Ironies of Class in Fundamentalist Cultures

[emmiedahl]

One interesting thing that I have noted at FJ, and I am definitely looking forward to any critical analysis that an FJer might make on the issue, is the preponderance of "belief" in conservative philosophy. When conservatives come here to play, they tend to couch their political views in terms of belief. "I believe" and "I think" and "I feel" are all such common terms. When the liberal side argues with them, we tend to use facts, figures, logic.

Perhaps certain people are so used to buying a religious party line that contradicts logic, that they are willing to do the same when it comes to their political beliefs. Is that clear enough? I am having trouble explaining the thought in words. I guess I mean that facts are not their friend in the area of religion, so why would politics be any different? kwim?

[Angri-la]

I would say Paul was, but then again, most of the new testament is a Paul-influenced collection of books/letters. He re-wrote Jesus in his own image and made Jesus some kind of greek mystery cult hero, descended from David. The stuff that survived from the apostles who refused to follow Paul is probably closest to what Jesus thought, but the whole thing is so mixed up. But even so - Jesus comes out looking way nicer than Paul.

Paul was a woman hating nellie. Team Jesus!

[Soldier of the One]

I agree. I can't even begin to answer the OP's question, because I have no idea why these people vote the way they do.

They often vote against their own interests, and yet they do so for apparently selfish reasons.

It's as if the vast majority of fundies don't recognize the reality of their class status, and believe they can level up if they collaborate with their oppressors. They accept nearly unbelievable levels of corruption and avarice in their own leaders, both political and religious, while at the same time looking for ways to fly-speck opponents for lesser sins.

Maybe the rampant anti-intellectualism is what allows them to be swayed so easily and so often by such obvious horseshit.

Burris: spot on, as always.

[JesusFightClub]

One interesting thing that I have noted at FJ, and I am definitely looking forward to any critical analysis that an FJer might make on the issue, is the preponderance of "belief" in conservative philosophy. When conservatives come here to play, they tend to couch their political views in terms of belief. "I believe" and "I think" and "I feel" are all such common terms. When the liberal side argues with them, we tend to use facts, figures, logic.

Perhaps certain people are so used to buying a religious party line that contradicts logic, that they are willing to do the same when it comes to their political beliefs. Is that clear enough? I am having trouble explaining the thought in words. I guess I mean that facts are not their friend in the area of religion, so why would politics be any different? kwim?

It's an interesting one, emmiedahl.

I have got into trouble before on American forums for using "I think..." In the UK that's polite because you are saying the equivalent of "Just my thoughts..." IOW acknowledging that other people might think differently. But people said "That's so arrogant, so you're so special we should all listen to you?" They preferred a blunt statement, "X is Y" not "I think X is Y".

I try to watch that now when talking to Americans, but it's difficult because a lot of my political opinions are, er, controversial. Some of them are controversial amongst commies too (ask me about the Cheka! in fact, don't ;)) So a blunt statement that this or that is fact, I would use IRL with people I know well, but not with strangers.

So can this be a manifestation of fundie culture? They know their opinion is far from majority here and so they are trying to soften their statements by using "think", "believe" and "feel"?

[emmiedahl]

Americans use "I think" and "I believe" a lot also, and I normally don't read a lot into it. But we have so many convos at FJ that go something like this:

Conservative: I believe the sky is orange! Because the Bible says so!

Liberal: I am looking out my window, and it is blue here.

Conservative: I think the sky is orange!

Liberal: If you read XXX textbook by noted authority, he says on page 12 that the sky is blue. I have never even heard of an orange sky, wtf are you thinking?

Conservative: I believe that the sky is orange and you are an ungodly heathen for saying anything else!

Liberal: Why do you think that the sky is orange? Do you have any reason to think that?

Conservative: OMG you are such bitches! (flounce)

It's like, you can prove them wrong over and over; the only reason they believe it is that, well, they believe it. I guess a person who believes that the Earth was created in seven days can believe practically anything given the right tone of authority.

[Deleted12]

I'm enjoying the hell out of this thread.

One of my favorite books of all time is "Moral Politics" by George Lakoff. I can't recommend this book highly enough.

