Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evangelical movement growing in America?!

Rate this topic


Strangelove

Recommended Posts

I've seen it and personally didn't think it lived up to the hype. That may be because I was brought up religious, but there was nothing in that movie (except for the glossolalia...that was just creepy) that seemed all that much worse than what I went through every week at Sunday School.

I hate to defend people like Becky Fischer, but she was not actually suggesting that Christian children should be given weapons and told to fight in religious wars. She was just making the point that Christians, like Muslims, will have the most success if they instill religion in their children from an early age. She just recognizes that the Muslims are infinitely better at it than the Christians. In short, she wants them to brainwash their kids the same way Islamic radicals do, but without making them want to wage jihad.

And I'm curious as to what you think was borderline criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to defend people like Becky Fischer, but she was not actually suggesting that Christian children should be given weapons and told to fight in religious wars. She was just making the point that Christians, like Muslims, will have the most success if they instill religion in their children from an early age. She just recognizes that the Muslims are infinitely better at it than the Christians. In short, she wants them to brainwash their kids the same way Islamic radicals do, but without making them want to wage jihad.

True, Moose. This is a much more accurate way of describing it.

As far as the borderline criminal, I mean that not in the legal sense, because I am not well-versed in what is legal in that regards. I mean it in the sense of blindly brainwashing children on faith. The kids who, at the camp, were asked to come forward if they had ever committed a sin, and the child who came forward and was crying and disgusted at himself for having questioned his religion... there is something wrong with that. No, it's probably not wrong in a legal sense, but it is in a moral sense; unless you can provide some reasoning to the contrary, I just don't see how that is okay.

And sNerd, the family they focused on was a family in which the children were homeschooled. Moose, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the statistic was something like 75% of homeschooled children in the United States are evangelical Christians?

It didn't indicate anything about outside exposure, except for one girl saying she had been made fun of several times for her beliefs, but that she didn't care, because in the end, it is God who will judge, not her peers.

One thing that I did find admirable about the children in this video, though, was how well they were able to speak for being so young. But then again, those are the children they found to put on video....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, Moose. This is a much more accurate way of describing it.

As far as the borderline criminal, I mean that not in the legal sense, because I am not well-versed in what is legal in that regards. I mean it in the sense of blindly brainwashing children on faith. The kids who, at the camp, were asked to come forward if they had ever committed a sin, and the child who came forward and was crying and disgusted at himself for having questioned his religion... there is something wrong with that. No, it's probably not wrong in a legal sense, but it is in a moral sense; unless you can provide some reasoning to the contrary, I just don't see how that is okay.

In that case, we're in complete agreement.

And sNerd, the family they focused on was a family in which the children were homeschooled. Moose, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the statistic was something like 75% of homeschooled children in the United States are evangelical Christians?

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. I've only known one person who was homeschooled. He wasn't homeschooled for very long, but he now attends Liberty University...which is Jerry Falwell's school, in case you didn't already know that. Although, for him, it's an improvement. He used to be quite a loser and a druggie, so religion actually ended up making his life better.

It didn't indicate anything about outside exposure, except for one girl saying she had been made fun of several times for her beliefs, but that she didn't care, because in the end, it is God who will judge, not her peers.

One thing that I did find admirable about the children in this video, though, was how well they were able to speak for being so young. But then again, those are the children they found to put on video....

I think that's very common among children who were homeschooled. Assuming that these kids were, in fact, homeschooled, it wouldn't surprise me that they are more eloquent than their public school counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Haggard said at some point that if all the evangelial Christians voted, they could control the elections. This seems like quite the claim... but I haven't looked up any statistics. If the fact that there is a new superchurch like the ones in Colorado Springs being built every 2 days, as Haggard claims, well, then maybe it's not so farfetched. Does anyone have any info on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those nuts always exaggerate. There's no way a church like that could be built every 2 days. That would be 180 of those things a year. And as big as they are, the entire population of the US would be attending one within a year.

