Decline of Religious Conservatism

[gustava]

The QFers better hurry up and breed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 24967.html

[debrand]

I think that the internet is one of the reasons that conservativism(at least extremism) will continue to decline. Today, we can be exposed to many different viewpoints and have online debates with a wide variety of people. Most of the time, progressives do better in online debates. I think that this is because conservatives don't have many new ideas for modern problems. They just keep spouting the same ideas that didn't work in the past. Also, the more people you are exposed to, the harder it is to be very conservative. And the internet exposes us to many people.

[Mama Mia]

I think that the internet is one of the reasons that conservativism(at least extremism) will continue to decline. Today, we can be exposed to many different viewpoints and have online debates with a wide variety of people. Most of the time, progressives do better in online debates. I think that this is because conservatives don't have many new ideas for modern problems. They just keep spouting the same ideas that didn't work in the past. Also, the more people you are exposed to, the harder it is to be very conservative. And the internet exposes us to many people.

That's so weird my daughter and I were just talking about the impact of the internet on peoples opinions ten minutes ago.

We came to the opposite conclusion though. That the Internet allows people the opportunity to say all the hateful things they won't say to people in real life. And seeing that other people think the same hateful things validates and fuels them.

Although the quick acceptance of same sex marriage seems to show the Internet is helpful in increasing acceptance.

[jaynie]

That's so weird my daughter and I were just talking about the impact of the internet on peoples opinions ten minutes ago.

We came to the opposite conclusion though. That the Internet allows people the opportunity to say all the hateful things they won't say to people in real life. And seeing that other people think the same hateful things validates and fuels them.

Although the quick acceptance of same sex marriage seems to show the Internet is helpful in increasing acceptance.

I think that's true on a small scale, but that the overall effect of the internet is towards tolerance. People can certainly be hateful online, it's true -- but the average person doesn't use the internet in that way. The average person finds websites or forums for things they like, or subjects they're interested in, or whatever, which means that John Smith from rural Iowa who happens to like, say, sports cars, will be interacting with Takashi Sato of Tokyo who also likes sports cars. Maybe Fred the homophobe finds out that Alistair, his buddy from the cheesy sci-fi blog, is getting married to his husband next month. Maybe Jane the fundementalist christian finds out that Aisha the moderate muslim is actually the nicest person she's ever met. Etc. The anonymity of the internet might allow assholes to be assholes without backlash, but the shared experiences that transcend borders or ethnicities or sexualities (etc) will push us, I suspect, in the direction of greater tolerance and identification with people who are Not Like Us.

[Mama Mia]

I think that's true on a small scale, but that the overall effect of the internet is towards tolerance. People can certainly be hateful online, it's true -- but the average person doesn't use the internet in that way. The average person finds websites or forums for things they like, or subjects they're interested in, or whatever, which means that John Smith from rural Iowa who happens to like, say, sports cars, will be interacting with Takashi Sato of Tokyo who also likes sports cars. Maybe Fred the homophobe finds out that Alistair, his buddy from the cheesy sci-fi blog, is getting married to his husband next month. Maybe Jane the fundementalist christian finds out that Aisha the moderate muslim is actually the nicest person she's ever met. Etc. The anonymity of the internet might allow assholes to be assholes without backlash, but the shared experiences that transcend borders or ethnicities or sexualities (etc) will push us, I suspect, in the direction of greater tolerance and identification with people who are Not Like Us.

That's a very good point! I guess I never thought about that, since most of the things that interest me online are political or controversial or religious, so didn't think about all the nice normal interactions people would have :lol:

[fatcat]

That's so weird my daughter and I were just talking about the impact of the internet on peoples opinions ten minutes ago.

We came to the opposite conclusion though. That the Internet allows people the opportunity to say all the hateful things they won't say to people in real life. And seeing that other people think the same hateful things validates and fuels them.

Although the quick acceptance of same sex marriage seems to show the Internet is helpful in increasing acceptance.

I am more inclined to agree with this second view, to be honest. Before I started using the internet, I was unaware that people like Sunshinemary (I am kind of obsessed with her, so I'll use her as an example) existed, and I probably wouldn't believe someone if they told me about her. But I think people like the kinds of people who post at her blog are encouraged by the fact that others like them exist, and they can (like you said) say things they wouldn't in real life. By posting on such blogs, they can come to the conclusion that there are many more people in the world 'like them' than there actually are. They become more defensive about their beliefs and egg each other on, so to speak. It can creates an environment where you have to pick one side - progressive or conservative, extreme athiest or extreme fundie, unabashed feminist or wifebeating manospherian (to be clear, I side way more with the first of each of those three categories). One minute you're thinking ' maybe I could become more spiritual', or 'I wonder if there are any resources for men out there...', next thing you know you are on http://www.howtobeatyourwife.com. For people who are already bitter isolated, having easy access to such resources could their lives (and the lives of those around them) much worse.

