Why has Christian Fundamentalism been making a comback?

[Vendetta]

The reason why fundamentalist religion is spreading more virulently than ever is due to the nature of memeplexes, and the ever increasing deregulation of communications (Radio, TV, and now especially the Internet.

Religions are a memeplex, a set of ideas that reinforce each other and aim to spread to as many host minds as possible. There are two key elements of religious memeplexes that let us understand why fundamentalist religion is on the upswing.

The first is the self defence mechanism, expressed in Christianity as "Thou shalt have no other God before me". Memeplexes actively seek to defend themselves against contradictory ideas. In Ye Olde Days, that was other religions, now it's a wide range of social and scientific constructs. (particularly evolution, which we'll come back to later). People who carry the memeplex are instructed by it to actively attack contradictory ideas, in order to prevent them from supplanting the memeplex.

The second is the massive range of deregulated communications that people are exposed to. We see so much more of the world, and so many alternatives to what the memeplex states that the self defence meme kicks in at full strength and won't let go.

The reason why religions share these key aspects is quite simple, they are still tribal constructs, they foster a distinct separation between those in the tribe and those outside it, and they are constructed to allow the tribe to be controlled by the priesthood. (this is a contrast with science, which is a barbarian construct, where the individual is awarded status and glory among his peers by achievement, in science this is new theories and discoveries, rather than success in battle or raiding.)

This is also why "evilution" is the big scary monster for American fundamentalists far more than even for the Catholic church or European protestants, because European churches lost their political power much longer ago than in America (see fgalkin's thread on the religious history of politics in America). Evolution, because it removes one of the key areas of divine involvement with the world, shoots big holes in the authority of the priesthood. If God isn't actively involved in the processes of life, then why are we paying attention to what the priest tells us to do on His authority?, so that ol' self defence meme kicks in again, and even the sheep start attacking.

[outcast]

Using the shift key every once in a while is not such an onerous task, but if you prefer to stand your ground over such a ridiculous point of pride as insisting to type like an AOL moron, I'll just get the hell out of Dodge before the heavy artillery opens up.

We're not trying to pick on you, we're trying to help you avoid getting in trouble.

Granted, but then again, i have a problem with authority and capitalization has gone out of style ages ago in my natural habitat. Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. It's not like it'll kill you to ZOMG HE DIDN'T USE PROPER CAPITALIZATION!

In conclusion, why can't people just look at what's being said instead of how it's being said? I mean really, i expected better from the people on here.

[outcast]

Incidentally, english IS my second language.

[Sir Sirius]

Incidentally, english IS my second language.

Edi is Finnish, English isn't his native language either, that doesn't stop him from using proper punctuation and grammar.

[Darth Wong]

Using the shift key every once in a while is not such an onerous task, but if you prefer to stand your ground over such a ridiculous point of pride as insisting to type like an AOL moron, I'll just get the hell out of Dodge before the heavy artillery opens up.

We're not trying to pick on you, we're trying to help you avoid getting in trouble.

Granted, but then again, I have a problem with authority and capitalization has gone out of style ages ago in my natural habitat. Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. It's not like it'll kill you to ZOMG HE DIDN'T USE PROPER CAPITALIZATION!

Obviously, you don't get the point. I don't want this board looking like your so-called "native habitat". I hate chatrooms and IM logs and the entire look of them, and I will not allow people to make my board look like one of those places.

In conclusion, why can't people just look at what's being said instead of how it's being said? I mean really, i expected better from the people on here.

People did look at what you said, and responded directly to it, moron. Don't fucking lie.

[Uraniun235]

Granted, but then again, i have a problem with authority and capitalization has gone out of style ages ago in my natural habitat. Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is.

What would your "native habitat" be? An incoming high school freshman class that's filled with people who read and write at a fourth-grade reading level? I'm pretty sure your "native habitat" is full of people we regularly mock and deride here.

[DaveJB]

Granted, but then again, i have a problem with authority and capitalization has gone out of style ages ago in my natural habitat. Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. It's not like it'll kill you to ZOMG HE DIDN'T USE PROPER CAPITALIZATION!

