|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 29, 2010 12:57:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 29, 2010 14:09:00 GMT -5
I just posted this over under the main article, but I wanted to point it out here, too: The concept of Bounded Choice is an excellent point to make, something that has been developed in the anti-cult literature, primarily by Janja Lalich who also wrote “Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships.” www.amazon.com/Take-Back-Your-Life-Relationships/dp/0972002154/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277837290&sr=8-3In addition to Quivering Daughters’ discussion of this, I also have posts about this on my own blog. I’m so glad you included this reference. MyBlog talking about Bounded Choice, for those interested: undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/bounded-choice-as-another-component-of.html Another good adjunct to Hedges is Chip Berlet’s concept of Right Wing Populism which he discusses in his book “Too Close for Comfort.” His website, Public Eye,” offers a great description of this concept. The four elements of Right Wing Populism: 1. Producerism 2. Demonization and Scapegoating 3. Conspiricism 4. Apocalyptic Narratives & Millennial Visions (The reformed folk in QF patriarchy have their own version of the apocalypse and their pre-millennial eschatology is just as much a milliennial vision as what they call last days/”Left Behind” madness.) For more about Right Wing Populism: www.publiceye.org/tooclose/index.htmlFor more about Black and White thinking, I talk about that on my blog, too. It is an informal logical fallacy that is very much what this fundamentalism legalism involves. I wholeheartedly agree with Vyckie's insightful comment. There are five different posts here on my blog under this link (for those who want to understand more about the concept): undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/black%20and%20white%20thoughtQF and the rest are so often about winning the day and what amounts to hegemony (the acquisition of power and the wielding of power and brute force by an authoritarian despot over the subordinate). Manipulative groups use "undue influence" (a term of jurisprudence) that describes how rights of a weaker party with lesser rights can be denied choice and justice. It is a form of abuse, and it is definitely not anything like what Jesus promoted.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 29, 2010 14:12:28 GMT -5
Vyckie,
Had I not been busy doing other stuff, I would have been more involved in this discussion. I'm not crazy about Hedges, though I have the book and agree with him on many points.
I saw Hedges interviewed, and I didn't really like him personally. He's angry. I suppose that is why I don't like the book as much, though I don't agree with him on some things. (But I don't agree with anyone completely about anything, either.)
I'd love to sit and talk with you about all of these things, but there are those things like living and keeping up with laundry and stuff that get in the way. I've got to run and get domestic, as we are all down to our last pairs of clean undies here!
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jun 29, 2010 18:14:12 GMT -5
In discussions that I have had with my mother on this subject and the subject of my elopement at an early age, we have concluded that a major factor in why I entered the marriage and the quiverfull mindset was the "too many choices" dilemma.
I, too, was an honors student and have an aptitude for just about everything. How does one decide? It was simpler to move into a position where the options are limited. This was not a conscious thing, but it fits in retrospect. Especially for a person who is hesitant to make decisions for fear of making a MISTAKE.
Yesterday, in a conversation with my counselor, we both realized that I have begun treating decisions in a more reasonable way. (As choices which don't necessarily have to be permanent or black and white.)
I haven't been around much lately, but enjoyed this last installment. Hope you are feeling better!
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 29, 2010 19:49:29 GMT -5
Could it be fundamentalism attracts people because it offers people answers for everything?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 30, 2010 1:16:43 GMT -5
I like what the book has to say, but the way it portrays people who get involved in this kind of thinking, I find to be less than compassionate. The world is too "messy." They can't "cope." There is an unspoken assumption that people go into fundamentalism because they themselves are fundamentally weak, defective in some way-- they are "losers" who want safety and security so they don't have to be so scared of life.
What seems to be missing is the truth that for most of us who go this direction, the reason we want certainty is that we have LEARNED to be frightened of the real world because of things that happened to us or the way we were taught as children. Philosophia says she liked bounded choice because she was terrified of making a mistake about what path to take. To me this says, not that she was weak or defective, but that someone presented life to her as a win-or-lose proposition, rather than as an open field where it's ok to start one career path and then change your mind and take a different road-- you may have lost a little time, a little money, but it's still ok!
For me, being raised with alcoholics made me long for consistency, order, for rules that were understandible, with consequences for breaking them that could be avoided. For Vickie, there were abusive step-fathers and a feeling of being responsible, way too young, for her sister's well-being.
I think that those beginning to question fundamentalism themselves, might be more open to the ideas presented in this book if it didn't portray them as losers for getting sucked in in the first place.
(I recognize that I haven't read the whole book. This is simply how the synopsis is reading to me.)
