Is there such a thing as an acceptable fundie?

[2xx1xy1JD]

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!

Agreed. It all comes down to "how do their actions affect me and everyone else?"

Of the regular fundie blogs that people here follow, I'd probably characterize the Seven Sisters as the most benign. If they end up perpetual spinsters, that's their problem and nobody else's. As long as they don't get hit by a train, it's fairly harmless to others.

[tabitha2]

what about the maxwells then? they don't vote. hell, they don't even read the paper. all they do is hold conferences preaching to the choir and they are not exactly procreating at pace.

[Rosa]

But I think we've seen that even people who theoretically think their rules are just for them, like the super-conservative Jewish sects, will make laws (segregated buses, defunded public schools) that affect other people, if they get the power.

[Arete]

Actually, the Maxwells do vote. The Maxwells also make money selling submission and instructions on how to emotionally cripple children.

That is a lot different from the Turkish Muslim Grandma down the street who covers her head, prays 5 times a day, and nags her granddaughters to find a nice doctor or engineer and her grandson to do likewise.

[bananacat]

I actually don't care at all how nice someone acts. If they abuse and neglect their kids, then they're not acceptable to me. If they try to influence laws to take away rights from others, I give exactly zero fucks about how sweet and polite they seem. I'd much rather have a rude or mean person who takes proper care of their children and fights for the rights of others.

[bananacat]

what about the maxwells then? they don't vote. hell, they don't even read the paper. all they do is hold conferences preaching to the choir and they are not exactly procreating at pace.

They still abuse and neglect their children, who had no choice to be born into that lifestyle.

[jaelh]

I actually don't care at all how nice someone acts. If they abuse and neglect their kids, then they're not acceptable to me. If they try to influence laws to take away rights from others, I give exactly zero fucks about how sweet and polite they seem. I'd much rather have a rude or mean person who takes proper care of their children and fights for the rights of others.

Which is fine, but it's a big if.

If anyone abuses and neglects their kids, they're awful people. Nothing to do with being fundie. there are liberal democrat vegan awful people.

So, can I ask we - for the purposes of this discussion being *with* each other, and not *at* each other - take a few posts to define what fundie means. (I know, I know, but we can try again, surely).

Is it anyone who self describes as fundamentalist?

Does it require the adoption of a whole suite of behaviours? If so, what ones?

Dress

Childrearing

Wifely submission

Political beliefs

Does "childrearing" necessarily entail abuse of the child?

etc

Because I think it's easy for us all to hate on people who abuse their children and have intolerant beliefs they want imposed on you via politics.

But that isn't fundie. That's "awful person". there might be a fair bit of crossover between the two groups but they aren't the same.

So the question then stands: what is fundie?

So maybe to answer the OP's question:

there are only ever acceptable fundies if our definition of fundie includes acceptable fundies.

if it's all abuse and monstering, then no, no acceptable fundies.

If it's a set of religious beliefs that may or may not resulting in said abuse, then yes. of course.

[bananacat]

If you truly believe that the fundie lifestyle doesn't explicitly command and encourage child abuse, then you are too naive to function in daily life. Find me a fundie that doesn't beat their kids and I'll eat my hat (and I don't even own any hats).

[AVENues]

If you truly believe that the fundie lifestyle doesn't explicitly command and encourage child abuse, then you are too naive to function in daily life. Find me a fundie that doesn't beat their kids and I'll eat my hat (and I don't even own any hats).

Um... I really would like to believe that the Muncks, for example, won't whip the shit out of their children once they misbehave. I WANT to believe that, call me whatever you please.

[jaelh]

If you truly believe that the fundie lifestyle doesn't explicitly command and encourage child abuse, then you are too naive to function in daily life. Find me a fundie that doesn't beat their kids and I'll eat my hat (and I don't even own any hats).

Your post pretty much presupposes my post: "show me a fundie who doesnt". Well, you tell me what a fundie is first. Define for me the "fundie lifestyle. Because if to be a fundie you need to be more than a religious fundamentailsts - you need to buy into the whole dominion/enzo/pearls - well, your point is moot. But see, I don't think there is any *necessary* relationship with those beliefs and being "fundie".

If you think there is, than the issue here is how we define "fundie", not wether fundies are capable of being good people.

I personally know several fundamentalist Christian women that don't abuse their children. Not blog authors, but there you go.

Go buy that hat. I'll wait.

and sure, you can tell me I'm wrong, and I don't know any.

But here's the thing - I do. I spent 8 years on a fundie mothers board and became good friends with a number of women there. I've met a number of them personally. and no, I'm not setting you all onto a community I spent years engaging with, and working to earn the trust of. Not a chance. If you think I'm lying because I won't, eh - that doesn't really bother me. There was the full range - off the wall political monsters, right through to deeply religious women who'd never raise their hand to swat a fly. But it took me years and years and years to get the relationships in place, to get to know more than the "internet projection". Years.