It is possible that young fundamentalist Christians could discover different beliefs on the internet for the first time, but I think that by the time they are allowed to blog or go on the internet, most of them have already been so brainwashed that they won't question their beliefs after all.

And that is wha I don't think the internet is necessarily a good thing *she says, on the internet* Others may disagree. I fact, I hope I'm wrong and debrand is right. But it's something I've been thinking about for a while. And I am not in favour of censorship of any kind.

[fatcat]

Wow, that was not supposed to be an actual link... I hope it doesn't go anywhere.

[bananacat]

The QFs can breed all they want, but ultimately they will end up producing more liberals than conservatives. It is ironic, in a way. That lifestyle has quite a high defection rate.

[fatcat]

Does anyone know what the defection rate is? I'm surprised to hear it is high, because most of the families we follow here don't seem to have any dissenting members. I actually always thought there would be more rebels than there are. I'm glad to hear there are some. Any reccomendations of stories/blogs from ex-Quiverfullers (other than No Longer Quivering and the one which was apparently fake)?

[meep]

Does anyone know what the defection rate is? I'm surprised to hear it is high, because most of the families we follow here don't seem to have any dissenting members. I actually always thought there would be more rebels than there are. I'm glad to hear there are some. Any reccomendations of stories/blogs from ex-Quiverfullers (other than No Longer Quivering and the one which was apparently fake)?

There are actually quite a few if you look around the forum for a bit. Not including some members/families who turned fundie-lite.

[fatcat]

There are actually quite a few if you look around the forum for a bit. Not including some members/families who turned fundie-lite.

Thanks! I haven't been around here all that much, just lurking occasionally. I'm glad to hear some have escaped.

[Mama Mia]

The QFs can breed all they want, but ultimately they will end up producing more liberals than conservatives. It is ironic, in a way. That lifestyle has quite a high defection rate.

But aren't most of the really extreme fundamentalist parents first generation anyway? So even if many are defecting, it would seem to be some percentage defecting from a larger group that basically didn't exist before.

It seems to me that both ends of the spectrum have become much more extreme in recent years. So what was considered a liberal or conservative religion probably means something vastly different in 2013 than it meant in 1983 or 1953 . I'd be curious to see what their definitions are.

[HoneyBunny]

That's so weird my daughter and I were just talking about the impact of the internet on peoples opinions ten minutes ago.

We came to the opposite conclusion though. That the Internet allows people the opportunity to say all the hateful things they won't say to people in real life. And seeing that other people think the same hateful things validates and fuels them.

Although the quick acceptance of same sex marriage seems to show the Internet is helpful in increasing acceptance.

I agree. Regardless of the truisms people are exposed to, they will only internalize those they're already biased towards.

I often wonder if the 24 hour cable "news" cycle (aka 23 hours of radical opinions appealing to viewers with the sole goal of profit, and 1 hour of news) would have exploded as it has in the absence of the Internet. I think it might not have.

[Ms Jess]

I was never involved in ATI and my parents were not as extremely, fearfully conservative as many of the fundamentalists featured on this site but I was raised with an extremely narrow point of view. Sadly, I maintained it for several years after leaving home.

Some of my opinions did begin to change as I developed relationships with other posters on a mothering message board when my kids were very little. Seeds were planted there that led to my becoming tolerant of other viewpoints, lifestyles and religions. That led to not just tolerance but acceptance. And now there's just no hope of saving my liberal, hippie, tree-hugging, live-and-let-live ass. :lol:

I have 7 younger siblings and 4 of them have followed a similar path; some because of the Internet and others for a combination of reasons. If my predictions are accurate, at least two more should end up like us heathens once they are adults and allowed to live as hey choose.

[Anxious Girl]

I agree, debrand. Now with the internet, people can find out the truth behind "Messianic Jews", Mormon rituals,various theories of why the Roman Catholic Church doesn't want to acknowledge that they have a problem with priests who rape and do something about it; and Al Qaida's motives (which is the extreme Muslim sect that supports it?). I don't understand why people want to be part of organized religion when it's been used to deny others rights such as bodily autonomy (sp?) and marriage. If a religious group has for centuries been used to keep people that doesn't fit into their patriarchy made-up "reality" in place to not question them, then why do people who're in them complain that not all members of x are like that and get mad when people generalize them when their fellow members have been generalizing other groups of people they didn't like for centuries? You can believe in a God and not be part of an organized group that uses God as an excuse to opress others. Please forgive me if I'm being insensitive/anti-religious/tell me how I am, I just can't take the religious bullshit anymore, especially with the anti-abortion laws in America and somebody killing themselves in France because other people got rights to marry.