According to Lakoff, on a deep neurolinguistic level everyone views the United States as a family, of which the government represents the parents. We speak of our founding fathers, our motherland, and so forth. Liberals and conservatives generally have different ideas about how families operate. In general, liberals believe in the Nurturant Parent model, where the goal of the parents is to protect the children, respect their autonomy, teach them appropriate values, and give them the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in a Strict Father model, where the goal of the parents is to teach the children respect for authority, reward good behavior, punish wrongdoing, and encourage self-reliance and self-discipline. Of course liberals think that the conservative model is fascist and abusive, and conservatives think that the liberal model raises weak children.

I can't think of a single fundamentalist family that doesn't follow the Strict Father model when it comes to child-rearing, and it makes sense that they would also adopt this mode of thought when both engaging in the political sphere and when thinking about God. (Lakoff seriously devotes a whole chapter to fundamentalist child-rearing manuals that call for spanking.)

One thing that I think cannot be stated enough is that these people sincerely believe in a God that rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. God is moral according to their scheme. If someone is stinking rich then it doesn't matter that he was born to a wealthy family, went to Phillips-Andover, and got into Harvard with legacy; God obviously wanted him to have a pile of money. On the other hand, if someone is getting food stamps because 20 hours a week at minimum wage isn't enough to keep the kids fed, then it's totally irrelevant that she herself was born in a single-parent household, never had the money to go to college, was widowed at age 25 with three kids to take care of, and can't find full-time work because the economy sucks; she clearly screwed up and God is punishing her for her sins.

Of course if God wants Baxter Misselthwaite Oglethorpe VanDermeer III to be rich and Desiree Jackson to be poor, then it's totally unfair to take money away from him and give it to her. Not only is that punishing him by taking away his money that he earned, but it doesn't encourage her to be self-reliant or self-disciplined to give her money that she didn't earn.

I suspect that very little of what fundamentalist Christians claim to believe in can actually be found in the Bible, and that most of what passes for their "morality" is cobbled together Randian tripe mixed with a heavy dose of hatred for their fellow man, but that's a rant for a different post.

But seriously, go read "Moral Politics." That book brings it in a big way.

[Soldier of the One]

I'm enjoying this thread too :)

Emmiedahl and JFC, I think (hah!) that there is something about the assertion of evidence. I remember having discussions with theological conservatives on Creationism (which I eschew as bad science and even poorer theology). No matter how much scientific evidence I brought to at minimum demonstrate that the Earth is older than 6000 years, they just don't want to acknowledge that. I understand that deeply religious/convicted people don't want to grant science leeway in the area of the hypothetical and speculative (i.e. abstract cosmology, super-string theory, Higgs-Boson particle, what-have-you) in favor of cherished religious beliefs, but to deny plain evidence in front of our very eyes seems silly to me.

Coming from a progressive and scientific viewpoint, I've always learned to argue on the basis of evidence. To not do so would be completely counter-productive. I will never forget the definition of 'ad hominem' in my high school philosophy class ;)

'I think' can, as JFC stated, in some cultures represent a qualifier to a personal statement. But in the case of any kind of fundamentalism, I'd be pleasantly surprised to see such intellectual humility.

As for the theological underpinnings that AthenaC suggested in the book she recommends, that makes sense. Prosperity theology and Calvinism do operate under that worldview. And, yes, it *is* a Biblical worldview but within context. Biblical Israelites did believe that God rewarded and punished according to virtue and sin in this earthly plain. But then again, Biblical Israelites (and Sadducees) didn't believe in an afterlife anyway (apart for some vague references to a sleep-like state in She'ol, the underworld). For them, the justification of God's acts came in this world.

This worldview changed significantly after the first Exile. Biblical Jews were influenced in part by Zoroastrianism to contemplate the notion of the afterlife and reward/punishment taking place there. This idea of the afterlife (which in essence is a flawed but compassionate reaction to a reality of injustice) was further developed by both Pharisaic (proto-rabbinic) Judaism and Christianity.

So, by focusing on reward/punishment in this life, fundamentalism is selling the great Biblical innovations of both the Prophets and Jesus short and doing a theological 'backflip'.

Either you get rewarded in this life because there is no other life or you get rewarded in Heaven - which in essence means: don't judge the circumstances of others because you don't know what is fully being played out in the cosmic drama.