It's true... but I wonder just HOW FAST the evangelical movement is actually growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's growing. In gross numbers, I'm sure it is, but I would imagine it is shrinking as a percentage of the US population. Just by Googling it, you can find hundreds of stories about people who were brought up as evangelical nutcases who left the movement by either rejecting religion altogether, or else moving to a more liberal, non-imposing interpretation of Christianity. It's tough to find someone who was raised non-religious or liberal Christian who was converted into being a snake-handling tongues speaker. In short, I think more people are leaving it than are joining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently drove cross-country from Virginia to California by way of Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Two things struck me. The first was the almost incomprehensible amount of open, unoccupied territory in this country (overpopulation nuts need to get a clue about this). The second was the overwhelming cultural emphasis on Christianity on the local radio stations. Apart from the odd NPR stations, which were few and far between, the sense of living amidst a budding theocracy was palpable. Even commercials for auto insurance invoked religion ("... because you only know two things: one, there is a God, and two, we have the lowest rates on car insurance..."). That plus the gargantuan crosses that exist seemingly everywhere, was a bit of culture shock. It's easy for people living on the coasts to discount the strength of the Christian movement in the middle of the country, but after that trip I certainly wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in Tennessee and Texas. I'm pretty well-acquainted with the Christian community.

I personally think that the sudden proliferation of big flashy crosses and huge churches is a reaction to the fact that Christianity is on the decline in this country. All indicators are pointing towards Christianity dying a slow, painful death. There are hardly any Christians in this country who actually live how Jesus taught. The ratio of kids who have premarital sex is exactly the same amongst church-going kids as it is amongst unchurched ones. Church attendance is down.

I firmly believe that Christianity is approaching its twilight years. Evolution will eventually become integrated into Christianity, the same way heliocentricity and round-earth geology were. But Evolution will be different, in that people will eventually realize that, although Evolution can be consistent with non-literal interpretations of the Bible, it makes Christianity unnecessary. We won't be around to see it, but the day will come when Christianity will be relegated to the same status as Greek and Roman mythology.

Yes, Christianity still has a strong influence. But don't mistake the recently increased aggresiveness of Christians with an increase in popularity or influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out Friends of God: A Roadtrip with Alexandra Pelosi on HBO. I wrote a review of it in my blog. It a disturbing, eye-opening documentary of mass irrationality. I hope Moose is right, because anecdotal evidence as shown in that documentary paints a picture of rampant religious mindlessness. Of course, if I understand Moose correctly, he also points out that modern-day Christianity is heavily attenuated compared with the ascetic life called for in the Bible. I guess that point was also shown in the documentary, with Christians having to resort to parading "Christian wrestlers" (shown in the documentary) to draw the believers in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that Moose is right too.

I am still disturbed by the various religious activities that go on my campus. This includes:

  • A retired Regents and Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Georgia Tech writing a book, intended for college students, that questions evolution.
  • Reenactments of the crucifixion coupled with a christian rock concert.
  • The guy at the student center every week who lures students into debates about how science IS faith.
  • The large prayer sessions that are periodically held at the student session. (I forget who organizes these)
  • The various competing religious student organizations, each of which seem to have overwhelming membership compared to the Objectivist club. (At least the college atheists are doing well.)

Even a former member of my university's Objectivist club described the College Republicans in that he expected them to begin every meeting with a prayer.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never listened to the whole DIM Hypothesis lecture, so I am not exactly sure of Peikoff's reasoning for voting for a Democrat over a Republican. I also know that documentaries tend to sway things quite a bit...

Still, like the others said -- Moose, I REALLY hope you are right. I didn't pay close attention to the DIM Hypothesis forum, but I saw that you disagreed with the notion that one ought to vote for a Democrat over a Republican (right?)... and I am assuming that your experience with Christianity and what you perceive as its decline are the reasons why. And if what you said is true, I would agree with you in voting Republican.

I have always detested the decently far left, but never paid much attention to the right. If even half of the things in this documentary were true, I would have no qualms about voting for somebody who opens the door to policy that leans a little more left versus somebody who favors policy that leans more in this direction. Then again, thats If I HAD to vote -- I never understood why it's immoral to abstain from voting altogether -- one day I'll have to put in the hours to the DIM Hypothesis lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to compary the US evangelical movement to the Nazi, and Communist movements of the 1920's and 1930's. It is a result of a profound social insecurity. People feel that something they were "entitled" to (i.e. the American dream) is being "taken away" from them, and they are looking at a future that bears less and less resemblance to the present. So they find solace in a mass movement (and my point is that it is more the mass movement aspect that appeals to people than the theological part).

So the problem is that as the economic situation changes in the US, and regions are unable to adapt, the people will join the evangelical movement.

In effect progress is feeding the opponents of progress until they gain enough mass to put an end to things and create their own anti-progressive state.

What do rational people do when rational progress leads to growth in the ranks of the anti-progressives which will inevitably result in enough anti-progressives to put an end to rational progress?

One might contend that this is precisely the problem that mixed economies were created to deal with, that is to manage the "anti-progressive" element enough to allow real progress to continue (at an albeit much slowed rate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to compary the US evangelical movement to the Nazi, and Communist movements of the 1920's and 1930's. It is a result of a profound social insecurity. People feel that something they were "entitled" to (i.e. the American dream) is being "taken away" from them, and they are looking at a future that bears less and less resemblance to the present. So they find solace in a mass movement (and my point is that it is more the mass movement aspect that appeals to people than the theological part).

I agree with the above. However, I disagree with this:

So the problem is that as the economic situation changes in the US, and regions are unable to adapt, the people will join the evangelical movement.

In effect progress is feeding the opponents of progress until they gain enough mass to put an end to things and create their own anti-progressive state.

I don't think the Christian revivalists are upset so much by our material progress, although it may matter somewhat to them. The key things they hate are the post-1960s libertine social values. They decry no-guilt sexual pleasure and abortion and birth control, drug use, homosexuality, gay marriage, pornography, gambling, etc. I am sure they also dislike greater material wealth, the "progress" that you refer to, because it focuses people on material, earthly pleasures, rather than heavenly concerns. However, I do not think that is their primary focus. In fact, from what I have seen, many fundamentalist Christian churches actually encourage their church members to make money (probably so they can put it into the collection plate! :) ).

You are correct that the Christian response to the "sinful" society they see around them is to form a mass movement. That is the aspect of the documentary I mention that struck me most. I also have personal knowledge of a close relative who became a born-again Christian. For these people, fundamentalist Christianity is a social way of life. All of their friends are Christians as are most of their business associates. Reading materials and entertainment for themselves and their children are carefully cultivated from acceptable Christian sources. Their children are home-schooled or attend fundamentalist Christian schools where evolution is denounced in biology classes. They socialize with fellow Christians and, of course, they go to church with fellow Christians.

These people work hard at creating a self-reinforcing and self-justifying Christian community, one that is insulated from the larger culture. As a result, none of them on an individual level feels crazy when they hold their hands up and speak in tongues or proclaim the holiness of Jesus because... everyone else is doing the same thing.

My sense of these people is that they want to take over the country. Their open goal is to make America a "Christian nation." They believe it was founded on Christian principles, and they want to insert those principles into American life by law. They are politically savvy and organized. They are focused on getting their people elected to the government and they are large enough already that they probably have a veto on who will get nominated for President by the Republican Party. We have seen a few of their laws already under the Republican Congress: banning Internet gambling, despite the approval of it by a majority of Americans; repeated efforts to chip away at the right of abortion through sundry laws; continued banning of marijuana and other drugs; sundry efforts to stamp out pornography on the Internet; and increased fines for indecency on broadcast television.