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 30, 2010 1:55:19 GMT -5
I think there is also a certain idealism in youth that gets channeled in certain ways and then the path becomes set. The 'boiled frog' process begins to take over, and before you know it you are committed to a belief system and a way of life. And I think it helps people who take different paths feel safer to compartmentalize people who take an ultra religious path as 'weak' and 'needing a crutch'. 'I am not like them. I would never do/believe/follow that.' It places some distance, provides an intellectual comfort zone.
I agree that if the purpose of an author (or blogger or poster) is to make themselves heard and change the minds and hearts of this particular set of people then insulting their intelligence and strength of character is really a poor way of going about it. Laying out factual arguments that don't presuppose the inferiority of the listener goes a lot further. This is why so many of these kinds of books and publications leave me cold. No one wants to be condescended to or discussed as though one weren't in the room as a fully functioning adult. And being non-religious/secular does not automatically confer sterling intellect or emotional stability.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 30, 2010 9:23:39 GMT -5
I agree with what both KR and nikita are saying, though I am not sure that the purpose of the author is to change the minds of people already invested in fundamentalism. Having read the book some time ago, I saw it as more of a polemic meant to explain the political behaviors and beliefs of Dominionism to people who are not entrenched in Dominionism. Among people who have not been involved in this mindset in some way, it can be hard to understand its politial force in the US (particularly as a lot of Dominionist politicians gain strongholds in local US politics through "stealth" political campaigns in which their aims are not really clear until after the election. This is certainly what has been happening in some local school board elections where I live; most people didn't realize that there was an important school board election under way until a bunch of new people associated with Dominionism were suddenly in office and working to re-segregate the local schools. We had never heard them campaign on this platform--or, in fact, campaign publicly at all.). Among other things, I don't think many current Dominionists would likely be receptive to a book that refers to them as "Christian fascists." Basically, I don't really think that people who are sympathetic to Dominionism are his intended audience. I do think it's relatively successful in reaching out to a more secular and/or mainline church audience, but I've mentioned some of my criticisms of it in earlier threads.
ETA: And about his judgmental tone w/r/t Dominionists themselves... As far as I can recall, he's mostly talking about leaders in the movement, the people who are responsible for the political fanaticism--and not women, children, or even most men who join after reacting to past life trauma. He doesn't really deal with that, and I think it would probably involve a kind armchair psych that isn't really a part of the book. He's talking in judgmental terms about people like Rushdoony, Pat Robertson, and Erik Prince (of Xe Corporation, formerly know as Blackwater). Some have mentioned feeling put off by his angry tone, but honestly... As someone whose freedom and life choices have been directly limited as a result of the political power of Dominionism, I'm angry at Dominionism as well, but more than that, I'm afraid of it--and of what it's been able to accomplish in the past 20 years in the US.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 30, 2010 11:48:40 GMT -5
That makes sense, KM-- but I am hearing in the quotes from Vyckie from this book, a message that the rank-and-file fundamentalist joined fundamentalism because he/she couldn't "cope" with "messy" real life. There is an us-them mentality here that I can foresee leading to even more polarization. I think the author could have added some information (and maybe he did-- I don't know) about the tactics of spiritually abusive cultic movements, and how easy it is to get enmeshed. Then the reader, trying to understand the Dominionist movement, would have more than a simplistic "they're just weak" explanation for why Joe and Mary next door are involved in this. . .
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 30, 2010 11:49:55 GMT -5
That makes sense, KM-- but I am hearing in the quotes from Vyckie from this book, a message that the rank-and-file fundamentalist joined fundamentalism because he/she couldn't "cope" with "messy" real life. There is an us-them mentality here that I can foresee leading to even more polarization. I think the author could have added some information (and maybe he did-- I don't know) about the tactics of spiritually abusive cultic movements, and how easy it is to get enmeshed. Then the reader, trying to understand the Dominionist movement, would have more than a simplistic "they're just weak" explanation for why Joe and Mary next door are involved in this. . . True, fair enough. That wasn't really the overall message I took from the book, but I see what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jun 30, 2010 11:54:45 GMT -5
I like what the book has to say, but the way it portrays people who get involved in this kind of thinking, I find to be less than compassionate. The world is too "messy." They can't "cope." There is an unspoken assumption that people go into fundamentalism because they themselves are fundamentally weak, defective in some way-- they are "losers" who want safety and security so they don't have to be so scared of life. Rather than assuming that people who go into fundamentalism are weak or defective, I saw it more as saying that fundamentalism draws in people who are AFRAID of being weak or uncertain, whether they are in fact weak or not. I don't think that wanting safety and security is an inherent weakness either. But then once a person is drawn in, they are made to feel weak - kept constantly off-balance. They're told that they have all the answers, and that keeps them thinking that they're on a better path than people who've chosen a "worldly" life or a life that's not fully committed to religion. But their personal choices are being constantly undermined. Once you're in, it's hard to not end up becoming weak, not as an inherent defect in yourself, but because weakness is a taught behavior in being part of the structure.