And really; some of them were genuinely lovely people, who had chosen a very difficult path, but lived with more integrity than I could have imagined possible. Of course, others were awful. But they weren't all. (see: Persuaded, formerly of this board for a blog writing example, off the top of my head).

And sweetheart, I'm not naive. It appears I'm more comfortable with ambiguity than you are. which has enabled me to develop relationships with a diverse range of people. Which in turn, reinforces the being ok with ambiguity.

There are lots and lots and lots of awful things about "fundisim". But this Not Matter What You're A Demon In These Ways - that's absurd. No matter what the belief community is, there will always be a range of interpretations and actions based on the same beliefs. Not everyone with X belief will behave the same way. Ever. Under any circumstances or set of conditions.

[fundyfunland]

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.

Exactly! They may smile and act all sweet to their neighbours (mostly the Christian ones) and have well-behaving kids (no Duggars I'm not talking about you), etc. but they're still spewing their crap, if not to the general public and through political actions, at least in their churches, and MOST IMPORTANTLY to their children whom they shelter and indoctrinate!

They raise one generation after another to believe these rather heinous and hate-filled views on homosexuals, women, heathens, liberals. They have their right to their opinion sure, so did Hitler, but when these people start raising their kids in this hate-filled environment, when they force rigid gender roles thus restricting future options for them, when they shun their children who might leave because they don't feel connected to the family's beliefs? I have a BIG problem with that.

[treehugger]

Exactly! They may smile and act all sweet to their neighbours (mostly the Christian ones) and have well-behaving kids (no Duggars I'm not talking about you), etc. but they're still spewing their crap, if not to the general public and through political actions, at least in their churches, and MOST IMPORTANTLY to their children whom they shelter and indoctrinate!

They raise one generation after another to believe these rather heinous and hate-filled views on homosexuals, women, heathens, liberals. They have their right to their opinion sure, so did Hitler, but when these people start raising their kids in this hate-filled environment, when they force rigid gender roles thus restricting future options for them, when they shun their children who might leave because they don't feel connected to the family's beliefs? I have a BIG problem with that.

Wow! Did you seriously just use the Hitler comparison?

[fundyfunland]

Oh and just a quickie: Welcome back jaelh!!! I know you've posted a couple times in the past 2 weeks, but I hadn't seen any entries for a long time prior to that. I've always found your opinions very engaging and well thought out, even if I didn't always agree with them. Soooo....wherever you've been, I hope you had fun, but don't leave us again

[fundyfunland]

Wow! Did you seriously just use the Hitler comparison?

Yes I did, and I was unsure if I should write it, but I still stand by it. Hitler was entitled to his opinion, which is why don't think Mein Kempf should be banned, BUT it should be taught allowing for much discussion on it. Hitler wrote Mein Kempf in jail, some manifesto, because he was hateful and probably bored as hell in jail. But, then his key friends read it, then his movement started. I'm saying that what these fundies are teaching their kids to hate their gay neighbours, make women second-class citizens, repeal reproductive rights, etc., may seem like ideas that would never catch on, but these kids are already getting into politics, and they ARE spewing their hate!

FWIW - I've never met a non-political fundie.

[Sola]

You can sprinkle sugar on a shit but it will still be a shit. May taste better, but it's still a shit.

[formergothardite]

For me a person becomes a fundie when it stops becoming a personal belief and they start teaching and trying to enforce hate. And when they start hurting others. So the vegan atheist who beats their kids is a fundie. So would the atheist who raised children to mock religious people or teach their kids that people who are religious are dumb, because that is also teaching hate. I personally found my upbringing with being constantly taught everyone who didn't believe this very narrow way was going to be tortured for eternity very, very scary and saddled me with a constant fear of hell from the time I was small. So, IMO, people who teach that are harming children so they fall into the fundie category too. It is very damaging for gay people to grow up in families where they are always being told that being gay is a sin, so people who teach that are fundies because they are causing harm to their children. The religious people who teach god is love, leave out the hell fire and damnation and don't become political or teach things like being gay is a sin, no they aren't fundie.

So jaelh if the Christian fundamentalist you know are teaching their children that being gay is a sin or that there is a very narrow way to heaven and everyone else will be tortured for eternity, even if they don't hit their children, they are still harming them, teaching them hate(love the sinner hate the sin is bullshit, especially when it comes to being gay), so if they do do those things, they are fundie. At least IMO.