Today, they only have a measured hold on the Republican Party. They can probably veto a secular Republican from being nominated for President, but they cannot yet ram down their Christian agenda on the whole Party and on the whole Congress. Evangelical Republicans are a minority in Congress today and were a minority even when Republicans held Congress.

But watch out if they become a majority in Congress. It will be a scary sight. It will start with banning abortion and appointing anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. Then they try to ban pornography and in the process will hobble free speech. Expect actual laws harming gays and atheists to follow. All the while, expect a feeding frenzy at the government trough as every Christian charity you can imagine gets its share of federal dollars. Imagine if it even became illegal to "desecrate" Christianity in speech. Given recent discussion of banning the "n" word, isn't it possible?

What do rational people do when rational progress leads to growth in the ranks of the anti-progressives which will inevitably result in enough anti-progressives to put an end to rational progress?

One might contend that this is precisely the problem that mixed economies were created to deal with, that is to manage the "anti-progressive" element enough to allow real progress to continue (at an albeit much slowed rate).

I disagree with this. The mixed economy actually makes it possible for the Christians to threaten us if they got power. All of the apparatus for government control of our lives is already in place for them to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one day I'll have to put in the hours to the DIM Hypothesis lecture.

At least listen to the first three lectures and the last (15th) lecture. The last lecture is where Dr. Peikoff talks about where the United States is today and where it is going. You probably would not want to jump right into the last lecture, as you would be missing on a lot of the context that he built up throughout the course. A course outline is available here. You know that you can listen to the lectures for free on the registered users page of the Ayn Rand Institute, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, like the others said -- Moose, I REALLY hope you are right. I didn't pay close attention to the DIM Hypothesis forum, but I saw that you disagreed with the notion that one ought to vote for a Democrat over a Republican (right?)... and I am assuming that your experience with Christianity and what you perceive as its decline are the reasons why. And if what you said is true, I would agree with you in voting Republican.

That was my stance, and I stand by it. All in all, I've found that the threat from Christianity is greatly exaggerated by the nonreligious community. I imagine it's because most of the non-religious community was not raised in a religious household and they don't understand it as well. I have experienced both, and I have a rather intimate understanding of the fundamentalist mentality. My parents aren't snake-handlers or anything...they're actually quite intelligent, but they're still Baptists which, in my opinion, is the absolute worst denomination of mainstream Christianity.

There are certainly a lot of crazy Christians out there. But the problem with documentaries is that a documentary can prove anything. I could make a documentary that shows, just as convincingly, that America is about to be taken over by the Church of Scientology.

The important thing to remember is that an increase in the number of fundamentalists does not mean an increase in the fundamentalist community. Why not? Because the population of America is growing. Their numbers may grow, but I suspect that their percentages are going down. Because, as I said before, people routinely renounce fundamentalist religion, but hardly anyone ever joins it unless they do so as a child.

And, as someone else already mentioned, all the flashiness and aggressiveness is a reaction to the fact that they know (though perhaps subconsciously) that they're losing. They're having to resort to more and more outrageous tactics that are designed to appeal to our senses, since they know that their arguments don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

The WoPSR blog has an eye-opening example of things taught by some modern-day Christians. Go to the section about the origin of the moon and use the widgets to flip the pages.

Genuinely appalling, deceptive and evasive as to what "scientists" think. Putting aside the philosophical issues, the current most-accepted theory is not even mentioned. The one closest to it is "refuted" with arguments that don't even hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. "Appalling" is the right descriptor for my assessment as well. Not only is the information completely vapid, but I am genuinely shocked at the target age-group for the quality of writing, let alone utter lack of erudition. The simplicity of the language had me thinking it was a text for preschoolers, honestly. My almost-three-year-old is far beyond the level of that text, in every way.