[debrand]

I don't have much to add but I want this thread to continue.

What I have always heard is that somehow extreme capitalism protects individual rights best. Not supporting capitalism will somehow lead to Christians loosing their right to follow their faith. And no, I can't explain that, so don't ask.

I will say that I find it weird that conservative Christians, who are often very patriotic, would support those who seem bent on destroying our economy. Their founder said that if you have two coats, you should share one. Yet, I don't see any encouragment for the rich to share a bit, through their taxes, with the poor.

[Soldier of the One]

I don't have much to add but I want this thread to continue.

What I have always heard is that somehow extreme capitalism protects individual rights best. Not supporting capitalism will somehow lead to Christians loosing their right to follow their faith. And no, I can't explain that, so don't ask.

I will say that I find it weird that conservative Christians, who are often very patriotic, would support those who seem bent on destroying our economy. Their founder said that if you have two coats, you should share one. Yet, I don't see any encouragment for the rich to share a bit, through their taxes, with the poor.

Bumping the thread up again, debrand :)

I don't think capitalism protects individual rights in all cases. I saw an interesting interview with Zizek, the Occupy Movement political philosopher, who argued that 'liberal democracy' type capitalism might be a thing of the past vis a vis the capitalist model. He argued that we might be moving to an Asian-style 'authoritarian' type capitalism. Now that's something to consider. And it would fit with aspects of a fundamentalist political agenda.

[debrand]

Bumping the thread up again, debrand :)

I don't think capitalism protects individual rights in all cases. I saw an interesting interview with Zizek, the Occupy Movement political philosopher, who argued that 'liberal democracy' type capitalism might be a thing of the past vis a vis the capitalist model. He argued that we might be moving to an Asian-style 'authoritarian' type capitalism. Now that's something to consider. And it would fit with aspects of a fundamentalist political agenda.

I'm very ignorant on this. What is Asian style authoritarian capitalism?

[Soldier of the One]

Asian-style authoritarian capitalism, I imagine, would be Japan, Taiwan or South Korea in its mildest/more democratic form. China or any other non-democratic South Asian capitalist regime in its more severe form.

Basically, I imagine it as a combination between lack of civil liberties and extreme free market/corporate capitalism.

[apple1]

In a somewhat different direction- I think a lot of the way "fundies" vote can be attributed to one-issue voting. I know a lot of people whose vote is based only and entirely on the politician's statement on abortion. Seriously.

(Any cognitive dissonance with regard to everything else is just discounted or pushed to the back of the brain. i.e. Newt Gingrich's moral "lapses").

[CynicMom]

America considers religious views to be above reproach. So saying "I believe X" as opposed to "I think X" makes it clear that it would be rude to criticize X. In practice that sentence is used whenever the person doesn't want a debate.

[Soldier of the One]

America considers religious views to be above reproach. So saying "I believe X" as opposed to "I think X" makes it clear that it would be rude to criticize X. In practice that sentence is used whenever the person doesn't want a debate.

This is part of the old principle that atheists lament (and rightly so): there is from OF religion in the USA, not freedom FROM religion.

[emmiedahl]

America considers religious views to be above reproach. So saying "I believe X" as opposed to "I think X" makes it clear that it would be rude to criticize X. In practice that sentence is used whenever the person doesn't want a debate.

QFT

I don't know how you can look around and not feel that a lot of people are victims of the times. The old work ethic argument and the welfare mom stereotype keep getting trotted out as though they are still valid.

I was reading in a sociology book that the suicide rate skyrocketed in the Great Depression, as did family abandonment by men. Men were programmed to believe that their main job was family provider, and they blamed themselves when they could no longer do so. Okay, that is not a surprise. The surprise is that the suicide and abandonment rate went back to normal when the New Deal was introduced. Almost immediately, before the unemployment or economy had changed. Because the government and FDR specifically were saying, "You are a victim of the time. It is not YOU, it is the ECONOMY. The government is the problem, and the government is going to be the answer." This acknowledgement changed lives, stopped suicides, and kept families together. It made a lot of people stop beating their heads against the wall (what conservatives call 'pulling yourself up by the bootstraps).

Some people get more conservative as they get older; I have became much more liberal. I was not an asshole when I was an 18 year old single mother voting Republican. I was simply buying into a fairy tale. My husband is still conservative, and he still buys the fairy tale: If we work hard, it will all be okay. But even he acknowledges that health care, education, food and shelter should be a right. He thinks that we simply cannot afford to provide those things, and that people will 'take advantage' of more generous programs. I point out ways in which it would be cheaper. For instance, the government currently gives a large corporation a huge tax break and also money to make our apartments be 'low income housing'. The government could instead build apartments and give them out for free to poor. It would cost a whole lot less when you consider how much time it takes to process all this paperwork; every person in my 100+ apartment building must fill out papers twice a year.

[Austin]

Some people get more conservative as they get older; I have became much more liberal. I was not an asshole when I was an 18 year old single mother voting Republican. I was simply buying into a fairy tale. My husband is still conservative, and he still buys the fairy tale: If we work hard, it will all be okay. But even he acknowledges that health care, education, food and shelter should be a right. He thinks that we simply cannot afford to provide those things, and that people will 'take advantage' of more generous programs. I point out ways in which it would be cheaper. For instance, the government currently gives a large corporation a huge tax break and also money to make our apartments be 'low income housing'. The government could instead build apartments and give them out for free to poor. It would cost a whole lot less when you consider how much time it takes to process all this paperwork; every person in my 100+ apartment building must fill out papers twice a year.

Giving up illusions of the American meritocracy is hard. BTDT.

We have a very good combined income, which puts us into the upper quintile of incomes in this country. Have we worked hard? Yes, undoubtedly. But we did not start on the same rung of the ladder as a lot of people, and it would be completely dishonest to act as if we have. We are both the products of white, middle-class families who valued education. We were able to get that education pretty easily. We work in our respective fields and advanced through the years and all that. During the 2008 market crash, we held onto our jobs while many others lost theirs, through no fault of their own. We are both blessed with our fair share of native intelligence, fully physically able, and grew up with good examples of money management and responsible acquisition. Lots of advantages right there that are hard to quantify, but are huge.

We work/worked hard and sacrificed. But I seriously doubt I work harder than the single mom at Kroger who when her shift ends, rushes off to class or to her second (or third) job. I doubt if I sacrificed more (like cable TV perhaps at one point) than that same mom who hasn't had a new pair of shoes for three years or a decent coat.

Those who hold tightly to the myth of meritocracy have to assume that everyone has the same shot. No, they don't. When one begins to realize this, it all becomes a whole lot clearer.

[Avalondaughter]

Two words: prosperity gospel.

Once upon a time, there were two groups of people. One was rich and didn't want to pay their fair share to society through taxes. The other group was socially conservative and extremely authoritarian. So to get more power, the first group stuck a deal with the second group. The rich and greedy would promise to enact laws about "family values", and in exchange the poor group would vote for them and look the other way while the rich group was robbing everyone blind. And thus was born the modern Republican party.

I also think that the rich folks are selling the fundies a false bill of goods. They promise a lot, but have they really delivered anything? Since Roe V. Wade we have had 20 years of Republican presidential rule and about 10 years of a Republican-dominated Congress, but no one has seriously tried to overtun it. They talk a good talk about gay rights, but gays are gaining more ground every day. Relgions are losing power among the non-fundie types. Basically it seems the modern Republican party knows how to get conservative Christians to the polls, but it doesn't really deliver on its promises. They have convinced Christians to vote against their own interests and they aren't getting anything out of it.

[CanticleoftheTurning]

In a somewhat different direction- I think a lot of the way "fundies" vote can be attributed to one-issue voting. I know a lot of people whose vote is based only and entirely on the politician's statement on abortion. Seriously.

.

I used to be that "one issue voter." Even if the elected position has absolutely no bearing on abortion, I would scour the Internet to see what that person thought about it, and vote based on what I uncovered. I must say I was always stumped when candidates' views on abortion weren't available for those non-abortion related positions...

It was a big deal to my parents and the other homeschoolers. We would excuse it as, "it's not single issue voting, it's IMPORTANT issue voting." Basically, paying lip service to the other issues but still acting as single-issue voters. Thank God I intellectually grew out of that stage. Abortion is still a fairly important issue, but I wanna take care of the people already born, and vote accordingly on social justice issues.

Ha, when I was transitioning from "single issue" to "multiple issue" voting, I did not feel like I could vote in the presidential election in 2008. I could not stand McCain and Palin, but my single issue side was preventing me from voting Obama, so I abstained. My mom pretty much thought I was an apostate for not voting. :roll:

[Soldier of the One]

Amen and amen, Emmie.

The fairytale is false and the promise is morally bankrupt.

[Deleted12]

I also think that the rich folks are selling the fundies a false bill of goods. They promise a lot, but have they really delivered anything? Since Roe V. Wade we have had 20 years of Republican presidential rule and about 10 years of a Republican-dominated Congress, but no one has seriously tried to overtun it. They talk a good talk about gay rights, but gays are gaining more ground every day. Relgions are losing power among the non-fundie types. Basically it seems the modern Republican party knows how to get conservative Christians to the polls, but it doesn't really deliver on its promises. They have convinced Christians to vote against their own interests and they aren't getting anything out of it.

On the other hand, I am feeling more and more like the Democrats are playing that game too. I think both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are about pointing out that the emperor isn't dressed very modestly. :P

[apple1]

Sorry to be so cynical, but I think ALL the politicians are playing the game.

Mostly I vote for "the lesser of 2 evils"...

And I also have become more liberal as I have aged.

[emmiedahl]

I agree that all of the politicians are playing a game. I have started voting based less on character and platform, more based on track record. An evil person who protects my reproductive rights will do less damage than the well-meaning but anti-woman Michele Bachmann.

[Austin]

I do not believe the politicians on one side are morally superior to the politicians on the other side. Hardly. However, I do believe the ideals of liberalism are morally superior than those of conservatism, based upon my value system. If I didn't believe that, then I wouldn't be a liberal.

[apple1]

I agree that all of the politicians are playing a game. I have started voting based less on character and platform, more based on track record. An evil person who protects my reproductive rights will do less damage than the well-meaning but anti-woman Michele Bachmann.

I think track record is all we have.

Anybody can SAY anything. I take all of that with a grain of salt. (Sometimes I hate that I am this cynical).

[LynnKaboom]

I'm about as far from socialist as you can get, but even I've got a better understanding of it than our fundie friends. I'm going to attempt to tackle this, although not being a fundie I'm not sure how accurate this is going to be.

- The fear of 'Communism'. First of all, in the post-Communist era, this fear seems entirely preposterous. There is no 'thread' of Communism in today's world. If anything, there is a thread of excessive corporate globalization.

Yes, I have difficulty understanding this- Communism as people know of it (Soviet Russia!) no longer exists, except maybe in some strange pseudo-form in North Korea. BLARGLEBLARGLE COMMUNISTS! are not going to come and take your stuff away. Most people understand that. But I think the Communist paranoia with our fundie friends goes back to their idealization of the 1950s and earlier, when Soviet Russia-style Communism was actually a somewhat legit threat. If it worked back then, it must work now, right? Never mind there is actually nothing of the kind anymore, and North Korea, while crazy, probably isn't just going to show up one day and be all "yo, you guys are communist now, EVERYBODY PRAISE KIM JONG IL!" But it fits nicely in with their way of trying to live in the past.

- The incorrect defining of 'Socialism'. Whatever people may think of Socialist ideals or political theory, I wonder if fundamentalists would recognize Socialism if it hit them in the face. They seem to think that Socialism - in its ideal form (and let's still to the ideal here, for the sake of argument) - is by definition repressive and totalitarian while one could argue that Socialism, at least in its ideal form, is about the maximalization of democracy.

My big issue with Socialism is that while it looks good on paper, and in an ideal world, it would work rather well, is that we don't live in an ideal world. Every political system ever (and this includes my own) becomes corrupt over time. The problem with Socialism is that it is very easy to fall into an Animal Farm-esque sort of "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" system. Now, again, this problem is not limited to just Socialism, it's a pitfall of everything ever, except maybe theocracy or totalitarianism, since then no one is equal. I don't want to get into my reasons for being libertarian here, but I will say this- if it was proved that if, in a socialist society, everyone could truly be equal and free, and have the possibility to have the life they wanted without the government intruding and controlling them, then I would support the philosophy. From what I have seen in my (admittedly short) lifetime, I don't think this is possible. Not because of a limitation of the system itself- in a perfect society I believe it would work very well, but because of the fact that every government is run by people, and in every government you have to have some people in positions of power. You know what they say, power corrupts and all that. But now I'm getting off track.