[apple1]

...It seems to me that both ends of the spectrum have become much more extreme in recent years. So what was considered a liberal or conservative religion probably means something vastly different in 2013 than it meant in 1983 or 1953 . I'd be curious to see what their definitions are.

(I realize this board is international, so my disclaimer is that my experience is from the US). The above is so true. The polarization in the US has greatly increased in my adult lifetime (I am 60 years old). There also has been a political shift in what is defined as liberal and what is defined as conservative.

The other thing that I have observed is the insinuation of politics into "religion". As a young teenager, I never - not once - heard politics discussed from the pulpit. My personal opinion is that it would benefit the US if our churches would return to that practice. (I'm Christian - so -) In my opinion, if the teachings of Christ guide my life, that may affect how I vote, but I don't need some pastor to tell me which candidates that I should vote for. Aside: Nothing will make me walk out the door faster. That's not why I would go to church.

[salex]

(I realize this board is international, so my disclaimer is that my experience is from the US). The above is so true. The polarization in the US has greatly increased in my adult lifetime (I am 60 years old). There also has been a political shift in what is defined as liberal and what is defined as conservative.

The other thing that I have observed is the insinuation of politics into "religion". As a young teenager, I never - not once - heard politics discussed from the pulpit. My personal opinion is that it would benefit the US if our churches would return to that practice. (I'm Christian - so -) In my opinion, if the teachings of Christ guide my life, that may affect how I vote, but I don't need some pastor to tell me which candidates that I should vote for. Aside: Nothing will make me walk out the door faster. That's not why I would go to church.

I know that in my state, a lot of the conservative churches preach politics. Brownback gets "blessed" by some serious nutjobs, has people blow a Shofar in state buildings in honor of Israel, etc. But, my liberal church wasn't innocent in this regard, and the political showed up there as well.

[Becket70]

I think that if there is a serious decline, it can be blamed on one thing...overreach. I'm sure most of us don't give a tinker's d*** if a person wants to be ultra-conservative. It's when, using politics, they try to impose their belief system on others. Look what's going on in the race for Virginia's governor. Making all oral sex a felony is actually something the Republican candidate is running on. If that isn't overreach, I don't know what is.

[GeoBQn]

But aren't most of the really extreme fundamentalist parents first generation anyway? So even if many are defecting, it would seem to be some percentage defecting from a larger group that basically didn't exist before.

It seems to me that both ends of the spectrum have become much more extreme in recent years. So what was considered a liberal or conservative religion probably means something vastly different in 2013 than it meant in 1983 or 1953 . I'd be curious to see what their definitions are.

On the Rachel Maddow show, they showed screenshots of the Dole '96 campaign website (still running!). It was so bizarre to see a website for a Republican candidate brag about how he supported things like the Clean Water Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other bills that no Republican would even think of supporting today.

[Jinger Jar]

On the Rachel Maddow show, they showed screenshots of the Dole '96 campaign website (still running!). It was so bizarre to see a website for a Republican candidate brag about how he supported things like the Clean Water Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other bills that no Republican would even think of supporting today.

The Environmental Protection Agency was signed into being via executive order by Richard Nixon in 1970. Could you imagine a Republic president doing such a thing today? The Koch brothers alone would pretty much guarantee that would never, ever happen.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I am more inclined to agree with this second view, to be honest. Before I started using the internet, I was unaware that people like Sunshinemary (I am kind of obsessed with her, so I'll use her as an example) existed, and I probably wouldn't believe someone if they told me about her. But I think people like the kinds of people who post at her blog are encouraged by the fact that others like them exist, and they can (like you said) say things they wouldn't in real life. By posting on such blogs, they can come to the conclusion that there are many more people in the world 'like them' than there actually are. They become more defensive about their beliefs and egg each other on, so to speak. It can creates an environment where you have to pick one side - progressive or conservative, extreme athiest or extreme fundie, unabashed feminist or wifebeating manospherian (to be clear, I side way more with the first of each of those three categories). One minute you're thinking ' maybe I could become more spiritual', or 'I wonder if there are any resources for men out there...', next thing you know you are on http://www.howtobeatyourwife.com. For people who are already bitter isolated, having easy access to such resources could their lives (and the lives of those around them) much worse.

