has the right to that opinion and to still be considered worthy of living her life as she sees fit.

OK, so I don't have the gift of snark ...

[/ raining on the parade]

Does she really have a right to her opinions? Why? I am really tired of that phrase because it is simply not true. Using Zsu for the example, here you have a damaged woman indoctrinating her kids and everyone around her with a malicious, judgemental hate. She is hurting her children and society as a whole with her foolishness and he husband is only a few border patrol fights from Timothy Mcveigh territory. Opinions and the expression thereof can be dangerous and lead to dangerous actions. Hate is hate and hate speech is still hate speech.

[tabitha2]

Opinions and the expression thereof can be dangerous and lead to dangerous actions

you sound rather fundie yourself. but you know, lets police thought all together and round up and 'reeducate' those we find offensive. better yet take away their children and educate them in the 'acceptable' world view. that always works :clap:

[Guest Anonymous]

No. Let's round 'em all up and send them to a Journey to the Mind retreat.

I think extremes of any religion are not what the original religion intended, but asking if a person is "acceptable" rubs me the wrong way.* We might find peoples' thoughts, beliefs, and actions to be ridiculous or reprehensible, but the person is still as much a person as is the people whose thoughts, beliefs, and actions we do find acceptable.

* and even so, what if a person IS unacceptable? Who decides? What do we do then? If they are truly unacceptable, does that mean they deserve punishment or reeducation or a stern talking-to?

Zsu can spew hatred on her blog and that is her right. Unless she is harassing or assaulting gays and lesbians, she has the right to that opinion and to still be considered worthy of living her life as she sees fit.

OK, so I don't have the gift of snark ...

[/ raining on the parade]

I had to go back and reread the posts that preceded yours (and maybe I still missed something). I think you're making a massive leap from the word 'acceptable' to the spectre of rounding people up, forcibly re-educating them, punishing them, seeing them as non-people, etc. Maybe 'acceptable' is not the best word choice, but I genuinely saw it more as "How far can something go before we are provoked to speak out about it?" or "How far can something go before it stops being palatable?" than "Let's send them to the re-education centre!". I do think certain fundie pet issues (e.g. the homophobia) are unacceptable. That does not mean that I want to send fundies to a camp or try to force them to stop talking. It just means that I will respond with my own criticism and that I will not sit quietly by, pretending that everything is OK. As for whose decision it is whether something is acceptable/unacceptable, if the only thing I am regulating is my own response then it is my decision.

Regarding the original topic, I think how "nice" a fundie might seem can sometimes depend on who you are. If you (the blog reader, TV show viewer, etc.) belong to one of the groups that are victimised by the nastier side of fundie beliefs (LGBT, non-Christian religions, etc.) it is probably a lot harder to find them so nice. I do sometimes get very uncomfortable when reading those blogs about how lovely things were in the Good Old Days, I can't help but pick up on the whiffs of white privilege and little hints about the appropriate place of non-white people (or sometimes just their complete invisibility!). I would find it very difficult to find one of those bloggers nice, no matter how pretty their lace is.

[lilith]

absolutely, i think there are some lovely fundies. But it all comes down to how you describe fundies! :)

what gcc said.

i think it was slacktavist where i read an article years ago that described it as:

religious fundamentalists: your lovely neighbour family that's all dresses, hs the kids, churches all the time but are gentle and kind and never mentions it but you know they pray for your eternal salvation every night after dinner.

vs.

political fundamentalists - those who believe their religious belief require the rest of the world to change. (not them).

I'm all for religious fundies. Down with political fundies!

But those "religious fundamentalists" are the people who vote for the "political fundamentalist"'s agenda, and thus inflict it on the rest of us.

[LostSamurai]

I refuse to respect people who would be more than willing to make sure I got demoted back as a second class citizen.

[jaelh]

Does she really have a right to her opinions? Why? I am really tired of that phrase because it is simply not true. Using Zsu for the example, here you have a damaged woman indoctrinating her kids and everyone around her with a malicious, judgemental hate. She is hurting her children and society as a whole with her foolishness and he husband is only a few border patrol fights from Timothy Mcveigh territory. Opinions and the expression thereof can be dangerous and lead to dangerous actions. Hate is hate and hate speech is still hate speech.

Hate speech is an action.

Opinons are just that, opinions. The expression of opinion is 100% necessary to a functioning democratic society. Not every opinion; not hate - but we NEED opinions, diverse opinions, or we end up not growing.

Also: no opinion predicates how someone will act. Someone might be of the opinion that abortion is murder: one person will bomb clinics, the other will open her home to mothers in need. Someone might believe that women should be submissive to their husband: exhibit a wants to have the female vote rescinded; exhibit b is very enthusiastic about female political leadership, because she understands the husband/wife relationship to be something other than political.

etc etc.

"Just because maybe it could be dangerous if someone acted a particular way because of an option" is a crap reason for discouraging that option. Sky dog forbid we prohibit anyone holding an opinion about animal liberation in case they attack a primate lab.

If you want to get Zsuzsu, don't go for her (awful, hateful) opinions. Focus on child endangerment; failure to provide care; hate speech etc... The actions. The opinions are as ephemeral as the air until they take form in action. That's where society has a right to intervene.

And yes. Maybe we got to wait for PP to do something nuts (though I'd put $$ he's on watch lists all over the place; he's not who i'd be concerned about). But waiting for PP to do something wrong is good for all of us. Unless you like the idea of political reeducation camps and exiling the politically dangerous to Siberia.

[jaelh]

But those "religious fundamentalists" are the people who vote for the "political fundamentalist"'s agenda, and thus inflict it on the rest of us.

Not all of them.

And therein lies the tricky bit.

Who is a fundie? If we're going to say - oh, it's those nutjobs that go one step beyond religious fundamentalism and are politically fundamental, then we're simply defining a category that suits our argument.

Yes, there are a number of religious fundamentalists who are politically fundamental.

There are plenty that aren't - I know a number of (very) fundie families who don't vote: the whole render to Caesar/not of this world thing.

So I don't think you can blanket "all fundies" the same way. In any given population there are diverse understandings of what it means to do the Right Thing. For many fundamentalists, this need is political. And for others? it's a spiritual battle. (see also: Islam; Judaism in Israel)

Damn, honestly - I'd rather have Ned Flanders as my neighbour than noisy, angry, hostile folk whose political beliefs I share. I would say that the Ned Flanders of the world are BETTER PEOPLE than angry, hostile folk whose political beliefs I share.

But agin - this all depends on how you define fundy. I think some of you package the political beliefs up with "fundy" - it's more than just religious. I don't. At all. I don't think it's helpful to define a category we disagree with and say - but that's fundamentalism: we have to take the richness of the human tapestry and acknowledge there are bad and good in everyone and everything.