|
Post by justflyingin on Oct 24, 2009 1:46:57 GMT -5
km ~ I understand your concern re: equating fundamentalism with mental illness. I don't know if it makes much difference, but in my post I actually said that "the fundamentalist mindset" is an insidious form of mental illness ~ and by referring to the mindset, I meant that it's a manner of thinking ~ interpreting the world and everything in it in terms of black and white absolutes ~ when a person's mind has been given completely over to that pattern of thought ~ Thanks for defining your idea of fundamentalism. Over at www.sharperiron.org they've spent thread after thread trying to define "fundamentalism". It isn't easy and according to them, it isn't even close to this definition. (But thanks for at least helping me understand better what you are talking about--the seeing things as only black/white.)
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 24, 2009 3:06:11 GMT -5
And quiverfull children most certainly do NOT freely choose the lifestyle, it is thrust upon them. Why do you say this? Of course children don't choose the lifestyle! Neither do children of atheists, workaholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. This statement sounds kind of "inflammatory" but it is a general fact of life that children don't choose their own lifestyle. The ones that do often fail to thrive (usually called neglect). Someone needs to care for them and give them guidance til they are ready to go it alone. That is what parents are for! Each of you reading this, if you are a parent worth the name, you don't give your children all the choices in the world. You don't say to your child, "Oh, if you want to obey me, go ahead, but if you don't want to, that's okay too", or "I don't care if you don't want to brush your teeth--it's okay with me--don't then--after all, they are your teeth." Or do you? You're right no children choose their lifestyle, but they do choose how they will live as adults. If you grow up knowing your family will not accept you if you choose differently than them this is not healthy. I remember one family on TLC's big families programs had a daughter they no longer spoke to--she had been kicked out of the house when pregnant because this was a bad influence on the younger children. It's just sad to know your parents love is so conditional. A QF friend of mine had a teenage daughter end up pregnant and the whole family EMBRACED her and the daughter came home.. and it was a very beautiful thing and the daughter is doing very well as a young mom because of the great love of her family. No this wasn't what the parents wanted but they chose their daughter over their ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 24, 2009 4:22:55 GMT -5
Why do you say this? Of course children don't choose the lifestyle! Neither do children of atheists, workaholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. This statement sounds kind of "inflammatory" but it is a general fact of life that children don't choose their own lifestyle. The ones that do often fail to thrive (usually called neglect). Someone needs to care for them and give them guidance til they are ready to go it alone. That is what parents are for! Each of you reading this, if you are a parent worth the name, you don't give your children all the choices in the world. You don't say to your child, "Oh, if you want to obey me, go ahead, but if you don't want to, that's okay too", or "I don't care if you don't want to brush your teeth--it's okay with me--don't then--after all, they are your teeth." Or do you? First of all, atheists don't have a particular lifestyle with rules and obligations to be followed like fundamentalists do. An atheist can be many things - a professor, a fisher, a pilot - and all of these things will affect the family in different ways. Lack of belief in God shouldn't be lumped in with alcoholism, prostitution and an unhealthy attachment to work, since there is no causal connection here. Belief in God is not necessary to live a healthy and fulfilled life. In addition, being an atheist has nothing to do with giving children the attention and guidance they need. Atheist parents are fully capable of helping their children learn to negotiate friendships, navigate first relationships, make good decisions about money, and explore career options. (Not every one does, of course, but neither does every Christian.) Basic skills like brushing teeth have nothing to do with little girls being told they can't grow up to be biologists, firefighters or president because then they'll be "fighting against God and their true calling." Fundamentalism stifles all the creative dreams that a girl could realise in adulthood before she is old enough to consider her options. "Guidance" in the form of funnelling girls into predetermined paths on the basis of their sex, without taking into account who they are as people, is not good parenting either. Moreover, giving children choices about the biggest decisions in their lives is not neglect. Children aren't blank slates to be imprinted with their parents' goals for their lives; they have talents and sometimes very big dreams of their own. No, they're not all realistic ("I want to be a mud pie maker and live in a castle!") but some of them are ("I want to be a biologist and work with dolphins"). Fundamentalism treats both of those dreams as equally ridiculous if it's a little girl