In conclusion, why can't people just look at what's being said instead of how it's being said? I mean really, i expected better from the people on here.

To put what you're doing into perspective, imagine if you were conducting a job interview. The two people have roughly the same qualifications and experience needed. The major difference between the two is that one turns up for the interview all neat and well-dressed, the other turns up drunk, dressed like Ronald McDonald and has his cock hanging out of his trousers the whole interview.

The two say pretty much the same thing in their interviews, except that the second guy's speech is slurred and barely audiable. Would you therefore say that presentation is not important, and that the second candidate is just as suitable as the first?

[SPOOFE]

And you need to watch 1950s ads if you think current ads aren't any more slick than the old ones were.

I wonder how much of it is "learning better propaganda" and how much of it is simply adapting to what people expect. In the 50s, and earlier, people still expected a sort of glitz, glamour, mystery, and excitement from what they saw on TV (due to it being a lot less commonplace and mainstream). People probably wouldn't have readily accepted or responded properly to more natural, less-sensationalized forms of advertisement and point-pushing. Maybe.

[Darth Wong]

And you need to watch 1950s ads if you think current ads aren't any more slick than the old ones were.

I wonder how much of it is "learning better propaganda" and how much of it is simply adapting to what people expect. In the 50s, and earlier, people still expected a sort of glitz, glamour, mystery, and excitement from what they saw on TV (due to it being a lot less commonplace and mainstream). People probably wouldn't have readily accepted or responded properly to more natural, less-sensationalized forms of advertisement and point-pushing. Maybe.

Perhaps, but we have undeniably learned a great deal about advertising methods since then, and subconscious association techniques are much more effective and insidious than "present an argument for the product"-syle advertising, as was common a long time ago. I've seen 50s ads where the voice-over literally says "why should you buy our products rather than the competition? Well ..." and then it goes on to make an argument. People don't respond to arguments; they respond to subconscious programming and Pavlovian association, like the sheep that they are.

[Justforfun000]

the other turns up drunk, dressed like Ronald McDonald and has his cock hanging out of his trousers the whole interview.

Did you HAVE to use that particular example? LOL. You've given me an image I can't get rid of!

[wolveraptor]

I don't understand why advertising/brainwashing techniques should suddenly become so effective in the last 30 years? If that's the explanation for recent fundi-ness, then shouldn't its growth have been gradual, and along the same curve as said techniques? I still think the explosion itself was caused by the voyeurism of the 60s/70s, and its effectiveness was guaranteed by brainwashing techniques.

[Darth Wong]

I don't understand why advertising/brainwashing techniques should suddenly become so effective in the last 30 years?

Have you looked at old 1950s ads?

If that's the explanation for recent fundi-ness, then shouldn't its growth have been gradual, and along the same curve as said techniques?

It has been. Another factor is the Internet, which allows even the least qualified imbecile to become a published author. A guy with a degree and a guy who dropped out of high school can look exactly the same on the Internet.

[Surlethe]

Religion is a lot like a virus. Fundamentalism is just a particularly nasty strain of the virus; since the virus is only spread through idea exchanges, it only makes sense that fundamentalism should increase as modern cultures (and America, especially) become more and more information-oriented.

Furthermore, religion is especially easy to catch when one is impoverished/feels degraded. America has a history of cutthroat capitalism, creating a sharp rich/poor divide, and racial subjugation. Thus, the evangelical movement, in particular, began in poor, black neighborhoods, and spread from there. Other Western countries, more socialized than the United States, don't have the socioeconomic class divides required to jump-start the sort of evangelical strain of fundamentalism.

At least, that's my take on it.

[Darth Wong]

That's an interesting angle. According to the CIA World Factbook, almost all of the real growth in income since 1975 has been among the wealthy, so the gap between rich and poor is steadily widening. This period happens to coincide with the latest rise in fundamentalism.

I don't buy the "it's just a cycle" argument. The fact that something is cyclical does not eliminate the need for a mechanism. You still have to explain what drives the cycle, because not all cycles continue in perpetuity and blindly trusting in some invisible agent of the cycle is stupid and irrational.