[bal maiden]

For me a person becomes a fundie when it stops becoming a personal belief and they start teaching and trying to enforce hate. And when they start hurting others. So the vegan atheist who beats their kids is a fundie. So would the atheist who raised children to mock religious people or teach their kids that people who are religious are dumb, because that is also teaching hate. I personally found my upbringing with being constantly taught everyone who didn't believe this very narrow way was going to be tortured for eternity very, very scary and saddled me with a constant fear of hell from the time I was small. So, IMO, people who teach that are harming children so they fall into the fundie category too. It is very damaging for gay people to grow up in families where they are always being told that being gay is a sin, so people who teach that are fundies because they are causing harm to their children.

Aren't most of those just people who are being dickheads, though? I think being a fundamentalist is more than just being a dickhead and teaching your kids to be a dickhead. In my opinion, there has to be a component of trying to return to live by (what they see as) the fundamentals of their religion/belief system, and, moreover, reduce all aspects of life to these religious tenets. So you can get fundamentalists of many flavours - religious, atheist, nationalist etc. - and what makes them fundie is that they think the whole of existence is about God/science/whatever. So for Christians, every aspect of life is about God/Jesus; for Muslims, everything is about Allah; for scientists, everything is reducible to scientific principles and so on. People who teach hate are arseholes, but unless they teach that hate through the vehicles of some kind of all-encompassing life/belief-system, I wouldn't call them a fundie.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Yeah, atheists can be fundies-all being a fundie is, is following a belief system to the extreme and looking down on those who dont follow it.

[meep]

Yes, it depends if they believe in "dominionism" or whatever that's called. Some fundies aren't dominionists so they don't try to force their beliefs on everyone, definitely not in a political way either. But other fundies - most fundies - are dominionists, and that's when they are intolerable because they believe everyone should behave and live the way they are living, whether people have the same religion or not.

[formergothardite]

That is just how I define a fundie. I would think that most members here have a different definition of fundie. But when I'm talking about fundies, that is what I am describing. So the sweet looking fundie bloggers who are teaching their kids that everyone who doesn't believe just like they do are going to be tortured for all eternity are fundies. The atheist who teaches their kids to show contempt to everyone who is religious, also a fundie. The religious fundies who teach their kids that being gay is not acceptable, ever, but won't vote against gay marriage are more on the fundie-lite side, but they are still teaching hate, so they are still fundie.

[jaelh]

So jaelh if the Christian fundamentalist you know are teaching their children that being gay is a sin or that there is a very narrow way to heaven and everyone else will be tortured for eternity, even if they don't hit their children, they are still harming them, teaching them hate(love the sinner hate the sin is bullshit, especially when it comes to being gay), so if they do do those things, they are fundie. At least IMO.

Fundamentalist . Several. More than one. One exception to the rule would likely only serve to prove the rule :)

And they taught a range of things. Generally not that being gay was a sin, but that gay acts were sinful (as was any sexual act unmarried etc...). While lots on that board were very anti-gay marriage, several very conservative Christians were actually quite torn/pro gay marriage, which I found remarkable. But they differentiated what they saw as the sacrament from political rights. Yes, they taught hell. But they were biblical fundamentalists. None the less, many of them seemed to have very happy children - of those I met, anyhow. Certainly, no less and often more happy than the children of secular friends (at least; those with decent folks. the really awful ones were.... really, really awful. however you sliced it).

Anyway. waffle waffle. anecdote - the poor fifteenth cousin of the statistic.

But ok. This is making more sense to me. From your POV, FG, you're going with hardline interpretation + contempt. That's what takes someone from fundamentalist to fundie. Have I got that right? That's where we differ: I put fundamentalists into one basket, and then say - well, there's a range within that basket.

So we have different answers to the question, asked. If I were using your definition, I'd prob. have a different answer to the one I have now. And I'm really sorry you experienced such hate in your childhood, FG. no one should have to.

(btw: thanks, ffl)

[formergothardite]

People always went on about what a happy child I was. But I was still plagued with the idea that so many of the people were going to suffer eternal torture and even though I did all the right things, how could I be sure that I wasn't going to be one of those people? So, to me, if you are teaching children that, you are harming them.

And teaching gay sex is a sin to people who are gay is also harmful. You are teaching gay children from the time they are small that they can never enjoy a relationship unless they want to deny who they really are and pretend to be straight.

While you have been on forums with fundamental Christians and gotten to know them, I've, not only lived it, but been on forums with children who were raised in households like you are describing and that way of raising children can be very, very harmful. And most of those kids looked and acted happy growing up. Some of your friends are teaching just as much hate as I was taught. They are creating the childhoods I lived. Not all children are bothered by it, but there are plenty who are.