talking. Fundamentalism says "You're only allowed to want to be a wife and mother." I think it's hard for most fundamentalist women to see beyond "this gives me happiness and fulfillment" to realise that the same lifestyle could be a living hell for their daughters. My mother, fortunately, supported my desire to get an education and work, despite the clamor of voices from the church that I would end up wasted and pregnant on the street somewhere by letting the "devil" into my life through going to college. But most of the girls I grew up with are married with kids now, except for the one who was kept so cloistered in her house that her housekeeping skills are great, but her social skills are so hampered that she can't find a boy to marry. If I'd followed the ideal of my fundamentalist church that I marry one of the church boys and settle down already, I'd be missing the chance to travel to Europe, study in grad school, have a good, committed relationship, and think about what I want in life - and oh, guess what, I'm not an alcoholic or prostitute. One of the major issues with fundamentalism is girls are saddled with their own kids before they're old enough to know what kind of life they want. I'm 23 and I'm still not ready to raise kids! But if I did you can bet the values I'd teach them would not include obedience for its own sake and a ready-made life without options - I'd want them to have the tools to make good decisions on their own, because that it was prepares them to live in the adult world.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Oct 24, 2009 5:42:39 GMT -5
I think it's a valid point to make that just because some religious behaviors are destructive, this does not necessarily support the conclusion that all religion is. If that were the case, it would also be logical to say that because some people have food addictions that are damaging to them, food itself is to be avoided. Yes, and some people's personalities are the types that can't "Live and let live". They believe very strongly about something and can't let others have an opinion that differs without loudly denouncing them. I see that as Vyckie's personality. She was that way when she started the newspaper before and (up til now wasn't that way with this website) is starting to show this same attitude--only now it is in reverse, nowadays against those of what she labels "fundamentalists". (To Vyckie, it is someone who believes in everything being black and white--which, BTW, is not the definition of any fundamentalist I know--though maybe SOME may be like that--believing in only black/white is more a definition of an immature person--children see black/white--adults understand that often there are grey areas). Vyckie...FWIW, I don't think they are mentally ill. I just feel sorry for them. I believe they are wrong. (the Patriarchal/QF) The QF movement and Christian fundamentalists are not synonymous! (Let's get that straight.) I believe that you can call someone "wrong", "misguided", or whatever, but I believe that calling a person who believes as she calls fundamentalists (of which I differ with her definition) mentally ill (or close to that)--it's not fair. It's inflammatory and does nothing to encourage interaction and understanding. Why should I continue to read here if people think I'm mentally ill because I believe and accept the Bible as true? I believe almost nothing from the QF movement and yet I know that I'm a self-proclaimed "fundamentalist". I am not patriarchal. I am not QF. I am a fundamentalist. I know that not everything is as simple as some want to make it. I am not for blowing up abortion clinics. I don't want to know all about your private sex life. It isn't my business--so don't tell me. I won't tell you about mine, either, so it's mutual. I do believe that some behaviors are wrong (as outlined in the Bible). I do not believe that men are equal to God. I believe that people have a natural desire to believe in something "beyond themselves". But you know what? If you believe completely opposite me--I won't call you mentally ill. You can be a Jewish, Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, or whatever you want to be. You have your life. I believe strongly that my way is right, but you have the privilege of believing as you wish. Even God allows you that liberty. I guess we'll all know the truth in the end, won't we? We won't be debating at that point.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 24, 2009 8:08:13 GMT -5
"I believe strongly that my way is right, but you have the privilege of believing as you wish. Even God allows you that liberty." Well, thank you very much for granting me your permission to believe as I wish . Apparently men can't know god's mind, but you can. I have a serious question for you JFI: if you feel that you are not 'that kind of fundamentalist' why do you feel that we're labeling you mentally ill? If fundamentalism does not attract/create mental illness then why are you being so defensive? I think you protest too much. "Why should I continue to read here if people think I'm mentally ill because I believe and accept the Bible as true? I believe almost nothing from the QF movement and yet I know that I'm a self-proclaimed "fundamentalist"." Maybe you shouldn't - what you need to remember is that the blog is Vyckie's and the forums are for women who want to help each other escape fundamentalism, not have it continue to be shoved down their throats by a woman who is still blinded by it. We'll be here when you are ready for us - that's a promise.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 24, 2009 8:23:13 GMT -5
km ~ I understand your concern re: equating fundamentalism with mental illness. I don't know if it makes much difference, but in my post I actually said that "the fundamentalist mindset" is an insidious form of mental illness ~ and by referring to the mindset, I meant that it's a manner of thinking ~ interpreting the world and everything in it in terms of black and white absolutes ~ when a person's mind has been given completely over to that pattern of thought ~ Thanks for defining your idea of fundamentalism. Over at www.sharperiron.org they've spent thread after thread trying to define "fundamentalism". It isn't easy and according to them, it isn't even close to this definition. (But thanks for at least helping me understand better what you are talking about--the seeing things as only black/white.) justflyingin ~ I want to let you know how much I appreciate your willingness to continue this conversation rather than take your marbles and go home when you perceive that I have insulted you ~ a self-identified "fundamentalist." I was actually wanting to write an article on this topic, and maybe at some point, I will ~ but for now, I'd just like to try and make one point. The majority of fundamentalists I know do not possess the "fundamentalist mindset" (ugh ~ I hate squabbling over words like this ~ but there actually is a crucial point in the distinction which I'm trying to make) ~ and I would in no way consider these fundamentalist Christians to be suffering from a form of mental illness. Truthfully, that was something that I found to be so frustrating Q.D. (back in our quivering days) ~ we knew just about every fundamentalist churchgoer in our town and NONE of them "got it." That is to say ~ we didn't find anyone who thought the way we did ~ or at least not nearly to the same degree. When we found the homechurch, it was an incredible relief because we felt like FINALLY ~ here's a group of people we can relate to. Please understand the significance of what I'm saying here, justflyingin. The fact that everyone we knew were Christians ~ and we had a very narrow definition of what constitutes "Christian" ~ all were at least evangelical ~ most were fundamentalist ~ NONE of them met our standard of a "serious, sold-out, no-compromise" truly godly Christian. That should be an indication that I'm not lumping all believers together and declaring them to all be certifiable. Now, over the years, I watched as several of my homeschool friends developed more and more of the mindset that I'm referring to ~ and so eventually, we were not quite so all alone in our extremist worldview. There's probably a technical term for what I have in mind when I talk about the "fundamentalist mindset" ~ and I'd really appreciate if the sociologists or psychology majors here would chime in and supply the word for me so that I can avoid giving the impression that I believe all fundamentalists are crazy. I'll come back to this again later. It may turn into a full-fledged article yet ... For now, justflyingin ~ please realize that I am not talking about fundamentalism at all ~ however you want to define it ~ it is a mentality that I'm referring to here. Because I have something altogether different from "fundamentalism" in mind, when I read the comments you've made on this topic, it all seems irrelevant as I don't believe you are addressing the same issue that I am.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 24, 2009 8:35:15 GMT -5
Some use the phrase "authoritarian personality" (ex:http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/).
I get the impression from my reading (but I'm not a psychologist or sociologist), that a lot of people are struggling to find a name for the phenomenon you describe. I can understand jfi's resentment at having the term "fundamentalist" used, because that makes it difficult to use the term "fundamentalist" in its original, narrower sense as describing an orientation to Biblical interpretation, and invites people to jump to conclusions about those who self-identify as fundamentalists.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Oct 24, 2009 9:07:49 GMT -5
Not to be rude, but there is a BIG difference between having a few restrictions on what your children are allowed to do and telling them exactly what they have to do (or go to hell). It's really different to say "No, you cannot stay out until 1am. Your curfew is 11, and you will be home by then" and "No, you cannot go to college because as a girl you don't need to be educated, you just need to stay at home and help out until you get a home of your own." There's a continuum; having a few restrictions isn't the same as the just about total restriction it seems most children in this lifestyle face. Most children are allowed a bit of freedom, they can go out in the word and find their own beliefs and mostly live how they want to, but in thise lifestyle they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:03:08 GMT -5