As to the fundies, why are they so scared of socialism? I don't think they actually know what the word means and just think it sounds scary. If they can scare each other by going "OOGABOOGA SOCIALISM!" then they're going to do that, to get their friends to agree with them. It's the same thing when people call Obama a "socialist fascist." They don't actually know what those words mean, they just know they're bad.

- Their distrust/suspicion of Big Government. Now, again, I am not saying that 'Big Government' is a virtue in an of itself (whether in an ideal form or a practical reality) but why the suspicion? Big Govt, for all its flaws, has some measure of transparency and is under some degree of democratic control. Can the same be said for Big Business?

I don't actually know how true this statement is. You can say that North Korea has "Big Government" but how much of that is honestly under democratic control? Not a whole hell of a lot. At least to me, the "big government" means a government that is more and more involved in controlling the citizens lives, not a government that employs a lot of people or produces a lot of programs. This definition might no apply to everyone's view of it, though. But to me, "Big Government" has always meant a meddlesome government.

- Fundamentalism and food. Sure, there are some real issues with how post-industrial Western culture deals with its food production and consumption. And if conservatives and fundamentalists agree with that, then you'd expect them to support the FDA and a higher degree of regulation. Yet, that loops straight back into their disapproval of Big Govt.

The FDA is one of those organizations that, while I would support a major trimming of the government, that we should keep. Why? Because I don't want to die from e. coli in my food or get cyanide passed off as headache medicine. There does need to be some changes in how it's run, but overall, it's kind of an important organization if you actually want to know if what you're taking is Advil.

But fundies? They seem to think the purpose of the FDA is telling people what they can and can't eat, and forcing medication on them. That's... kind of not how it works, but since when have they ever really cared about getting the facts straight?

- Children, family and healthcare. Again, given their focus (if not obsession) with children and family, you'd expect them to be fully supportive of generous and inclusive healthcare options. Better healthcare leads to healthier families and healthier child-bearing wives. Lack of access to healthcare and lack of adequate health insurance coverage can literally lead to death. Why would they be so distrustful of that?

Because they don't want to have to pay for everyone else outside of their family. I... have a lot of conflicting feelings on the whole healthcare thing, and I'm not going to go into them or this already ridiculously long post would turn into a dissertation, so I'm not going to share my thoughts on it, but for fundies it basically boils down to "Fuck no I'm not paying for these random people to get medicine! They're not in my in-group!"

- Cultural reformation, consumerism and capitalism. For those fundamentalists who embrace the notion of 'Cultural Reformation', you would expect them to decry rampant consumerism/commercialism. If frugality is such a core value to them, then why embrace a capitalist ethos of profit? If they claim to live their Christian values, then shouldn't they be highly critical of power and greed?

Now this I really don't have an answer for- this completely baffles me as well. I don't even know how to approach this, honestly- for a religion that supposedly exhorts living frugally, them supporting the capitalist ethos really makes no sense at all. It's kind of like their philosophy is "whoever gets by with the least stuff wins," while consumerism basically is "whoever has the most stuff wins!" I was raised according to the latter, and it really, really confuses me when people who supposedly live their lives by the former support the latter de facto. I don't get it. At all.

- The Bourgeois Ideal. Why do they embrace this individualist, materialist Victorian bourgeois ideal?

I gotta be honest with you, I do not understand this concept. At all. I barely understand what "bourgeois" means, much less how Victorian ideals factor into it, so I can't help much here. But I will say that look at Lady Lydia and people like that- they love Victorian shit. Maybe they saw that word and went "OK?" I dunno.

I hope this helps some. Again, I'm not a fundie, but I like to think I have a fairly decent understanding of their thought processes. It gives me hope that if they ever try to stage a hostile takeover I'll sort of understand their mentality and be better able to fight it. :lol: