![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs a student of culture, I am fascinated by the magical rituals and other practices of fundamentalist Christianity. During some of my field work, I attended a service where people went through a rebirth ceremony. Before observing the ceremony, I had encountered fundamentalists who claimed that they would live forever because they were "born again." As I observed the ceremony, I was struck by its shallowness. To the informed observer, it may seem more hollow than the rebirth ritual of the Masons or those of ancient wisdom traditions. Perhaps this explains its limited efficacy and its appeal to a courser clientele.
The magic of fundamentalist ritual can be found elsewhere. It is not so much in the convincing qualities of the rebirth ceremony itself as it is in being welcomed into a closed circle of "true" believers. The wagons have been gathered into a circle with the immortal on the inside and the damned running around outside. If there is any doubt on the part of a member of this tight-knit group, that member must be treated as if she is poised on the precipice of damnation. If her doubt deepens or turns into a conviction, the member must be exiled from the sanctuary of salvation lest she poison the waters of deception with the toxin of doubt.
Although some scholars consider fundamentalism to be a recent phenomenon that has developed as a reaction to modernity, its principles existed prior to the changes that it opposes. Plato describes the reaction against reform as an adherence to "fundamentals." The fundamentalists of today tap into a long tradition of antipathy toward progress that can be seen during each shift of human development. Those who profess to immortality today differ little from ogres of the ancient world. It is no surprise that they attempt to restrict the rights of others based on "divine" rights of their own.
To get an idea of some of the things that fundamentalist Christians are up to in America these days, check out the work of Dutch Sheets:
He outlines his vision for a theocracy in America where the material Creator is worshiped in public institutions. I am fascinated by the cultural crusade idea that this man proposed back in 2009, just after the Obama inauguration. It reminds me of the cultural crusade of Pope Innocent III who purged trans-alpine Gaul of protestant purists. Sheets' crusade does not have the violent overtones of the Albigensian Crusade, but its goal of "winning back" America from the heathen horde gives Sheets a latter-day papal mien.
Here is the video from '09:
Do you see the power of religious fundamentalism on the rise, or is it heading for decline?
The magic of fundamentalist ritual can be found elsewhere. It is not so much in the convincing qualities of the rebirth ceremony itself as it is in being welcomed into a closed circle of "true" believers. The wagons have been gathered into a circle with the immortal on the inside and the damned running around outside. If there is any doubt on the part of a member of this tight-knit group, that member must be treated as if she is poised on the precipice of damnation. If her doubt deepens or turns into a conviction, the member must be exiled from the sanctuary of salvation lest she poison the waters of deception with the toxin of doubt.
Although some scholars consider fundamentalism to be a recent phenomenon that has developed as a reaction to modernity, its principles existed prior to the changes that it opposes. Plato describes the reaction against reform as an adherence to "fundamentals." The fundamentalists of today tap into a long tradition of antipathy toward progress that can be seen during each shift of human development. Those who profess to immortality today differ little from ogres of the ancient world. It is no surprise that they attempt to restrict the rights of others based on "divine" rights of their own.
To get an idea of some of the things that fundamentalist Christians are up to in America these days, check out the work of Dutch Sheets:
He outlines his vision for a theocracy in America where the material Creator is worshiped in public institutions. I am fascinated by the cultural crusade idea that this man proposed back in 2009, just after the Obama inauguration. It reminds me of the cultural crusade of Pope Innocent III who purged trans-alpine Gaul of protestant purists. Sheets' crusade does not have the violent overtones of the Albigensian Crusade, but its goal of "winning back" America from the heathen horde gives Sheets a latter-day papal mien.
Here is the video from '09:
Do you see the power of religious fundamentalism on the rise, or is it heading for decline?
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 16:52 (UTC)Religion is something that circumvents logic. Its very prerequisite requires you to suspend your disbelief.
There are also psychological links between certain thought processes and your frame of mind. Something that threatens your perception of reality often induces a 'fight or flight' response where the offending evidence is shot down or rationalized in some way. Some people end up fighting it, but many are perfectly content to continue running from the hurtful truth.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 16:58 (UTC)cultcommunity when they extended support to her during a personal life crisis. She was later rejected from their midst for the unconscionable sin of shacking up with her boyfriend.(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 02:32 (UTC)Actually, not true. It does. Much of religious and nationalistic belief has been shown to exert an effect unconsciously. There are some interesting study results included in the fascinating movie Flight From Death.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 18:05 (UTC)And the anarchists would have to stop eating everything in their refrigerators when they get the munchies to do something, first.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 19:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 19:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 16:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 03:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 19:22 (UTC)I'd say that this is true in everything not just religion.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 18:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 18:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 19:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 16:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 19:30 (UTC)Is "change/progress" universally good?
What role does religion or tradition actually play in society? It must serve some purpose or would've been abandoned along with the practice of living in trees.
If not "fear for one's immortal soul" or other metaphysical justification on what do you base your idea of morallity?
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:09 (UTC)My personal metric for progress is one of living as fully as possible. Material comfort can get in the way of that kind of progress, but lack of sufficient material conditions can also prevent one from fully living.
I favor the Socratic concept of justice as a guide to morality. The more that I can give of what I have, the more I can assist those who are less fortunate. When they feel better as a consequence, so do I.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/12 21:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 01:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 16:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 18:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 18:44 (UTC)As for studying without learning, that is something that I leave to pseudo-students.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 02:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 16:52 (UTC)I hope that your post will touch on the "Green Dragon" effort by the Cornwall Alliance.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 20:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 07:04 (UTC)Your statement that you are "fascinated by the magical rituals and other practices of fundamentalist Christianity" seems at odds with the way you speak of the religious views. Most religions are illogical, requiring the follower to believe in things that are inconsistent with Western and/or scientific thought. Looking at any religion from an ethnocentric viewpoint, especially one that refuses to incorporate the language of that religion and instead replaces it with damning descriptions, will never bring you insight into that religion. If you were truly a "student of culture" and not simply a poorly disguised disparager of Christianity, you would understand how dangerous and unprofessional ethnocentrism is.
Morality is based on one's belief system. You can't call someone immoral for doing what that person believes to be right. That person might be unethical in terms of Western civilization, but he is not immoral under his own religious belief system.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 17:01 (UTC)When a group of people seeks to relegate another group of people to second class citizen status in the name of someone else, they are doing an injustice to their victims as well as to the person in whose name they do the injustice. It may seem perfectly moral to them, but not to others.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 23:24 (UTC)To the informed observer, it may seem more hollow than the rebirth ritual of the Masons or those of ancient wisdom traditions. Perhaps this explains its limited efficacy and its appeal to a courser clientele.
Those who profess to immortality today differ little from ogres of the ancient world. It is no surprise that they attempt to restrict the rights of others based on "divine" rights of their own.
One of my sisters got sucked into a fundamentalist
cultcommunityYou are using your own opinions, based off of your own distaste for Christianity, to mock the religion you claim to be fascinated by. Rather than offering up an even slightly unbiased post, you use your own life experiences and culture against this religion. If you were not changing registers between your post and the comments, I might believe you to be truly ignorant of the connotations of your own words.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/12 15:50 (UTC)You seem to miss the subtle distinctions in the different sects of Christianity. If you were familiar with them, you would recognize that a critique of fundamentalist Christianity is not a critique of the entire spectrum of Jesus-centered sects.
I also understand from where your disdain for personal experience derives. Although my research includes a great deal of personal experience, it also taps into the experience of others. I could not possibly have observed a Masonic rebirth ritual myself, for example. For such things, I rely on the reports of others.
Be careful of how you defend religion. You may find yourself defending unsavory practices and characters.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/12 19:32 (UTC)Also, not ethnocentric? Did you not say, "My mother spent some time teaching Sunday school in her youth. She rejected the religion of her parents because it forbade dancing, card playing, and fun in general"? You seem to have grown up in a family that rejects Christianity. Your family's belief are your culture. Culture does not have to be wide-ranging, encompassing the whole of a country or nation.
Be careful of how you defend religion. You may find yourself defending unsavory practices and characters.
Thanks for that. I think I'll take advice from someone who is a little more honest with herself, though.
(no subject)
Date: 10/3/12 21:58 (UTC)You read between the lines when you translate my relief of being free of Christian conditioning to say that I "dislike the religion as a whole." Being unfettered from something does not necessarily imply a complete distaste for it. If I found it completely repulsive, I would not attend communion services on a weekly basis.
In your original comment, you contend that there is ethnocentrism in my use of language that "refuses" to incorporate language of Christianity in my comments on it. I would agree with that if the expressions I used had a foundation in a single non-Christian ethnic culture. As it is, I use terms from a variety of different cultures.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 20:07 (UTC)An old philo prof of mine defined them as different in that the former comes from Greek roots, while the latter from Latin. The Greeks were big believers in letting individuals come to their own conclusions, while Romans were more, shall we say, hell bent to instruct and expect proper behavior.
Ascribing the Greek perspective to "Western" culture seems a bit of an assumption, if not an outright definition stretch. Why wouldn't the West embrace the Roman model of behavioral instruction? The were weened, after all, on the one remaining offshoot of the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
(no subject)
Date: 7/3/12 23:14 (UTC)Your professor's argument, while an interesting one, has little to do with how language normally works. That would be like saying the difference between liberty and freedom is that the French believe in violent revolutions (so liberty must refer to breaking free from an oppressor), while the Anglo-Saxons were doomed to be raided and conquered by whoever came their way (so freedom must be an idyllic state never to be achieved).
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/12 15:39 (UTC)Religious morality tends to degenerate into system that promotes vicious conduct in the name of a distant higher power.