I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person. Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, and this description accurately captures my own experiences, for sure. I don't think your church involvement is being judged here, krwordgazer. You've made it very clear that you're *not* someone who is sitting back and saying, "Can't we all just get past our differences and enjoy the good music?" I'm not good at making change from the inside myself (And nor do I have any commitment to the evangelical church.), but I'm glad for the people who have enough patience and resolve to do so.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:11:59 GMT -5
It's too familiar ground I'm afraid.. I refused to participate in a lot of things that kept the liberal and/or pagan agenda alive when I was a fundamentalist. I don't really want to go that way again in reaction to patriarchy. The church I loosely associate myself with is a mixed bag, plenty of things I could walk out over and plenty I could get on board with. In my fundy days I would have walked out over their liberal ways.. now that I'm a liberal (in the christian sense) myself I don't wish to walk out over their fundy ways. I speak my mind. I try and be gracious in response to the fundys because, well, it's pretty arrogant not to be when I've been there myself. Not easy though, I'm a loud mouth. I am careful where my money goes and choose to only give to collections that go to charitable endeavors. I try and remember that everyone is on their own path and to find connections with people even if their ideology is anathema to me. This is good for me and is its own kind of healing for the fundamentalist mind set I once embraced. This makes a lot of sense to me--and sounds very healthy and healing. As someone whose livelihood *is* affected by the money that goes into campaigns like "yes on prop 8," by the way, I have a lot of respect for people who are cautious--and compassionate--about where their money goes. The people who just aren't thinking about it when they put their money into the offering plate because they enjoy the style of worship... That's what bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 24, 2009 10:34:08 GMT -5
Vyckie - I really hope you do write that article - your 'clarification' above is very clear - Thank you ***** Please treat this part as an *Edit to add:* on my post upstream - A little clarification of my own - I really try not to paint women with a broad brush; each of us is an individual with our own way of getting through the day, so JFI, I can't judge you because I don't know you and the challenges you face every day. And I don't mean to say you're not welcome here, because you absolutely are, but we do need to remember where we are and why and act accordingly. Sorry if you feel that I've included you in the Mentally Ill crowd 'cuz once again, I have no way of knowing anything, really, about you.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Oct 24, 2009 10:56:16 GMT -5
P.S. - justflyingin, I know this is a side note, but what would you consider "telling you about our private sex lives"? Because if you're married, you not only tell anyone who knows about the marriage who you're having sex with, you registered it with the state in return for a bunch of rewards, financial and legal. I'm feeling extra resentful about the financial rewards for Christian- and state-approved sexuality this year because I went on my partner's insurance and we're paying a TON of extra taxes on it because of the federal "Defense of Marriage Act". So I wonder what people who say they're not worried about other people's sexuality think about legal marriage.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:25:39 GMT -5
P.S. - justflyingin, I know this is a side note, but what would you consider "telling you about our private sex lives"? Thank you for asking this question. When I saw the comment that you're referring to, it sounded *awfully* like the other comment that those of us who are queer so used to hearing: "I'm *tolerant,* but I just wish those gays didn't have to be so *obvious* about everything. Why do *I* have to hear about what goes on in their bedroom???" And the answer to that is: You don't. When I've told you that I'm queer, I haven't given you the *slightest* information about what goes on in my bedroom. When you see members of our communities being affectionate with each other, you *still* haven't learned the slightest information about what goes on in our *individual* bedrooms. Guess what? We all have individual preferences, and we tend to like different things. Generalized comments about "our bedrooms" are just as ridiculous as queer people who assume that straights *only* like missionary. If what you're really looking for is for those of us who are queer to shut up about our experiences of oppression or about what it's like to be queer, then don't count on that. I've spent enough of my damn time trying to make comparatively privileged people feel comfortable in my presence, and I'm over it. That being said... I do share the commenter's concern with the continued use of "mental illness" as a derogatory term. Perhaps for different reasons, but nevertheless...
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 24, 2009 12:31:03 GMT -5
Maybe we need a more extensive vocabulary to talk about mental illness, mental wellness, and mental hygiene.
After all. we are comfortable with the fact that physical illness covers a spectrum from hangnails and mild colds to severe brain damage or Alzheimer's disease or cancer, and that we have some control over our physical health but not complete control.
I think that just as there are behaviors that help us to keep well (although they can fail) physically, there are behaviors that help keep us well mentally. They won't prevent the truly severe illnesses such as schizophrenia, or severe depression, but they can prevent or ameliorate situational depressions and anxieties - the common colds of mental health. Embracing an ideology to the point that one shuts out any evidence that it's not working is poor mental hygiene. It's not in the same category as schizophrenia, manic depressive disorder or severe depressions, which people no more bring on themselves than they do cystic fibrosis, and it's probably not helpful to use terminology which suggests it is.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 24, 2009 17:48:35 GMT -5
Vyckie I absolutely get what you say about the mindset. I was deeply attracted to the teachings (and magazines, and videos, and books, and conferences...) that really "got" it, that had that zeal to be called by god to really lay your life down. A lot of it was in continuous conflict with other christians, including other fundamentalists because it seemed no matter how bible believing someone was there was a way of applying this zealous mindset to areas of your life that other lukewarm folks just did not get. Like those bible believers that sent their kids to public school, or the bible believers where the woman worked part time or the teenagers were engaged in worldly activities with worldly people, or even EVIL activities such as karate. I mean these people were complete fundamentalists but to the zeal of the mindset they did NOT get it because they did not spend every minute of every day finding new ways to apply it to every single choice and interaction their families had.
One of the ways I really felt ripped off by god when I got out of that was that my zeal, my fervor had been so utterly misplaced. Here we were supposed to be on fire for god and I had burned myself and my family up doing just that FOR NOTHING. For total bullshit. The unthinking bible believing fundamentalists lives were 100% healthier and happier. It is horrible to feel that something you thought was wonderful, a gift even, this zeal and devotion to god in your life was just so utterly misplaced.
I missed the zeal for a long time.. because it gave such purpose. It was literally the fuel that I burned myself out on. Now I have zeal for nothing. I still have a lot of my old books, the ones that were not hideous, such as my collection of Amy Carmichael biographies. I can't bring myself to read them anymore because I suspect I will feel so at a loss when I read of her incredible zeal for God, daily sacrifices and good works.
Though I have worked a great deal of this out and understand a lot of my motivations, how much of it was gilding the cage of my abusive marriage, I haven't completely come to terms with this.. long running episode of fevered zeal and the appeal of this mindset. It was incredibly divisive within churches. Many home churches were formed by folks who wished to only associate with christians of like mindset. Not only were we fighting a cultural war with The World we were fighting a cultural war with the church at large because we knew we were right, much much righter than those other pew warmers.
*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Oct 24, 2009 17:57:40 GMT -5
Arietty, if it helps, burnout is a *huge* issue in any group that's really trying to change the world. There's almost an assumption in radical circles that everyone goes through cycles of zeal and burnout and some people go into burnout and don't come back. In fact, one topic that comes up over and over in activist circles is how to get involved without being "all in", how to get people feeling that they can participate without doing everything there is to do, so people can stay involved for the long haul and have their contributions valued and recognized, no matter what they are.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 24, 2009 18:09:55 GMT -5
Why do you say this? Of course children don't choose the lifestyle! Neither do children of atheists, workaholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. This statement sounds kind of "inflammatory" but it is a general fact of life that children don't choose their own lifestyle. The ones that do often fail to thrive (usually called neglect). Someone needs to care for them and give them guidance til they are ready to go it alone. That is what parents are for! Each of you reading this, if you are a parent worth the name, you don't give your children all the choices in the world. You don't say to your child, "Oh, if you want to obey me, go ahead, but if you don't want to, that's okay too", or "I don't care if you don't want to brush your teeth--it's okay with me--don't then--after all, they are your teeth." Or do you? This is a complete red herring, and I didn't fail to notice how you grouped atheists in with people who tend to have family instability, sweetie. How will children be able to develop into adults if every aspect in their lives is completely controlled? Did you miss the entire story about Angel? We haven't been talking about babies who need to someone else to feed and dress them- the focus has been on older children whose normal, healthy interests, whose sense of adventure, creativity, and intellect have been denied them so that they never question the agenda they were born into - being warriors for Jesus and future babymakers. Caring about someone, giving them guidance, is about leading them into a world of opportunities... not shutting out every opportunity in their life but the one you wanted for them. It's developing the person who they already are, not forcing them into the person you wanted them to be. I do struggle with this continually though. It's hard for me to accept what feels like a contradiction. My parents always restricted me because they thought they were making the best choices for me. They thought that the "ungodly" opportunities that they were shutting away from me were as reasonable as prohibiting a teenage child from drug or alcohol use. How can I be resentful? Yet I feel a lot of unresolved pain when I consider how limited my life was. I missed out on the education/career that was my dream because they were making my choices. They made the choice for me to break up my two closest friendships. I jumped into a patriarchal marriage because I wanted their approval. And all because they thought they were doing their best to care for me.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Oct 24, 2009 20:35:19 GMT -5
Vyckie I absolutely get what you say about the mindset. I was deeply attracted to the teachings (and magazines, and videos, and books, and conferences...) that really "got" it, that had that zeal to be called by god to really lay your life down. A lot of it was in continuous conflict with other christians, including other fundamentalists because it seemed no matter how bible believing someone was there was a way of applying this zealous mindset to areas of your life that other lukewarm folks just did not get. Like those bible believers that sent their kids to public school, or the bible believers where the woman worked part time or the teenagers were engaged in worldly activities with worldly people, or even EVIL activities such as karate. I mean these people were complete fundamentalists but to the zeal of the mindset they did NOT get it because they did not spend every minute of every day finding new ways to apply it to every single choice and interaction their families had.