What amazes me most is that the preaching in the text doesn't prepare students for refuting actual scientific findings and theories, that, incidentally, clearly dispose of the religious nonsense in the text. I guess that means there's hope, because later on (provided they don't lay this on thicker and thicker as the children grow, but keep it just as 'hole-y' as presently), if the children are exposed to properly expressed and defended scientific theories, their mega-belief system might take enough hits to take it down altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the first chapter. I have a sudden craving for pablum.

Well, if this is the stuff certain evangelical Christians are going to be learning and taking for an education, I suppose I don't have to feel guilty for thinking I'm intellectually superior to them.

That book should be redistributed as toilet paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably on that really glossy stuff that makes books weigh a ton, and also isn't absorbent enough to be used for toilet paper. (Even if it's not, I doubt it's on any kind of stock that is--cheap Soviet-era paper might work though. I have a couple of books printed on that, but they are far too useful to me for experimentation.)

It might be worth burning for heat though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blasphemers!

What amazes me most is that the preaching in the text doesn't prepare students for refuting actual scientific findings and theories, that, incidentally, clearly dispose of the religious nonsense in the text. I guess that means there's hope, because later on (provided they don't lay this on thicker and thicker as the children grow, but keep it just as 'hole-y' as presently), if the children are exposed to properly expressed and defended scientific theories, their mega-belief system might take enough hits to take it down altogether.

As long as you get them early, the nonsesne in that book will have a strong hold on their minds. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from ITOE about "the status of automatized knowledge", having the direct self evident quality and certainty of preceptual awareness.(paraphrasing) Once total crap is automatized and taken as self evident, it takes some hard epistemic work to untangle and rearrange it. The kind of work most evangelicals are not too keen on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blasphemers!

As long as you get them early, the nonsesne in that book will have a strong hold on their minds. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from ITOE about "the status of automatized knowledge", having the direct self evident quality and certainty of preceptual awareness.(paraphrasing) Once total crap is automatized and taken as self evident, it takes some hard epistemic work to untangle and rearrange it. The kind of work most evangelicals are not too keen on.

That makes sense. So, it is likely that if a ten year old is reading that text, he's building on prior "knowledge" which accounts for the tone and rhetorical questions, in the text, that I find absurd. Sad.

Edited by Imogen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense. So, it is likely that if a ten year old is reading that text, he's building on prior "knowledge" which accounts for the tone and rhetorical questions, in the text, that I find absurd. Sad.

I think its worse than that, its not neccessarily automatized faulty knowledge hes building on, its a faulty automatized thought process that acts as a base and filter for any future knowledge. Any new piece of information has to withstand the scrutiny of a deep rooted faith based heirarchy in which science and reason take a back seat to blind faith and dogmatism. Trying to convince such a mind of the primacy of existence would literally be like trying to convince me or you that we actually have seven fingers on each hand. Knowledge (or belief), once automatized, is self evident like perception. The problem is, it can be wrong and perception cant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its worse than that, its not neccessarily automatized faulty knowledge hes building on, its a faulty automatized thought process that acts as a base and filter for any future knowledge. Any new piece of information has to withstand the scrutiny of a deep rooted faith based heirarchy in which science and reason take a back seat to blind faith and dogmatism. Trying to convince such a mind of the primacy of existence would literally be like trying to convince me or you that we actually have seven fingers on each hand. Knowledge (or belief), once automatized, is self evident like perception. The problem is, it can be wrong and perception cant.

I have some experience with this, having been raised by abusive addicts and the complete alternate reality-like world they live in. As an adult, it did take a lot of deliberate work to fix the remnant automatic negative thought patterns I had, but given my personality, I did so quickly and moved on. Even within that environment, though, I knew things weren't right and became a bane to my parents' self-delusion with my insistence on reality as it actually is. Perhaps that's attributable to my personality because lots of people in this situation just continue the behaviours of their parents throughout their lives. Interesting how both religion and addiction rely on similar faulty mechanisms to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...