Pretty much everyone is going to have a different definition of what a fundie is. You will look at a group of preschoolers being taught that they will go be tortured for eternity if they don't believe a certain way and not see that as being fundie, while I do. We have had several threads like this and I don't think anyone has ever agreed upon a definition for fundie is. :lol: It explains why people like the blogger from Of a Single Heart really thought that she could come here and no one would think her blog was fundie because to her(and probably other members) she wasn't fundie, but to many other she was.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll try to phrase this to apply to multiple belief systems, including political as well as religious beliefs.

Being a fundie is more than just a collection of nasty traits. It's a particular mindset and world view, which often includes the following:

1. Central text or doctrine that is assumed to represent truth. While the text may be read and the doctrine analyzed to a certain extent, the fact that it is true cannot be seriously questioned.

2. Similarly, there may be people who are elevated to the level of prophet (leader, sage, Messiah, great teacher, etc.). The fact that one of these people makes a statement is often taken as proof that it is true, criticism is perceived as an attack, and there is a reluctance to admit that this person may sometimes be out to lunch.

3. Adhering to the doctrine without deviation is considered to be a virtue. Deviation has very negative implications, including allegations of disloyalty and/or heresy.

4. Departing from the doctrine brings practical consequences, such as a degree of shunning, boycotting, etc.

5. Deviation is seen as a poor reflection on family/friends as well. There may be pressure on them to disassociate with the person who deviates.

6. There may be some form of embarrassment/calling out used as a form of correction, to deal with deviation. It may involve public criticism, confession/self-criticism, shaming and consequences.

7. Much of the logic is in the form of tautologies (circular reasoning), such as "Text is true because text says that it is true".

8. While freedom of expression and openness to new ideas may be preached during the recruitment phase, these are gradually eliminated as the new recruit becomes a full member. Instead, outside ideas are seen as corrupting/sources of evil/attempts by Satan to deceive/counter-revolutionary, etc.

9. Members are taught to engage in self-censorship, to alter or weed out material that does not conform to their belief system.

10. A person's own thoughts are seen as a source of danger. Members are taught to guard their thoughts against deviance, and to see doubts/questions as evil.

11. One's own preferences and opinions are seen as selfish. Conquering one's self and desires is considered to be good and noble.

12. One's own sense of morality is not to be trusted, and can even be seen as selfish or evil if it leads one to go astray and fail to submit totally to the larger doctrine.

13. Since the doctrine will lead to good, opposing the doctrine is not just a matter of personal opinion but is in fact something that is considered to be harmful to all. Thus, tolerance is seen as evil, and the greater good may demand that measure be taking against deviance from the doctrine.

14. Scapegoats are used. Living up to the demands of the doctrine can be hard, so some relief is found in attacking others for not conforming, or for posing a threat.

15. Since the doctrine is so obviously true, disagreement must be caused by (1) failing to properly understand the doctrine, (2) being too stupid to understand the doctrine, or (3) being mentally ill or otherwise disturbed.

16. Lashing out at those opposed to the doctrine is not considered anti-social or violent, but is praised.

17. Language used suggesting that if some adherence to the doctrine is good, extreme conformity is even better. Being extreme is seen not as a sign of possible mental illness, but as a sign that someone is on a higher level and that others should aspire to the same goal.

18. Facts must fit into the doctrine. Those facts that do not fit must be rejected. It is not acceptable to question and change the doctrine in light of new facts.

I don't think that there is one bright line test to distinguish between fundies and non-fundies. Ranges exist.

[Irishy]

Yeah, atheists can be fundies-all being a fundie is, is following a belief system to the extreme and looking down on those who dont follow it.

Well then, at one time in my life I was a breastfeeding fundie. Thankfully I stopped caring what other people do.

[salsa]

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.

Thoughts and beliefs such as Zsu's - and influence over children and nincompoops who choose to go to the Strip Mall church are unacceptable in my world view.

Unless you can find a way to prevent it, or you're espousing a some sort of system of trying to prevent people from having any beliefs other than what some unknown entity dictates are acceptable, we must accept that our own personal liberty means that others also have their personal liberty, however much we dislike it.

I also still maintain that it's beliefs and actions that are unacceptable and not the person. Yes, beliefs cause reprehensible actions, but as long as there is life, there is hope for change. Even still, that's a lame argument, as I just plain old struggle with coming to grips with the fact that there are people who believe and act in a way that is against my moral code. And much of what we hear from fundies goes against my moral code.

Until the point at which someone breaks the law, I have to accept that they, too, are human beings, no matter how reprehensible I find their views.

To borrow a meme: "Do something that would make Westboro Baptist Church picket your funeral."

I've just restated my original post, so unless I have something new to say, it's unlikely I'll post another rewording of the same opinion... (I hate broken records! - or these days, broken CD's?) :animals-dogrun: