Wall of separation between fundies and non-fundies

[Darth Wong]

Just how thick is the wall of separation between fundies and non-fundies? I get the sense that fundies occupy an entirely different world, with its own rules and even its own facts. They like to read only material which is "pre-screened" to be acceptable, usually by coming from reliably Christian sources. They say things that would elicit looks of shock and amazement from regular people, and honestly don't think there's anything odd about them. They proudly say things like "I'm a creationist" even though such a declaration in scientific circles is tantamount to saying "I myself am an incontinent moron." They actually BELIEVE their own bullshit about how scientists are flocking en masse from evolution to creationism, and how evolution is teetering on the edge of collapse in the scientific community. They actually BELIEVE idiotic nonsense about how gay marriage is equivalent to pedophile marriage, or how it's not gender discrimination to make marriage only between a man and a woman even though it precisely fits the dictionary definition of such discrimination, because in their words, "everyone is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex", which is a bit like Henry Ford saying "you can have any colour you want, as long as it's black". At least Henry Ford knew it was a joke.

So just how bad is this wall of separation? What parts of normal culture get through to these people?

[chaoschristian]

An example from a Bible study I attended last night:

When asked about the largest problems confronting the church today, I wanted to comment on any of the following:

1. Ignoring the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc.
2. Putting political influence above those listed in #1
3. Hypocrisy
4. etc, etc, etc

Someone else beat me to being the first responder and said . . . .

HOMOSEXUALITY!

And everyone else in the room, besides me, agreed.

Ugh.

[LadyTevar]

Enough to make it terrifying, Wong. In my office, the gentleman responsible for nearly all the computer software we now use is a YEC. He's highly intelligent, so I have no clue why he believes it so strongly, but we have been forced to agree to disagree and not speak about it at work.

I've been to his church, once. They have 'testamonials' of what God has done for them, and there are people who speak in tongues.
Nothing is scarier than the speaking in tongues, imho. In Scripture, they're supposed to be speaking in languages someone can understand. In most cases I've seen, its complete gibberish that the preacher or a family member 'translates' for them.

It makes me wonder sometimes if my quiet little church with just the choir singing and the preacher preaching was the odd one out. Then again, maybe it was just my little corner of the planet, since I went to several churches in my area and none of them were that 'extreme', and looked down on churches that did such things. Hell, we looked down on the churches that believed women shouldn't wear pants, cause they were 'misreading the Bible'.

Odd, but I might have to attribute my 'worldly' view of Christianity to the church that raised me.

[Jew]

What parts of normal culture get through to these people?

In America, most Fundamentalist Christians recognize and accept the concept of a government based on the Rule of Law. They may have a different interpretation of the existing laws, and they may have a different concept of the ideal law, but they generally agree that governments of man should be based on the Rule of Law.

[chaoschristian]

Another thought:

There is great opportunity, as a Christian, to cut yourself off from the secular world:

You can of course socialize only with those who attend your church, shop only at Christian bookstores, do business only with Christian businesses (use the Shephard's Guide), read only Christian magazines, newspapers and websites. Watch only Christian tv.

I know people, now, who do this and are quite satisfied with their efforts.

As such, they accept and trust the authority of such persons as Farwell. They speak in terms of persecution and 'cultural warfare.'

If you want to cut yourself off 'normal culture' - as many current Christian leaders teach - then yes, its a reasonable and achievable goal.

[Darth Wong]

What parts of normal culture get through to these people?

In America, most Fundamentalist Christians recognize and accept the concept of a government based on the Rule of Law. They may have a different interpretation of the existing laws, and they may have a different concept of the ideal law, but they generally agree that governments of man should be based on the Rule of Law.

You can't be serious. After years of nonstop bombardment from the Christian Right about the perils of allowing "activist judges" to make law based on the Constitution rather than the Bible, I simply don't buy this claim at all. Not unless you mean "God's Law" when you say "Rule of Law".

[Jew]

Even Falwell considers the Constitution a legally binding document. He just disagrees with how it has been interpreted.

There is no separation of church and state. Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The issue is not that Fundamentalists want to ignore the rule of law and substitute religious law, it's that they disagree on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution. They still accept that the Constitution is a binding legal document.

Jerry Falwell may well want a religious government, but he wants a religious government based on the rule of law. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Yogi]

So just how bad is this wall of separation? What parts of normal culture get through to these people?

At this point, I don't WANT normal culture to get through to them. I want the wall to get so thick, that they seperate from the rest of us altogether. They can go form their own community with their own laws and leaders. Currently, the wall is still thin enough that they vote in our elections. That needs to be fixed.

[The Guid]

So just how bad is this wall of separation? What parts of normal culture get through to these people?

The thing is that a lot of normal culture gets through to fundamentalists. Its not about there being a wall - its just that they are trained in a certain way so that they can react to popular thinking, logic and "normal culture" in a particular way.

To perhaps take the slightly different example of cults - cults make sure that each of their members is psychologically trained to ignore what is in the media, understand that their friends will turn against them but they are just "bitter"/"twisted"/"trying to restrict your freedom" etc. You can bombard them with information but it won't stick.

Re-reading the above I can't help but wonder how thick the wall between full time cult and American Religous Right actually is.

[Kitsune]

I am playing devils advocate here on a point.
Most of us (I guess use the term "Evolutionist"), religious or not, refuse to read creationist literature. I have thought about reading one just to see how they are written but likely would throw down the book in disgust. The problem is couldn't they use the exact same argument back?

[Darth Wong]

I am playing devils advocate here on a point.
Most of us (I guess use the term "Evolutionist"), religious or not, refuse to read creationist literature. I have thought about reading one just to see how they are written but likely would throw down the book in disgust. The problem is couldn't they use the exact same argument back?

Actually, I've read a fair bit of creationist literature on-line, and I even own a Jehovah's Witness publication on creation vs evolution; it's a small blue book full of hilariously stupid claims and bad leaps in logic.

But even when you debate them directly, they often fail to read what you are saying to them. Look at my Hate Mail page; how rare is it that the people who respond to my my page have actually read the thing before attacking me, and how rare is it that they even read my messages when responding to them? So many times I will make a thorough point-by-point rebuttal only to get a return message which ignores virtually everything I said and simply makes more fresh arguments, as if the previous exchange never happened or contained no content.

[Darth Wong]

Even Falwell considers the Constitution a legally binding document. He just disagrees with how it has been interpreted.

There is no separation of church and state. Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The issue is not that Fundamentalists want to ignore the rule of law and substitute religious law, it's that they disagree on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution. They still accept that the Constitution is a binding legal document.

Jerry Falwell may well want a religious government, but he wants a religious government based on the rule of law. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I don't think so. I don't believe that any rational person, starting with no agenda, would interpret the Constitution the way they do, with this "one-way wall of separation" bullshit. I believe that they only PRETEND to accept Constitutional supremacy when they argue for religion interfering in state affairs, the same way they PRETEND to respect the concept of science when they argue for creationism.

[Jew]

I believe that they only PRETEND to accept Constitutional supremacy when they argue for religion interfering in state affairs, the same way they PRETEND to respect the concept of science when they argue for creationism.

If you don't believe what they say, that's your right. In the interest of completeness (and in case others are interested), I thought I should share this statement made by Pat Robertson.

If we operate under a rule of law rather than, sometimes, the rule of men or partisan politics, it will bode well for the future of this country, but if we allow the machinery of government and the vast agencies thereof to become tools of oppressive partisanship, then we all, whether we are Republicans or whether we are Democrats, will be the losers for it.

[Darth Wong]

I believe that they only PRETEND to accept Constitutional supremacy when they argue for religion interfering in state affairs, the same way they PRETEND to respect the concept of science when they argue for creationism.

If you don't believe what they say, that's your right. In the interest of completeness (and in case others are interested), I thought I should share this statement made by Pat Robertson.

If we operate under a rule of law rather than, sometimes, the rule of men or partisan politics, it will bode well for the future of this country, but if we allow the machinery of government and the vast agencies thereof to become tools of oppressive partisanship, then we all, whether we are Republicans or whether we are Democrats, will be the losers for it.

A nice example of empty words since he is the poster boy for oppressive partisanship. And it still doesn't clarify whether he's talking about the rule of Man's Law or the rule of God's Law.

[Kitsune]

Actually, I've read a fair bit of creationist literature on-line, and I even own a Jehovah's Witness publication on creation vs evolution; it's a small blue book full of hilariously stupid claims and bad leaps in logic.

But even when you debate them directly, they often fail to read what you are saying to them. Look at my Hate Mail page; how rare is it that the people who respond to my my page have actually read the thing before attacking me, and how rare is it that they even read my messages when responding to them? So many times I will make a thorough point-by-point rebuttal only to get a return message which ignores virtually everything I said and simply makes more fresh arguments, as if the previous exchange never happened or contained no content.

That leads me to ask a question. Many times you see Creationist writers mis-quote other writers such as Stephen Jay Gould (others as well, of course.) To me that means that they have to have read the material. How can they still believe in creation after they read the writer and then try to support their writings with deliberate misquotes?

[The Guid]

Why do they need to be lying? If someone is so incapable of anlysing scientific evidence that leads to evolution then why will they be any better at interpreting a legal document?

[General Zod]

That leads me to ask a question. Many times you see Creationist writers mis-quote other writers such as Stephen Jay Gould (others as well, of course.) To me that means that they have to have read the material. How can they still believe in creation after they read the writer and then try to support their writings with deliberate misquotes?

Alot of them cherry-pick words and phrases to pick the juiciest quotes that support their argument, as opposed to actually trying to understand what is being said and reading the full thing. Take a look at all the nimwits that misrepresent quotes from the founding fathers regarding religion and the constitution, for example.

[Darth Wong]

Let's just say that there's a difference between truly reading something and just skimming it for bits you can take advantage of.

[dworkin]

Fundyland is indeed separated by a huge fucking wall to reality. Or rather it is a series of walls since, as in everything there are degrees of fundyness.

Eg - Kids dating

1) No hanky panky. No same-sex partners.
2) Christian partners only please.
3) At christian type events.
4) Which are supervised at all times.
5) And your date is arranged by your parents and the date's parents.
6) Because you're getting engaged to them.

I kid you not, I've met all these levels and why was there almost a direct correlation between hotness and frothing lunacy?. And the wacky thing is that anyone a few 'walls' away is anathema to these guys. And often infomation is passed 'over the walls' as it were so people in total wack-a-loon land have a very distorted picture of reality.

Take another example Harry Potter

1) It's crass holywood entertainment.
2) But I can still find a christian message in it.
3) No, your wrong, it's New Age materialism dressed up as a christian message - DECEPTION!!!!
4) And it's got witches and magic which are anti-christian.
5) And therefore agents of the antichrist.
6) Who is here on earth now seducing people to the One World Government.

Behind each wall is a new level of wierd. You can't even make this shit up yourselves.

[Kitsune]

Let's just say that there's a difference between truly reading something and just skimming it for bits you can take advantage of.

True......I was just curious if there is some though on if they are lying to themselves and they are just hoping that they are wrong. Basically, they are afraid that their world view will be toppled and then will not go to heaven with their fifty virgins (I know wrong religion but they still seem to think of heaven as something like that)

[The Guid]

Fundyland is indeed separated by a huge fucking wall to reality. Or rather it is a series of walls since, as in everything there are degrees of fundyness.

Eg - Kids dating

1) No hanky panky. No same-sex partners.
2) Christian partners only please.
3) At christian type events.
4) Which are supervised at all times.
5) And your date is arranged by your parents and the date's parents.
6) Because you're getting engaged to them.

I kid you not, I've met all these levels and why was there almost a direct correlation between hotness and frothing lunacy?. And the wacky thing is that anyone a few 'walls' away is anathema to these guys. And often infomation is passed 'over the walls' as it were so people in total wack-a-loon land have a very distorted picture of reality.

Take another example Harry Potter

1) It's crass holywood entertainment.
2) But I can still find a christian message in it.
3) No, your wrong, it's New Age materialism dressed up as a christian message - DECEPTION!!!!
4) And it's got witches and magic which are anti-christian.
5) And therefore agents of the antichrist.
6) Who is here on earth now seducing people to the One World Government.

Behind each wall is a new level of wierd. You can't even make this shit up yourselves.

You should get that written somewhere permenantly. I cracked up when I read that!

[Kitsune]

I watched one of them arguing with a Wiccan once where the Wiccan said their code is "Do as you will as long as you harm none!"

The Fundy then said, "See, they say 'Do as you will'"!

[Zero]

You can read something and, without being conscious of it, selectively screen out the things that disagree with you, while accepting that which agrees. You can do so, and think you're being perfectly reasonable in doing so as well. After all, you're just considering a view that the the author didn't. You're only using his facts to support your own ideas!

That's the kind of justification I'd go through sometimes when I read something I disagreed with. Of course, I was 8, and I came to understand what I was doing after a few years, but I understand what these people may be thinking when they read something completely opposed to their own view.

[Adrian Laguna]

You can read something and, without being conscious of it, selectively screen out the things that disagree with you, while accepting that which agrees.

This happened to me. I used to think that Star Wars did not have shipboard shields. They had motherfucking tough armour on their cap-ships, but no shields on either their fighters or their capital ships. The only shields in Star Wars were gigantic theater shields (Hoth, Endor). I think I can be excused for not seeing shields in the OT, since the visual evidence is not that obvious. However, once the notion of no shields aboard SW starships got into my head, my mind just erased the mentions of starfighter shields in ANH and capital ship shields in ROTJ. Same thing in TPM, all mentions of shields subcontiosly edited by my mind (I don't think energy shields were ever mentioned in AotC). Even mentions of shields on the Rebel fighters in the game Rogue Squadron were derided, "What a dumb mistake, they mean armour not shields, SW fighters don't have shields."

So with this strange notion stuck in my head, I began to peruse Mike's website. My reaction after a while was thus, "Well, I'll be dammed! They actually do have shields on their starships."

Note that I was never a Trektard and when I considered the issue (a couple of minutes before clicking a link to SD.net for the first time) I decided the Empire would win on account of numerical superiority and the Death Star.

The lesson of the story is that even a person capable of logical reasoning can easily be mislead by his own preconcieved notions. The brain then subconsiously just ignores any evidence to the contrary. That is, until evidence too obvious to ignore presents itself. When this happens reasonable people realize their error, non-reasonable idiots start to scream very loudly and fling shit in all directions like a hyperactive monkey on crack.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Actually, I've read a fair bit of creationist literature on-line, and I even own a Jehovah's Witness publication on creation vs evolution; it's a small blue book full of hilariously stupid claims and bad leaps in logic.

Said "small blue book" won't happened to be called Life, how Did it Get Here, would it? Because I happen to have that book, along with a Chinese translation hiding on my bookshelf.