[Duckie]

Fundamentalists indoctinate children. Eventually, children rebel and tenuously form something like the 60s-70s, although they retain their brainwashed belief in a God and thus the following occurs.

Fundamentalist elements of society scream bloody murder over immorality, and bring the wayward children's generation or the next one into the fold though emotional blackmail and brimstone.

Repeat.

---------------------

Does that sound plausable?

[Wicked Pilot]

Perhaps with the rise of atheism and minority religions Christianity is simply lashing out while it still can. People who feel threatened like to believe in stupid things.

[SirNitram]

I can see several factors adding into it.

1) Widening educational/wealth rift.

2) Aura of fear(SOVIET INVASION! ROGUE STATES WITH NUKES! CYBERCRIME! TERRORISTS! A-Q! FEAR!).

3) Declining population of Christians(While the fundies grow in number, Christians in total are gradually eroding.).

4) Improved brainwashing techniques.

So basically we've got a bunch of scared, uneducated folks who see more and more folks who aren't Christian, and are being told how horrific it all is and how it'd be so much better if only you do what I say.

[Magnetic]

In my denomination, it was just reported that last year, we grew by 2 million people. I have a feeling that the majority of those numbers were in under-developed or 3rd world type countries. My church personally hasn't grown much, and in fact, has seen somewhat of a decline from what the numbers were in the past. I DO know that my denomination pushes missions pretty hard, sending people to remote villages and such, which could be why the numbers have grown. But, besides a handful of fundamentalist pockets in the United States, and them being active in politics, I see it as declining here.

Barring some unforseen event (of which I would have no ideas what it would be), Fundamentalism in the United States will begin seeing a falling off. Probably why ID is being pushed so hard, because as it is in the present, science is giving many areas of the Bible a "black eye". Probably will continue to.

[Surlethe]

That's an interesting angle. According to the CIA World Factbook, almost all of the real growth in income since 1975 has been among the wealthy, so the gap between rich and poor is steadily widening. This period happens to coincide with the latest rise in fundamentalism.

I don't buy the "it's just a cycle" argument. The fact that something is cyclical does not eliminate the need for a mechanism. You still have to explain what drives the cycle, because not all cycles continue in perpetuity and blindly trusting in some invisible agent of the cycle is stupid and irrational.

I did a little bit of looking through Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the business cycle and religious revivals/resurgence; however, the dates on religious revivals seem imprecise. If anybody could try to find dates for religious resurgences to see if a correlation does exist between the business cycle and religious resurgency, I'd be rather obliged.

Wikipedia gives:

• Panic of 1837 - 1837 to 1843, a sharp downturn in the American economy caused by bank failures and lack on confidence in the paper currency
• Panic of 1857 - 1857 to 1860, failure of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. bursts a European speculative bubble in U.S. railroads and loss of confidence in U.S. banks
• Panic of 1873 - economic problems in Europe prompt the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the U.S., bursting the post-Civil War speculative bubble
• Long Depression - 1873 to 1896, begins with the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange and spreads throughout the world. Some historians do not believe it is actually one large recession.
• Panic of 1893 - 1873 to 1896, failure of the U.S. Reading Railroad and withdrawal of European investment leads to a stock market and banking collapse
• Panic of 1907 - A run on Knickerbocker Trust Company stock October 22nd 1907 sets events in motion that will lead to a depression in the United States.
• Post-WWI recession - marked by severe hyperinflation in Europe over production in North America. Very sharp, but also brief.
• Great Depression - 1929 to late 1930s, stock market crash, banking collapse, and overproduction in the United States sparks a global downturn, including a second downturn 1937–1938.
• Oil Shock - 1973, an oil embargo by OPEC coupled with high government spending due to the Vietnam War leads to stagflation in the United States.
• 1979 energy crisis - 1979 until 1980, the Iranian Revolution sharply increases the price of oil
• Early 1980s recession - 1982 and 1983, caused by tight monetary policy in the U.S. to control inflation and sharp correction to overproduction of the previous decade which had been masked by inflation
• Late 1980s recession - 1987 to early 1990s, collapse of junk bonds and a sharp stock crash in the United States leads to a recession in much of the West
• Japanese recession - 1991 to present, collapse of a real estate bubble and more fundamental problems halts Japan's once astronomical growth
• Asian financial crisis - 1997, a collapse of the Thai currency inflicts damage on many of the economies of Asia
• Early 2000s recession - 2000 to 2003: the collapse of the Dot Com Bubble contributes to a relatively mild contraction in the North American economy.