|
|
phatchick
Junior Member
Medicated for Your Protection
Posts: 80
|
Post by phatchick on Jun 30, 2010 13:34:37 GMT -5
Having grown up with B&W thinking (fundamentalism in general seems to encourage it), I understand what you're saying completely. If I had a buck for every time I heard the phrase, "If it's doubtful, it's dirty" as a kid, today I'd be a very wealthy woman. Choices were limited because the wrong choice could lead you down a path of sin and backsliding. Not only that, but your bad choices could cause a weaker christian to sin as well (One of my least favorite pieces of fundy dogma, "tempting a weaker brother". Not only are you responsible for your own sins, but if another christian sees you doing something questionable and then does it himself, you're responsible for his sin, wether you know about it or not.). The only way to not sin was to do only what the bible and the minister said was right and keep as far as possible from the World {cue the scary music here}. To quote the songwriter- "You can't win, you can't break even and you can't get outta the game." Thank god I'm no longer playing; the shades of grey can be scary at times but they beat the alternative by considerable.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 30, 2010 13:52:32 GMT -5
That makes sense, KM-- but I am hearing in the quotes from Vyckie from this book, a message that the rank-and-file fundamentalist joined fundamentalism because he/she couldn't "cope" with "messy" real life. There is an us-them mentality here that I can foresee leading to even more polarization. I think the author could have added some information (and maybe he did-- I don't know) about the tactics of spiritually abusive cultic movements, and how easy it is to get enmeshed. Then the reader, trying to understand the Dominionist movement, would have more than a simplistic "they're just weak" explanation for why Joe and Mary next door are involved in this. . . KR ~ I think you are right here. Hedges' book, I believe, is deliberately simplistic and polarizing *because* that sort of rhetoric has mass appeal and sells books. The thing is, I recognized that in my own case ~ it was true that the chaos of my life was the catalyst which propelled me full-on into fundamentalism. I was so overwhelmed with everything ~ I just wanted easy answers ~ blessed assurance ~ a fool-proof formula for being right with God and myself and everyone else. The thing that I don't like about Hedges is that he's quick to criticize and his insight can be stingingly accurate ~ but, I've read a lot of his stuff and never found where he offers any kind of real solutions .... maybe because for fundamentalists (and I know I still have that black & white way of thinking) ~ there are no answers ~ only more questions ~ which kinda sucks when I'm in my old fundamentalist frame of mind.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Jun 30, 2010 19:47:44 GMT -5
phatchick said : "If I had a buck for every time I heard the phrase, "If it's doubtful, it's dirty" as a kid, today I'd be a very wealthy woman. Choices were limited because the wrong choice could lead you down a path of sin and backsliding. Not only that, but your bad choices could cause a weaker christian to sin as well (One of my least favorite pieces of fundy dogma, "tempting a weaker brother". Not only are you responsible for your own sins, but if another christian sees you doing something questionable and then does it himself, you're responsible for his sin, wether you know about it or not.). The only way to not sin was to do only what the bible and the minister said was right and keep as far as possible from the World". In that regard here's a piece (with a sound track) talking about that very thing, eh? DON'T DRINK THAT ROOT BEER, ya heah!! LOL www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/06/in-their-own-words-the-appearance-of-evil/John
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Jul 1, 2010 9:14:07 GMT -5
Oh, dear God....your link takes me back to when I worked at the crazy "Christian" school. I believe we may have had the root beer message at chapel once. Something like that anyway, someone admonishing the students about the "appearance of evil" complete with absurd examples of innocent behaviors to avoid at all costs.
In the comments on that link, someone linked a Q&A on whether or not Christian women can wear a bikini. The first year I worked there, the whole staff was taken to a Christian teachers convention. There was a pool at the hotel and a bunch of us younger ones went swimming. I ended up going back to the room in disgrace fearing for my job because my swimsuit was a tankini--a long top not a bikini top. I had violated a rule I did not know about because the suit was two pieces and therefore automatically sinful.