It is possible that young fundamentalist Christians could discover different beliefs on the internet for the first time, but I think that by the time they are allowed to blog or go on the internet, most of them have already been so brainwashed that they won't question their beliefs after all.

And that is wha I don't think the internet is necessarily a good thing *she says, on the internet* Others may disagree. I fact, I hope I'm wrong and debrand is right. But it's something I've been thinking about for a while. And I am not in favour of censorship of any kind.

It can - and does - go both ways.

It's easier than ever to connect to a universe that may question your view of the universe and discuss doubts. It's also easier than ever to self-radicalize.

I'm over 40. Back in the olden days when I was growing up, we watched the national news every night at the same time and read the same major newspaper every day. If we disagreed with what was being said, we would spend some time and effort to write a carefully-worded letter to the editor. You knew that your letter might to selected for publication if you got a call from the paper to verify your information, since anonymous letters or pseudonyms were not allowed. For quick information on any subject, you looked in an encyclopedia. For medical information, you could clearly see the difference between the New England Journal of Medicine and a pamphlet being handed out by a crazy guy on the street. True, the mainstream media messages were more controlled, and it was somewhat elitist and didn't encourage a lot of active involvement, but the overall effect was more moderation.

Sure, there was usually one paper that leaned a bit left, and one that leaned a bit right, but overall, most of the people got the same basic news, and used the same basic sources of information.

When the internet was in its infancy, the early users were academics and scientists. The level of discussion was pretty high, much of the time. I remember some good Babycenter debates, for example, with essay-length posts complete with links and references to scientific journals.

Now, the bar to participation is far lower. So many more people are online, and so many people aren't using traditional computers at all but post from phones or iPads. Attention spans are shorter. Who has the time for long posts and debates? Search is instant, and it will turn up garbage just as easily as real information. It's remarkably easy to put up a website or blog, and it's remarkably easy to forward links or clips to everyone you know. It's harder for real, verified information to stand out among quackery and conspiracy theories and BS that gets forwarded at warp speed around the planet.

It's also easier than ever to read only the news that matches your interests or biases. If all of your friends and family in the real world think that your homeschooled children are becoming freaks, you can go online for support. If you want to hit your kids with plumbing line, you can find support for that too. You can get a news feed from the sources that best match your politics - and that will never report the opposite POV.

I predict that the Next Big Thing in the world of the internet will be a really good tool to rank not just popularity, but the reliability of different sites. When that comes, our kids will probably say "can you imagine how gullible everyone used to be?"

[CruitLvr]

I think that's true on a small scale, but that the overall effect of the internet is towards tolerance. People can certainly be hateful online, it's true -- but the average person doesn't use the internet in that way. The average person finds websites or forums for things they like, or subjects they're interested in, or whatever, which means that John Smith from rural Iowa who happens to like, say, sports cars, will be interacting with Takashi Sato of Tokyo who also likes sports cars. Maybe Fred the homophobe finds out that Alistair, his buddy from the cheesy sci-fi blog, is getting married to his husband next month. Maybe Jane the fundementalist christian finds out that Aisha the moderate muslim is actually the nicest person she's ever met. Etc. The anonymity of the internet might allow assholes to be assholes without backlash, but the shared experiences that transcend borders or ethnicities or sexualities (etc) will push us, I suspect, in the direction of greater tolerance and identification with people who are Not Like Us.

I think this would be true if people were using traditional computers, but as another poster said, they aren't. Many people use a cell phone or tablet and never venture away from Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, or whatever happens to be the popular site/app at the time.

I live in the deep south, and everyday I am amazed at the ridiculous things my "friends" post on Facebook. It's even worse on local media Facebook pages, where literal hatred is not only common but even encouraged among users. I've seen friends having virtual cage fights over very hot button issues; things they'd never discuss in person.

Thinking for one's self seems to be a thing of the past in my area. Sadly, people still believe every single thing they see on Facebook, and I don't see it getting any better in the near future.

[already hungover]

The Environmental Protection Agency was signed into being via executive order by Richard Nixon in 1970. Could you imagine a Republic president doing such a thing today? The Koch brothers alone would pretty much guarantee that would never, ever happen.

Nixon also proposed health care reform before it was the trendy thing to do, but his proposal was shot down by none other than Ted Kennedy. I often call myself a "Nixon Democrat" which my friends think is a joke, but I'm pretty serious.