One of the ways I really felt ripped off by god when I got out of that was that my zeal, my fervor had been so utterly misplaced. Here we were supposed to be on fire for god and I had burned myself and my family up doing just that FOR NOTHING. For total bullshit. The unthinking bible believing fundamentalists lives were 100% healthier and happier. It is horrible to feel that something you thought was wonderful, a gift even, this zeal and devotion to god in your life was just so utterly misplaced.
I missed the zeal for a long time.. because it gave such purpose. It was literally the fuel that I burned myself out on. Now I have zeal for nothing. I still have a lot of my old books, the ones that were not hideous, such as my collection of Amy Carmichael biographies. I can't bring myself to read them anymore because I suspect I will feel so at a loss when I read of her incredible zeal for God, daily sacrifices and good works.
Though I have worked a great deal of this out and understand a lot of my motivations, how much of it was gilding the cage of my abusive marriage, I haven't completely come to terms with this.. long running episode of fevered zeal and the appeal of this mindset. It was incredibly divisive within churches. Many home churches were formed by folks who wished to only associate with christians of like mindset. Not only were we fighting a cultural war with The World we were fighting a cultural war with the church at large because we knew we were right, much much righter than those other pew warmers.
*sigh* arriety, I love what you share, almost to the point of hanging on your every word (lol). I relate to you so much. Btw, off topic, did you ever read the biography of Amy Carmichael that Elizabeth Elliot wrote... Oddly, it helped me... Amy was still amazing, but, dang, the girl had a temper... It was interesting to read about her losing it, being snippy, rude and mean. Turns out, she was 100% human, after all...
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 24, 2009 21:19:02 GMT -5
So okay ~ atheist and Molly ~ since the two of you obviously understand what I'm talking about when I say "the fundamentalist mindset" ~ could you help me out with the language that I'm looking for?
LOL ~ on a slightly related topic ~ when Sean Christian from the Sacramento paper contacted me regarding her desire to do an article on the Quiverfull movement, she asked me if I thought there might be any QFers in the Sacramento area. My response was to say "They're everywhere!" and I directed her to the National Center for Family Integrated Churches web directory. I told her that "family integrated" is a code word for "sheltering children" which is itself a code word for "control freaks."
Interestingly, despite the phenomenal growth of the QF movement, we couldn't find anyone near us who shared our values for years. What makes that particularly odd is the fact that Norfolk is an ultra-conservative town. Perhaps ~ and this *just* occurred to me ~ it is because our town has no problem with mixing "church and state" ~ and therefore, the school board is pretty much all evangelical Christians ~ there's no pushing of the "homosexual agenda" in the classroom and abstinence education is a given ~ so maybe that's why the majority of Christians here feel fine with sending their kids to the public shcools. Since they're mostly not homeschooling ~ they're not picking up the "Vision." Hmmmm ... just a theory.
Also, it's not like we could put an ad in the paper seeking "like-minded" fellowship ~ we just didn't have the words for what exactly we were looking for. BUT, as you know ~ once you meet one ~ you just *know,* huh?
So far as my all-consuming zeal being "for nothing" ~ yeah, it's a tough realization. I expected to be seriously depressed ~ only the freedom of being out of it is just so "happifying" (to borrow John's word), that I'm really too jazzed these days to spend a lot of time contemplating what a complete waste of enthusiasm the QF mindset was ~ all the years, day after long day, the energy, the repeated risks to my life, etc. ~ all for a delusion.
I do console myself with the thought that if I hadn't gone down that path, I wouldn't have my 7 kids ~ because nothing short of pure fanaticism could have compelled me to endure pregnancy after miserable pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 24, 2009 22:51:00 GMT -5
So okay ~ atheist and Molly ~ since the two of you obviously understand what I'm talking about when I say "the fundamentalist mindset" ~ could you help me out with the language that I'm looking for? "Fundamentalist mindset" brings up a lengthy and complete set of ideas for me. In the context of Quiverfull, I'd say that it involves viewing the words of the Bible not only literally, but taking them to their fullest extent with no room for compromise or ambiguity. If a man with a quiver full of arrows/children is happy, then the man with the MOST children must be the happiest! The Bible is a literal guidebook for God's will, so all the answers to the day to day issues of life can be found there - how to raise your children, how to dress, how to spend your time... and the way to show your full love and obedience to God (and receive his full blessing) is to find those answers and follow them. There are many verses dealing with family and children, and those also are taken literally. Children are to be raised to follow God's will (Prov. 22:6, Deut. 6:7, Col 3:20), and in a belief system where unbelievers go to Hell, what could be more important than making sure that your own children grow up Christian? While I think that defining a fundamentalist as someone who sees everything in black and white is about a perfect definition of my experience, to me this is less inflammatory. Perhaps it would be better to focus on fundamentalISM instead of fundamentalISTS - the belief system rather than the people. Because I have no problem saying that the belief system is crazy... what that says about the people who believe in it is left to your interpretation And I do think it's fair to define a self-defined group from an outside perspective.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Oct 25, 2009 11:54:33 GMT -5
So okay ~ atheist and Molly ~ since the two of you obviously understand what I'm talking about when I say "the fundamentalist mindset" ~ could you help me out with the language that I'm looking for? I am in the same boat you are in. I use the word "fundamentalist," as well, even though I know it's not entirely accurate. I've had this converation on my blog....never really have come up with a satisfactory alternate word. Sometimes I say "legalist," instead of fundamentalist... Sometimes I say "far right conservative." The thing is, I know that all of those words, while somewhat accurate, aren't quite what I'm looking for...in that they include people who were *not* at all in the mindset, though they were part of that camp... But I've never found the right word... *confused shrug*
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Nov 5, 2009 13:44:02 GMT -5
I was thiiiiiiis close to really liking Frank. and then he goes and writes this piece of condescending silliness: Are the "New Atheists" As Bad As Christian Fundamentalists? yeah, we're very similar. we're out to destroy democracy, establish an a-theocracy, and execute everybody who does something we don't like; we enslave large swaths of the population; we're absolutely, 100% sure that we know Teh Truth(TM)*; we're only in it for the money**; we proselytize aggressively*** and force all "members" of the New Atheists to do so as well; yeah, we're evil incarnate not to mention that the whole thing is apparently one huge Appeal to Authority (or the reverse thereof: I don't like your leaders, therefore your idea is wrong) --------- *except not, of course. we're skeptics. show us evidence, and we'll change our minds. Dawkins himself admits that he's "reasonably certain" that there is no god; that's different from "absolutely, 100% certain that there can't be a god" **since when is making money a bad thing? making money with lies is unethical, but where exactly do the New Atheists lie or cheat or threaten to make money? no one is ethically forced to buy any of the New Atheist merchandise; no one is seen as an outsider if they don't buy any New Atheist merchandise. I certainly haven't! But it's a capitalist society we live in, and the spread of ideas happens in the marketplace (and on the internet). It only becomes a problem when it's a moneygrubbing scam with no content but lots of pressure to buy into it. And that's just not the case (I'm living proof of that) ***except not. this is more like the gay parades that said "we're here, we're queer, get used to it". atheists are an invisible minority; it's about time to make it more visible, more acceptable, and more able to stand up for itself! ---------- ok, I feel better now. rant over ;D
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 9, 2009 18:15:48 GMT -5
jadehawk, thanks for posting that link. Very interesting indeed.
Grrr...this bit got to me:
"In the preface to the paperback edition, Dawkins responds to the criticism that he is just as much of a proselytizing fundamentalist as those he criticizes. Dawkins answers, “No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will . . . it is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist’s equally passionate commitment to evidence.” [glow=red,2,300]As a scientist Dawkins claims that by definition his passion can’t be like other, lesser people’s passions, because as a scientist he is above such things.[/glow] Maybe the same can be said for his entrepreneurial passion, which might, in ordinary people, be mistaken for televangelist-style hucksterism but, because he is a scientist, is no doubt just research carried on by other means."
No, no, no, no, no! Dawkins's point is that scientists are obligated to be open to changing their minds if that's where the evidence leads. What kind of scientist refuses to follow the evidence? It's not about any kind of elitism at all! It's about learning good ways to think and solve problems, and applying it to all areas of life including religion.
That is not the only mis-representation in Schaffer's piece, but it's the only one I have time to address right now.
Oh, and he didn't even talk about Sam Harris. I think PZ Myers deserved a mention, too.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 10, 2009 9:36:42 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post. I've got to get this out of my system. "When I was a young child growing up in a fundamentalist evangelical commune as the son of Calvinist American missionaries (Francis and Edith Schaeffer) and living in Switzerland (L'Abri Fellowship circa 1950s) and to my eternal mortification, Mom used to carry something called the Gospel Walnut. It was a hollowed-out actual walnut shell filled with ribbons of different colors sewn together into one thin, shoestring-like, yard-long band: black for sin, red for Jesus’s blood, then white for how clean your heart would be after it got washed of sin. You cranked it out with a little handle attached to the walnut shell, and the ribbon would seem to emerge from the nut magically. The point of doing this was to invite ques¬tions from strangers, which it did. This would lead to what Rich said the A Pin he wears leads to: conversations. In other words, both the Gospel Walnut and the Scarlet A Pin offer a chance to witness to potential converts."Here, Frank is comparing his mom's walnut conversation starter to the scaret A pin. Not the same thing, at all. If somebody sees the walnut, they're not going to have any idea what it's about. Their innocent question is going to get them drawn into Jesus talk without any advance warning. If somebody sees the scarlet A, chances are good that they already know what it is. It's been well-publicized on the internet. Not only will they probably know what it is, but they probably harbor some non-believer tendencies that they'd like to talk over with a sympathetic someone. Atheism really isn't set up for winning converts. It's simply a response to religious claims. That response is: I do not believe you. You have not presented evidence that I find convincing. Atheism doesn't have any psychological hooks. There's no fear of Hell. There's no unearned guilt. There's no heavenly reward. There is no pressure to conform. There is no sense of obligation to other atheists. There sure isn't any love-bombing. My own field observations suggest that people tend to de-convert on their own because: 1. They read the Bible (me, but I'm far from the only one). 2. They had bad experiences with religion that caused them to start questioning. 3. They moved from a sheltered, religious background into a more open environment where they had freedom to question; and the opportunity to observe people from different backgrounds. I haven't seen any de-conversion stories where an atheist talked someone out of their beliefs. I've seen stories where an atheist asked questions, that got the believer thinking. That thinking lead to a de-conversion. BTW, I still respect Frank and appreciate that he is challenging the religious right. I just think his attack on Dawkins is out of line. I didn't even get to the part about Hitchens yet.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Nov 22, 2009 0:41:16 GMT -5
BTW, I still respect Frank and appreciate that he is challenging the religious right. I just think his attack on Dawkins is out of line. I didn't even get to the part about Hitchens yet. While I personally think that an attack on Dawkins is out of line... there's really nothing I can say in defense of Hitchens. If there's a problem with New Atheism, to me, Hitchens represents it. The man is an asshole, pure and simple. It pains me to share some of the same beliefs with him. But it does remind me that the behavior of the messenger does not affect the truth of the message. If Christianity is false, it is not false because some people in some churches are hypocrites and abusers. It is not false because of patriarchy. (Although I do think that the role the Holy Spirit as a unifier can be questioned). Likewise, I do not think that I am "hurting" atheism to admit that the language, tactics and attitude of Hitchens is not one that I endorse.
|
|