The summer after I left there, I celebrated by buying an actual bikini, skimpy little top and all. And if some pathetic guy "sinned" because I was wearing it....that is just going to have to be his problem.
|
|
phatchick
Junior Member
Medicated for Your Protection
Posts: 80
|
Post by phatchick on Jul 1, 2010 10:48:47 GMT -5
ROTFL! That is both way too funny and way too true. Thanks for sharing the link.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jul 1, 2010 14:51:33 GMT -5
That stufffundieslike website is great. I had been wanting to explain to my father a certain problem that I had with the Christian school I went to, and this was exactly it: www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/06/preaching-to-the-converted/Although fundamentalists love sermons on sin of the outrageous and titillating variety, they very often lack any openly practicing sinners in their midst. This results in the odd circumstance of pastors preaching entire sermons on a topics that ostensibly apply to nobody who is listening; it’s like a sort of National Geographic tour of the wastelands of iniquity so curious Christians can be suitably shocked.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Jul 1, 2010 15:11:55 GMT -5
Although fundamentalists love sermons on sin of the outrageous and titillating variety, they very often lack any openly practicing sinners in their midst. This results in the odd circumstance of pastors preaching entire sermons on a topics that ostensibly apply to nobody who is listening; it’s like a sort of National Geographic tour of the wastelands of iniquity so curious Christians can be suitably shocked. I think part of this phenomenon has to do with the "feel good" aspect of a lot of Evangelical churches. People shop for the right church after all and they want one that makes them feel good. And pastors are hired and fired by congregants so it is in their best interest to make everyone feel good--church grows and fewer people complain about the pastor. So addressing the sins that the congregation actually practices--greed, gluttony, gossip, cliques, backstabbing and judgmental attitudes being among the most common in my experience--would not benefit anyone. Instead, preach endlessly about the sins that no one is committing (or is doing their damndest to deny and hide if they are) is much easier. Everyone feels happy and superior to the unwashed masses outside the doors and heads off to lunch in a good mood.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 1, 2010 15:19:10 GMT -5
Preach! Although what the underbelly is doing sometimes does not bear thinking about, so it is not always the case. Our married piano player (and my first almost boyfriend/the person who brought me into the cult) ran off with the equally married Sunday School teacher one Sunday afternoon. No one saw that coming at all and there was a mad scramble for someone who could play that evening. So, you never know. I think this is also responsible for the polar opposite circumstance of finding things gravely 'sinful' which clearly are no more than mild faults of the human condition which usually go unremarked. The root beer bottle 'appearance of evil' sermon fits the category of: the pastor needed something to preach about that week and was drawing a blank.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 5, 2010 19:21:09 GMT -5
You make a good case for a clergy who don't depend on a church for their sole income.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 5, 2010 19:29:15 GMT -5
You make a good case for a clergy who don't depend on a church for their sole income. Yeah, but there are problems with all systems. Pastors at the mercy of their congregants can be a bad thing or a good thing, depending on the congregants and the pastor. A pastor who answers to no one can be a tyrant and very abusive though, as are most cult leaders as such power tends to corrupt and ultimately alienate the leader from his congregants. I was under the latter system, and no one controlled a thing about what my pastor/leader did or preached or whatever. At the end of the thing there was a 'board' who tried to control things but frankly they were more horrible people than the pastor ever thought of being. It's all a question of who is overseeing the overseers? It's a difficult situation to resolve outside of huge denominations with large power structures.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jul 6, 2010 21:24:53 GMT -5
Is "accountable to no one" really a common choice, though? Someone is always paying the bills. Seems like it's either the congregation, or the main church hierarchy.
The UMC church I grew up in dispatches pastors and their families like military families, to where there's a need. Discipline comes from the central church, though complaints/voting by changing churches come from the congregation. There's some leeway in it - a really bad fit will probably be transferred, and a pastor with a special need (my grandma's church, the pastor was a divorced single father of a special needs child, so the council let him stay in the church until the child aged out of the school district.) But just because it's not the direct decision of the congregation doesn't mean there's no accountability.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 6, 2010 21:56:04 GMT -5
Is "accountable to no one" really a common choice, though? Someone is always paying the bills. Seems like it's either the congregation, or the main church hierarchy. But that assumes a multi-church denomination or association is in a position of hierarchy. My cult was answerable to only one man, and he controlled all finances, decisions, everything. There was a nominal board but they were on paper only for legal reasons I think. Fortunately my leader was financially quite honest so there was never a money problem. He was no thief. He was a control freak who became paranoid and ended in suicide, but he didn't steal. It's all so deeply sad and unnecessary.
|
|