Wikipedia also gives:

Since the 16C Reformation, some writers identify six waves of special revival or "Awakenings" in the church worldwide - from 1727, 1792, 1830, 1857, 1882 and 1904.

[Xon]

Besides, I think the sexual and pharmaceutical adventurism of the 1960s has been exaggerated somewhat. Look at the most highly publicized pop culture movements of the 1990s, which was the "Seattle grunge movement". How many people do you know who actually got wholeheartedly into that? Despite media appearances, it's only a small percentage of the overall population; most ordinary people just go about their business and try to get by, rather than jumping on pop culture bandwagons.

It doesnt matter is only a small percentage of the overall population was involved. It is the appearance of such a movement and how extensively the movement is reported that matters.

Having constant updates on something and significant exposure to something will make something seem much more important that it actually is. And since the upswing in fundamentalism really began in about 1975, that is enough time for the real memories of the events to dim and be augmented by the media and religious induced versions.

[Chris OFarrell]

Learn to use capitalization. And you need to watch 1950s ads if you think current ads aren't any more slick than the old ones were.

learn to not be a frigging grammar-nazi.

Look you, trying to tell the owner of the board what the rules in his own house should be is a Bad Idea, with trademarks and all. Most who have tried it and especially ones who have used the tone you're using have suffered a sudden and devastating encounter with the Ban Hammer.

I thought Galvitron was doing the smiting these days?

[Chris OFarrell]

*mutters under breath about lack of edit button*

On topic, I have to wonder about the idea of media saturation being the DIRECT and clear factor that everyone thinks. Oh I agree completly that it is A factor...but THE factor?

I'm thinking that we have to define it more exactly, in terms of the US. Afterall many other western countries like much of Europe, Auz, NZ and so on don't have anything like the same problem with the fundies that the USA does.

WHAT is the key factor that we're overlooking about the US that leads to this current surge in conservative religious thinking and membership, given the huge similarities in many of the cultures and relatively equal technological means and media penetration…

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's an interesting angle. According to the CIA World Factbook, almost all of the real growth in income since 1975 has been among the wealthy, so the gap between rich and poor is steadily widening. This period happens to coincide with the latest rise in fundamentalism.

First time you've heard that? The fact the real wages have been frozen for ages while the rich get much richer is why the "Reagan economic miracle" has been siezed on by some smart Democrats. Just like the bounce-back with Bush's cuts, its just cutting taxes for the rich. Real work needs to be done to even-out the economic strata.

[Darth Wong]

That's an interesting angle. According to the CIA World Factbook, almost all of the real growth in income since 1975 has been among the wealthy, so the gap between rich and poor is steadily widening. This period happens to coincide with the latest rise in fundamentalism.

First time you've heard that? The fact the real wages have been frozen for ages while the rich get much richer is why the "Reagan economic miracle" has been siezed on by some smart Democrats. Just like the bounce-back with Bush's cuts, its just cutting taxes for the rich. Real work needs to be done to even-out the economic strata.

The problem is that the real effects of the effective middle-income wage freeze have been covered up by deflation in the technology market (thanks to a rapid pace of technological development) and the increasing use of off-shore labour to make cheap products. In short, low American consumer inflation is caused by cheap electronics and even cheaper Chinese-made goods. But that bubble has to burst sooner or later, and when it does (or so much of the economy is outsourced to China that it creates structural problems), then people are going to be displeased. All the Republicans can do is keep borrowing money, telling everyone that everything is OK, and praying for the Rapture to come before the shit hits the fan.

[HemlockGrey]

and praying for the Rapture to come before the shit hits the fan.

Or that it happens during a Democratic administration.