What is it about Christianity (or any religion) that makes it attractive to close-minded believers?

[BurtWorm]

I grant that not all Christians are closed-minded bigots. The question is why do so many close-minded bigots think of themselves as Christians? Is it something about Christianity (or religion in general) that attracts them to it?

I was debating with someone yesterday about who is and isn't a "true" Christian. I was told that a "true" Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. But isn't a Christian someone who is a member of a Christian religion, I countered? Isn't that a more useful distinction? Wouldn't a follower of Jesus's teachings be better labeled a Jesusist? Otherwise what do you do with all those misguided souls who love Jesus for his "only way to heaven" side but ignore the "liberal" pacifist epigram-spouting side that inspires lefties? Well if you call those people Christians, my worthy opponent said, then you'll make the mistake of painting the followers of the teachings with the same broad brush when you criticize "Christians" or "the church" for sending members out to vote en masse to repeal marriage equality acts (for example).

Fair enough, I thought to myself. (I wasn't able to express it because the thread was locked before I could. ;-) ) But that doesn't change the fact that those right-winged bigots are Christians, does it? Or does it? Why do so freaking MANY of these misguided souls who can't make themselves love the poor or welcome immigrants or praise marriage between two people in love regardless of their gender--why do they flock to Christian churches? What is up with that? Shouldn't we make a distinction then between followers of the epigrams and people who call themselves Christians?

[stray cat]

1. DUers are not an open minded bunch either - people differ in what they are closed minded about

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Hah! "people differ in what........."

That's a wonderful line, sort of Confucius like. :hi: :thumbsup:

[roguevalley]

48. there are two kinds of 'Christianity' to me: Pauline Christianity -he

invented it long after people died and he was in HUGE conflict with the people who knew Jesus including his family and the Messianic Jesus movement that Jesus and John the Baptist created and people followed until the fall of Jerusalem wiped them out. I am in the Messianic/Jesus/Baptist mode and the rest? They are the politicized, overwritten, literalists of Paul's creation.

[get the red out]

2. People will use what they can for power

People will proof-text and rave on being "correct" and having the real way on any religion (and even ideas that are not religions) in order to attract followers that fear looking within themselves to see what their own heart tells them concering life and the world. These people are just power-hungry, and the people that follow them need for them to be powerful so their sacrifices of independent thought are not in vain.

IMO doesn't have to be Christianity, but since that is the dominant religion in our country, we see it misused in this way most often.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. A couple of things.

It's definite and definitive. They have the answers for the imponderables of Life and Death.

Plus lots of rules for a disciplined and responsible life (if you're into that) without any personal responsibility for occasional failure.

Not to mention a pay-off with life/Paradise after death, so no matter how crappy your life is and/or has been, you are rewarded when you die, provided you've been faithful and played by their rules.

My sister wanted to convert to Catholicism. Our mother asked for a reason. My sister admitted that there were so many rules that she wouldn't have to think for herself. (She really said that.) And letting the Church decide for her made her feel secure.

[Birthmark]

4. There is nothing peculiar to Christianity...

...that makes it attractive to the close-minded. The same type of close-mindedness occurs in most groups of humans. It seems to be what we do. The only way to avoid it, aside from being a saint already, is to follow the Graucho Marx method: Never join a group that will accept you as a member.

[Lerkfish]

5. and what would that distinction afford you?

Why do you need more properly label people you detest? Why not just admit you hate them all and be done with it.

After all, that's what bigots do, isn't it?

[BurtWorm]

10. When I see someone writing 'no true Christian,' I hear 'no true Scotsman.'

This fallacy runs rampant on DU. It's easy to say those ignoramuses aren't really x because I'm x and I hate those ignoramuses. I merely point out that those people call themselves x for some reason, and to deny they're x is to confuse the issue. Agree with him or not, love him or not, Pat Robertson is a Christian. It's how identifies himself, how he sees himself, and how millions see him. True, he may not be a Jesusist. But that's another story.

[Lerkfish]

11. maybe you didn't get my point

if you hate all christians, what does it matter to you whether you correctly identify them, or even if you try to understand their own definitions of themselves. If the ultimate end result is that you hate ALL religionists, then why do you care?

or, are you saying there are religionists you do like and those you do not? SInce you bring up the "no true scotsman" canard, its clear you wish to permit yourself to hate each and every one and discard their attempts to define themselves as different.

Think about it. and be honest. You want to hate ALL christians and therefore you insist that they are all the same.

otherwise, what is your point?

[darkstar3]

12. "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

Did Burt ever say thing one about hating anybody? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

13. It seems to me it's the Christians here who have the confusion.

I don't doubt that most Christians on DU are liberal people with the very best values. But many seem to want to exclude from the category of Christian the bigots who it often seems make up the majority of what is called the Christian religion. And it's not actually just Christians on DU who have this desire, come to think of it. I've heard over and over from people who self-identify as agnostics or atheists who say so-and-so is not a real Christian because he or she doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. But if that's true, the religion is loaded with false Christians who profoundly believe they're really Christian. Isn't that a bizarre circumstance?

[Lerkfish]

15. they wish to exclude, you wish to include

again, why do you wish to do that? You're avoiding the question by lobbing another back at me.

[BurtWorm]

17. What right do they have to exclude from Christianity so many people who call themselves Christians?

And who make up the majority of members of the religion? I'm not talking about hatred here, or socioliogy or politics. I'm talking about precision of language.

Let me ask you though, 1) do you consider yourelf Christian and 2) if so, do you consider George W. Bush a Christian? To me this is like asking, 1) do I consider myself a New Yorker (yes) and 2) do I consider Alfonse D'Amato a New Yorker (yes)? No big deal. Why is it such a big deal for Christians on DU to admit George W. Bush is a Christian?

[kwassa]

20. False comparison, like the wildly misused No True Scotsman fallacy

Being a New Yorker, or Scotsman, is a fact of birth. Pure geography.

Being a Christian is a matter of religious belief, and disagreement about that belief by those who interpret the faith differently. Belief is a choice, however, unlike the geography of birth, based on different criteria for being Christian by different people who call themselves Christian. I could post an article on the subject but I won't because no one ever reads them.

Atheists like yourself want it to be that anyone who calls themselves a Christian to be considered to be a Christian. Many if most Christians don't do that, though. It is not, however, up to atheists to decide for Christians who is a Christian. Not that they won't try. And try. And try.

Each Christian has the right to define the religion for themselves, and to exclude anyone they don't consider Christian. This has been happening for close to two thousand years. It will not end anytime soon.

[BurtWorm]

24. I actually chose to be a New Yorker, but...

When you say "Each Christian" do you mean just the Jesusists or do you also mean the members of the religion who aren't Jesusists?

[kwassa]

25. I mean any and all persons that call themselves Christians

[BurtWorm]

38. Then we're talking about the same thing when we say Christians.

:wtf:

So what's your problem with my point of view?

[kwassa]

51. I think you misunderstand me.

I don't agree that ever person that calls themselves a Christian is one. I think that is what you took from my previous answer.

[darkstar3]

54. The answer to your question of WTF,

is that you are playing the role of Don Quixote in this case, and tilting at windmills. I say this because, in the context of your post, Mr "ignored" obviously butchered the No True Scotsman fallacy once again.

No matter how many times you lower your lance, that windmill will just keep spinning in the wind.

[BurtWorm]

57. That is the role anyone talking to a true believer plays, until they realize it's futile.

[Meshuga]

19. The inclusion is merely a statement of fact

And it does not mean that the people who include the embarrassing clan cannot tell the difference. There are obvious differences. But you cannot disqualify a group of Christians just because they don't agree with your way of interpreting scripture.

[kwassa]

21. The inclusion is merely a statement of your personal opinion.

No fact is involved.

Deciding who is, and isn't a Christian is only a matter of personal interpretation.

[Meshuga]

23. Okay...

If interpretation and opinion is everything then no one should complain about those who "interpret" it in such a way that they find both forms of Christianity to be legitimate forms of Christianity.

[kwassa]

27. Why not?

I can complain about whatever I like. So can you.

[Meshuga]

28. Sure, we can all complain about anything we want.

What I am saying is, you and Lerkfish have an opinion. But if others have a different opinion then you have to see malice somewhere coming from the "offending" party with the "Oh, you hate all Christians!" cry.

Anyhow, I will stick with the "it is a matter of opinion" if it helps you think you are not committing a "no true scottsman" fallacy. Whatever makes you feel better is fine with me.

[kwassa]

50. Don't be so condescending

"if it makes you feel better" indeed. I notice you don't discuss my point about the No True Scotsman fallacy, no atheist does here because they can't rebut my point.

and I don't see malice because others have a different opinion, I just see actual malice.

Not all atheists here, but many, toward all Christians and/or all religion. There is quite a bit of it in this forum. SOP.

[Meshuga]

55. Why should I addressed it?

For you to change the meaning of a term so we can continue the discussion in the "yes it is/no it isn't" infinite loop?

No one says you cannot define your "Christianity" otherwise there would not be Christian sects. But you disqualifying them is no different than them disqualifying you as a Christian.
And seeing malice because others see both forms of Christianity as legitimate forms is ridiculous.

It is common knowledge that the "embarrassing Christians" are Christians and followers of their own Christianity. I'm sorry but I don't believe you can't see the true Scotsman fallacy here.

You can say your form of Christianity is the one "true form" and use that to disqualify other Christian groups that make you uncomfortable. But the ironic part is that out of the whiny and angry posts by a handful of somewhat regular "true Christians" here it is difficult to see whether they themselves embrace this so called "true Christianity."

For example, I can see from your history here that you really embrace the "turn the other cheek," "love thy enemy," and all of the ethical Jesus stuff. :sarcasm:

Actually, you should take a good look at yourself before going around disqualifying others.

[Lerkfish]

58. so you wish us to include everyone, regardless of actions?

when you tried the "turn the other cheek" thing, you are, again, saying that unless we INCLUDE the RW christians as christians, then we are not being good christians ourselves.

the question keeps coming back that you WANT to included every christian in the same group. Why is that?

Do you accept that the term DINO is a valid one? that someone can be Democrat in Name Only, but their actions oppose that label?

Or, if you'll note, all groups have some sort of litmus that allows them to separate members based on some criteria. For example, even if an agnostic calles themselves an atheist, an atheist would presume to correct them as not being a "true" atheist.

Merely calling yourself a christian does not make you one, if you do everything opposite of his teachings.

But that's a side point, the real point is you have to ask yourselves, as atheists, WHY it is important to deny our opinion to exclude and to demand your insistence to include?


I believe, like saying "the only good african american is a dead african american" its a way of permitting yourself to act ina bigoted way, of lumping together disparate groups due to a label, and extending the behaviours (sins, if you will) of one segment and using it to smear another segment.


Otherwise, which none of you seem brave enough to answer, WHat is you intent on insisting on inclusion when we who are christians are telling you there are valid reasons for exclusion?

What does it gain you to do so? I can only surmise, like prejudice, if you negate individualism then you can stereotype without guilt.

Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs, they have different denominations and some of those differences are diametricallly opposed to the beliefs of other christians.

For example, Catholics believe in original sin, saints, the infallibility of the Pope, a long list of things like that which are simply blasphemy to a protestant (the revering of a mere man as holy, in the case of the pope) So, both protestants and catholics label themselves as christians, but their Actions and beliefs are different enough that if you tried to smear protestants with the charges of pedophile priests, for example, we would look at you like you're nuts.


It comes down to the fact that any group deserves the right to self-define, whether it be buddhists, atheists, whatever. The fact that someone has NO religion does not give them the authority to deny that self-definition.

Further, why does an atheist fight SO HARD to force a definition on believers? If they were truly atheists, why should they care?


I submit they care because they want to be bigoted against christians, but don't want to feel guilty about it, so they wish to demand all denominations and sects, regardless of belief or behavior be slathered with the same brush.... to asssuage their own smug self-righteous bigotry.


if I am wrong, then answer: WHY do you need to force us to include that which we insist on excluding?

[Meshuga]

59. Oh my fucking word!

when you tried the "turn the other cheek" thing, you are, again, saying that unless we INCLUDE the RW christians as christians, then we are not being good christians ourselves.

Not what I said at all. What I am saying is that unless you follow what you call "true Christianity" as an example in order to be a true Christian then I don't see why you should call yourself a true Christian by your own standards. Please re-read my post to verify.

the question keeps coming back that you WANT to included every christian in the same group. Why is that?

There certainly are different Christianities and there are obvious distinctions that separates liberal Christians from the religious right. The values are completely different. I made this point in this thread and I used this to DEFEND Liberal Christians who were being generalized in other threads.

Again, recognizing that the Christian right are Christians and follow their own Christianity is pointing out a fact. If this fact makes you upset and you think that you are being grouped with the Christian right then that is your problem to deal with. I can certainly make the distinction but if you cannot then I don't know what to tell you.

Merely calling yourself a christian does not make you one, if you do everything opposite of his teachings.

No kidding. My point exactly in the other post, while using your standard. And the standard you follow to decide who is Christian and who is not makes it tough to define as Christians the handful of Christian who come here to attack others they perceived as being offensive or that post something that makes them uncomfortable. If you are going to follow this standard I would suggest that you watch your conduct before disqualifying others. Otherwise you make it obvious that you can't pass your own test.


I believe, like saying "the only good african american is a dead african american" its a way of permitting yourself to act ina bigoted way, of lumping together disparate groups due to a label, and extending the behaviours (sins, if you will) of one segment and using it to smear another segment.

This analogy is ridiculous. I am not saying you as a Christian are equal to the hateful bunch just because you share a label. Give me a break! I have said just the opposite. Read my posts and you will see that I explain the fact that there are distinctions. But somehow I doubt you will be able (or willing) to recognize that.

Perhaps you see attempts to "stereotype" Christians coming from me because of your own inability not to stereotype others. If anybody is lumping attitudes here that person is you. I post something that is uncomfortable to you and by doing that I am automatically an atheist in your mind. And by being automatically an atheist I must have intent to attack you and act on prejudice. Give me a fucking break! :eyes:

Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs, they have different denominations and some of those differences are diametricallly opposed to the beliefs of other christians.

No need to point that out. Again, where have I said that there are no distinctions and that Christians are a monolithic group? Just because Catholics and Protestants share a label it does not mean they are the same or lumped together. I understand that. At the same time, I see no problem calling both groups Christian groups because that is a fact. I am not saying they are the same by saying they are Christians. I am stating a fact.

if I am wrong, then answer: WHY do you need to force us to include that which we insist on excluding?

Please see my answer above. More specifically when you asked the same question up top.

[Lerkfish]

61. my bad. I was thinking I was talking to a different poster. please accept my apologies.

what i posted should be taken generally, and not directed at you personally.

sorry for the confusion.

[Meshuga]

67. No problem n/t

[darkstar3]

60. Simple: Your exclusion is a form of cognitive dissonance

that you are attempting to ignore. To wit:

Pascal's Wager, too often used in debates against atheists, can be boiled down to the phrase "What if you're wrong?"
But not a single group of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or others can prove even remotely that they are NOT wrong.
Ergo, they are simply trying to exclude others as "wrong" while trying to ignore the fact that they too are on the wrong side of Pascal's Wager.

[kwassa]

63. I am not changing the meaning of any terms

The term Christian has many different meanings, that's all, and you are still insisting you have the right to define what the real meaning of the term is. Sorry, but you don't, as hard as you try, and that kills the No True Scotsman fallacy right there. Get over it.

I don't expect you to, I don't expect any of the atheists who use it here to do so, it is vitally important for some to keep that illusion alive, it is part of a general political agenda, a tool to smear all "Christians" with the actions of a few people who call themselves Christian.

I won't quote the rest of your post, only to point out that when you can't win an argument on points you veer into a personal attack on me.

Bottom line: you believe you have the right to qualify, and I don't have the right to disqualify Christians.

O.K. Just don't expect me or any other Christian to accept it.

[Meshuga]

66. Whatever you say

I am not trying to define anybody. The meaning of the term that I am using (that encompasses different groups with different values) is general knowledge. There is no illusion to be kept alive. I would understand your concern if I was really trying to equate you to the Christian right but I am not. If you find this so hard to grasp then that's your problem, not mine. The illusion being kept alive here is the one where I supposedly have the intentions of smearing all "Christians" with the actions of a few people. That's bullshit and you know it.

Another illusion is that there is an argument to be won or lost here. Perhaps you see things this way but I don't. Besides, I have lost many arguments in these boards and I am glad I did because it is always good when my misconceptions go away. But I was just expressing my perception to you. For example, I am merely pointing out that you use a standard to disqualify other Christians but you are unable to see that your standard also disqualifies you. You brought that upon yourself by setting up such standards and not being able to follow them yourself. Just don't go blaming me for it.


"O.K. Just don't expect me or any other Christian to accept it."

I don't expect you to accept it. At least we agree here. But I know other Christians who would have no beef with me stating this fact that happens to bother you so much. They know they are not being equated or lumped with the hateful crowd. Grow a thicker skin because this is getting ridiculous.

[kwassa]

69. It is not about being lumped with a hateful crowd.

and this is not particularly directed at you, either. I have no concern about being lumped with a hateful crowd, actually, because only an ignorant person would do that.

My concern is the level of hatefulness and bigotry against all religion expressed by some very vocal atheists here in this forum and elsewhere on DU. Not only what they say is hateful, but it is also simply ignorant of the Christian communities in the US. Bigotry against religion based on that ignorance is tolerated here, and there is absolutely nothing new about that.

And usually I ignore it, as my skin has gotten thicker. Every so often, though, it is important to oppose it because what is being propagated is a lie, and that the ignorance will take over unless it is opposed.

There had been a level of civility achieved in this forum between theists and atheists awhile back, but that has seemed to have dissipated, to be replaced by uninformed anti-religious attacks. Since this is a community organized around progressive political belief rather than religious belief, it would seem that tolerance of differences in religious outlook should be the norm, rather than the exception on DU. Sadly, that has rarely been the case. The intolerance directed at religious believers is unending, and somehow seen as liberal and progressive. I don't know how ignorance can ever be a progressive value, but somehow it is seen that way here.

[Meshuga]

72. My attitude is...

When there is an attempt by a poster to make a lazy generalization chances are that the person has no desire to be educated with facts. And a response to this kind of individual is not worth anyone's time. Or even getting bothered by it. However, we all say the wrong things here from time to time so it is always a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt.

There are good people here from all sides whose opinions can step on some toes from time to time so civility is hard to achieve. I'm sure it would be much easier to be civil in a face-to-face setting where people would know each other and it would be easier to judge intentions. But that is something almost impossible to accomplish in message boards.

But I am sure most people here would get along and a lot of the knee-jerk would not be a factor in face-to-face exchanges between people who post in R/T.

No one here is devoid of ignorance. But ignorance is convenient for some here as a tool to hold on to a point of view. I think most of us (religious or not) hold very similar values and it would be more worthwhile to work on common ground in order to protect these values than to bicker about bullshit.

[Nihil]

49. I think the word "seems" is key to your post here, along with perspective ...

> But many seem to want to exclude from the category of Christian the
> bigots who it often seems make up the majority of what is called
> the Christian religion.

As you have already stated that you believe (or at least "don't doubt")
that most Christians on DU are "liberal people with the very best values",
do you not think that your (limited) view of "the majority" and their
(limited) view of the "the majority" may differ?

From memory, you are an atheist and so would be less likely to personally
encounter as many Christians in a fortnight (e.g.) as a practicing DU
Christian would (simply from the assumption that the latter are more likely
to attend church services if nothing else).

On the other hand, you are no less likely to have your attention drawn
to certain Christians by means of their actions and the subsequent news
reports of the same (regardless of media details). By definition, there
will be nothing "new" about the vast majority of daily services, actions,
congregations or attitudes so you are effectively self-selecting a subset
of Christians.

This means that the two different perspectives will give a completely
different impression of "the majority of Christians" and "often".

As a result, your conclusion that "the religion is loaded with false
Christians" will be no more objectively true than the DU Christian who
claims that the "false Christian" is "an obscure minority". (And this
doesn't even begin to address the international differences within
most groups, the differences between different denominations or the
differences in impact of even the "extremes" between individuals.)

:shrug:

[liberal N proud]

6. Belonging to a group that tells you what to think is easy

Close mindedness makes one join these groups so they don't have to open their mind and be exposed to other ideas or information that might make them think.

To be close minded about anything is to be lazy.

[Democrats_win]

7. Chicken versus egg argument: These religions Make people close-minded.

It isn't necessarily a goal of religion to make people close-minded, but that's how it works out. By pushing their stringent religious rules on their memebers, the members often become very judgemental of other people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. But not everyone who grows up in a strict religion stays there

so it's not the religion per se.

I believe that people with authoritarian mindsets (perhaps because of overly harsh discipline when they were children, perhaps because of a totally unstructured childhood leading to a desire for law and order, perhaps because that's just the way they are) are drawn to authoritarian religions. This is illustrated by an acquaintance from my graduate school days. He couldn't decide whether he wanted to be a Roman Catholic monk or a cop. Another acquaintance became despondent because her two career choices, the Navy and a community of nuns, both rejected her. Or there were the two students I had back in Oregon, both of whom came from unstable, flaky families, both of whom dropped out of school to join the Marines.

Think of people who enlist in the military. Why do some people choose the Marines and others the Coast Guard?

Think of the culture wars of the sixties. Religion rarely came into discussions of boys with long hair. It was more indignation about violating a two-hundred-year-old cultural norm, and it was the football coach types who objected most.

Some people just cannot tolerate ambiguity. I suppose Ericson would put them at the stage of moral development where children believe that morality is just a matter of following rules.

[gateley]

8. Fear. nt

[winter999]

14. I think you got it.

They are afraid that their world-view is wrong and don't want it to be challenged in any way. It's also a control issue.

[trotsky]

22. Yeah, I was gonna say the need to have answers to all questions.

"Goddidit" is enough of an answer to satisfy the intellectually incurious. But the need to have answers comes from fear, so I'll piggyback on your answer.

[rug]

16. Are Baucus and Kucinich both Democrats?

[BurtWorm]

18. Yes.

[LiberalFighter]

26. In regards to the teachings of Jesus

Ask them if they are following the teachings of Jesus or Paul?

And remind them that:
1) Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the NT
2) Paul did not know Jesus personally
3) Paul worked against the leaders of Jesus's disciples

[JerseygirlCT]

29. There are people for whom strict authoritarianism

is a comfort. I suspect it takes them off the hook for their own behavior to some extent.

However, these people are to be found everywhere. If they are not Christians, they may be members of another religion. If they are not religious, they'll find some other group (perhaps the Republican party?) to join that will satisfy their need.

It's less about the group they join and more about a type of person that is likely pretty common and has been from time immemorial.

I should add that this doesn't make Christianity about authoritarianism, nor any other particular religion or group. These people will seek out the like-minded and mold the group to their own needs.

[darkstar3]

30. How does that work?

How can someone who seeks out like minded individuals even need to mold that group of individuals to fit their needs, when by definition the needs are already met?

Authoritarians will seek out other authoritarians, and an environment where authoritarianism is not only respected, but venerated as a form of wisdom. They find this in most religions. At that point, they have no need to shape the religion they join to fit their authoritarian need, as by definition that need is already met.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. That's assuming that it's religion, by its nature, that's authoritarian

I don't hold that opinion at all.

I think that you can find both the authoritarian/order and chaotic/creative sides of most religions. I suppose, ideally, there would be a balance. But certainly, that balance is shifted in some cases, by people who seek only that first, and turn away from the other. Some people really do need many rules, imposed by a someone or something outside themselves. Others thrive in a more open and creative environment. I've seen both exhibited in Christianity. I do not think that the authoritarian take is the only way at all to view Christianity. I think that's what people seeking that bring to it, and yes, when joined by others like-minded, they seem to bolster each other in that view.

[darkstar3]

34. I agree with you, to an extent, but I think you miss a crucial problem.

You see, I too believe that there is more than one way to view Christianity, and that authoritarianism is merely one of those ways. However, what you miss is that Christianity, and theistic religions in general, create the ideal environment for those who lean toward authoritarianism.

There is the outside force (God), the laws that go above and beyond most legal precedent that we have today, and the in-group/out-group mentality that allows them to feel that they are holding themselves to a higher standard. These environmental factors of Christianity in particular and theism in general create the perfect vessel in which to pour authoritarian crazy stew.

Ergo, while authoritarianism may not be the raison d'etre of theistic religion, it is one very predictable logical end.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. But I don't think it's limited to religion

I think there are myriad organizations, entities, etc. that can serve that function for people who are seeking it. I'm fully convinced that even if such a thing as religion didn't exist, authoritarianism would. And thrive at times. I think we're (or some of us?) hard-wired for it.

And since religion is a man-made construct (by way of supporting or attempting a relationship with the divine), no surprise that religions often mirror all the foibles and defects of we humans.

[darkstar3]

36. Limited or not,

the fact that religion fits the bill answers the OP's question perfectly.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Yes, it does

But so would any number of similar questions - so many possibilities that I think it risks making the OP's question sort of pointless.

What is it about countries? About political parties? About sports teams? Corporations? Heck even some message boards, lol.

[darkstar3]

39. I disagree,

but mostly because I don't see other generalized entities attracting authoritarians nearly as strongly as theistic religion, and the examples you posted definitely don't fit the bill.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Think about

Soviet style communism, Germany in WWII - and where a larger portion of the GOP is now.

Or the armed forces.

[darkstar3]

42. Two out of three of your regular examples

use Christianity as a recruiting tool precisely because it attracts authoritarians. So while these groups are guilty of encouraging authoritarianism with their structure, they are not as good at it as Christianity.

Further, countries in general, political parties in general, and other entity types in general do not as universally fit the bill for authoritarianism as theistic religion, which was my point.

Finally, your usage of the armed forces is unfair. Service members are conditioned to be authoritarians in order to avoid any questioning of the chain of command. That is not a group that draws like minded people, but rather it creates them out of pure necessity.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Of course it attracts like-minded people

Unless we're dealing with a draft, the people in the services include a fair number attracted to that career just because the atmosphere suits them. They're looking for that sort of order and control.

And I still disagree that theistic religion universally fits the bill for authoritarianism. I think you're seeing what you wish to see. There's quite a bit more diversity there.

[darkstar3]

44. Reread #34, and remember,

I didn't say that all religious people are authoritarian, I simply said that theistic religions are the perfect ground for authoritarianism due to what I pointed out in #34.

[Meshuga]

32. There is also the fact that...

...the values and ideas learned in a specific religious upbringing (or not even necessarily religious, like in a right wing Republican household) can mold the individual to be closed minded as opposed to being closed minded by default and looking for an "attractive" home with a specific group.

The religious right is not only a home for authoritarians but for those who live with so much guilt that they need to feel as they are somehow saved from their own evil ways. They are not looking for ways to improve or become better people. Instead, they are looking for atonement and salvation so they can continue to be who they are. You know, Jesus will get their back in an afterlife as long as they "have Jesus in their hearts" as their "true savior".

The so called devout would probably shoot Jesus if he ever came back. Can you imagine their disappointment after seeing a dark skinned Middle-Eastern Jew claiming to be their messiah?

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Meshuga

You always put things much better.

Yes, I've wondered about that one a time or two. Or that he would likely be with the outcasts of society, not with the sanctimonious ones.

[DeSwiss]

45. In my opinion, the reason religion is attractive to most people....

...is because in-general that is where their life is. Where it all started. It's where their identity was first formed. That's where their early family life is. That's where their memories are. This is the place where they learned to walk and talk and they learned (because someone told them) what was good and what was bad. And most of these folks are not going to easily question any of this, nor give it up. Even if they conclude that a lot of it makes no sense. That's not their job to figure out. Or so they think.







It was pre-packaged for them even before they were born. Few, if any, will ever question their beliefs at all. And certainly not once they get beyond their teens and early twenties. And by then the engrams on their brains are pretty much set in place and are immovable. Or at least not without wrecking mental havoc. They've been made "socially" acceptable through their religion. To deny it is to become an outcast.

And worst of all, its easy. No muss, no fuss -- everything's already been decided for them, so they don't have to wrestle with life's questions, they just need to follow the prescriptions they've been given by their Bronze-Age ancestors and everything will be just fine. And even if they consider themselves a "Bad Christian", most believe that they'll be saved and go to heaven anyway. Because they believe in Jesus. And they've been told: that's enough.

- Other than this, most know nothing else about their religion that they weren't spoon fed or that hasn't been gleaned from self-serving religious sources.

[conscious evolution]

46. I have to agree with this

People are indoctrinated from birth to believe.
And it all starts with santa claus and the easter bunny.

[kwassa]

52. It really depends on which religious denomination they were brought up.

Many are quite open to questioning, and encourage it, and independent thinking.

[BrklynLiberal]

47. Religion, and the Army.. Both can tell you exactly what to do. No having to make difficult

decisions. No responsibility for ones actions. Just dong what I was told..by either the Bible or Commanding officer.

Strict rules. No room for discussion or questions. Just do it!!



Some people need this kind of structure to remain in control of themselves and their lives.

[Festivito]

53. I think acceptance for directionless people plays a big part.

Not everyone has a mind to discuss things like this. To some, it's too hard. They need a village.

There is acceptance of all types of people, from the control freak to the easily controlled. And, in the mix, there is some chaos.

Add politics as a monied driving force that can -- and does -- corrupt, and we have something very ugly, ugly to the democratic American.

I blame our bribe as best you can politics more than religions.

[struggle4progress]

56. There's no shortage of stereotyping jerks in the world, I think.

[Prophet 451]

62. Do you want a serious answer?

Up until a couple of months ago (bloody Fox buyout), I worked for Beliefnet for many years so I had a chance to study this at length.

First off, let's be clear: We're not talking about the majority of Christians. Roughly 80% of the US describes itself as Christian in some form but only around 25% are Biblical literalists. So there's about 55% of the country who are Christian in some form but aren't represented by people like Pat Robertson. Nor is the problem fundementalism in itself. Both the Amish and Quakers are fundementalists but neither feel any compulsion to tell others how to live their lives.

Now, I'm not Christian (I'm actually a Luciferian Satanist) but I have read the Bible several times in several editions and the values espoused by the type of fundie you're talking about are a long way from what Jesus actually taught. Jesus taught compassion ("What is done to the least of these), tolerance (the Samaritan), church-state seperation ("Render unto Caesar") and what economic views he expressed are closest to a kind of proto-socialism. I don't need to show you how the views of teh Religious Right conflicts with those.

And the reason is because they aren't drawn to Christianity by it's teachings. Rather, what you have in a group of people who feel alienated by modernity and who are also what Altemeyer described as "authoritarian followers". The uncertainty and change of modern society leaves them feeling alienated and so, they seek to cling to something which is, in their view, certain and unchanging - fundementalist Christianity. They choose Christianity purely because it's the dominant faith in the US. If they were raised in Israel, they'd be Jewish. If they were raised in, say, the UAE, they'd be Muslim. But their's is a form of Christianity based far more in politics than in faith.

Both Frank Schaffer (from the religious side) and David Brock (from the political arm) have written about how the movement we refer to as the Religious Right became, during the eighties and early nineties, a subsection of the Republican party. How positions on things like taxation were based not on the teachings of Jesus but on a pre-existing conservative ideaology which would then be supported by a few Bible passages twisted out of context and meaning. Essentially, they're the American Christian version of the nationalist Islamic groups which sprang up across the MidEast in the seventies and eighties (NOT terrorists, they're something different). For this nationalism, I call them the Cultus Americanus.

The Cultus Americanus (one could also call them Reaganists since they're feelings about him are about one step from outright idolotry) pay lip service to Jesus but their teachings are far more influenced by an amalgamation of ultraright nationalism, ultraconservative social views and lasseiz faire economics. None of these are unique to the Cultus but the Cultus stamps "JESUS APPROVED" on the package in order to sell it to the masses. Essentially, the Cultus raises American Exceptionalism to a faith in it's own right. Their aims are not to be better people or to have a guide for one's own life (as normal faiths provide) but to tell others how to live their lives. They don't want the kingdom of God, they want to inherit the earth.

[Lerkfish]

64. if I could recommend just a post, i would rec this one.

well thought out and well said.

[Prophet 451]

65. Thanks

It always astounds me that in a country so dominated by Christianity, so few actually know much about it. For example, there was once a thriving movement of Christian Socialists, based on Jesus's proto-socialist comments (Mike Moore may manage to singlehandedly revivie this one).

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Yup

Well said.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Karen Armstrong would agree with you

And the reason is because they aren't drawn to Christianity by it's teachings. Rather, what you have in a group of people who feel alienated by modernity and who are also what Altemeyer described as "authoritarian followers".

She's made a study of fundamentalism and finds that this is the common thread that links fundamentalists in every religion.

[snagglepuss]

71. Well said. nt

[skepticscott]

73. Hogwash

Your number of 25% Biblical literalists in this country is absolute baloney. Polls over many years have consistently showed 40-45% of ALL adult Americans believe that God created the earth and the life on it in pretty much the form we see now, within the last 10,000 years. You don't get much more Biblically literal (or wacky) than that. That's NOT 40-45% of Christians...the percentage among religious folk (since virtually none of the non-religious swallow this claptrap) is even higher, and almost certainly IS a majority.

[Prophet 451]

75. Source?

I'm pulling my roughly 25% from a Gallup poll last year. If you have a contradictory source, let's see it.

[Angry Dragon]

74. It is Sunday so I will throw my thoughts out there

"In my mind there is a difference between religion and church. One can have religion without a church but one can not have a church without religion". King of Light

A Christian believes in Christ and all his teachings. You named an important one of salvation, but there are many others that are just as important. Love, as in love everybody, help of the less fortunate (this one was mentioned in the Bible more than any other thing), tolerance, and any thing that we think of as good virtues. Most churches really screw up these things. They promote the church as being more important than god or people.

[Politicub]

76. It offers the illusion of a roadmap for life's choices

The problem is, real life is often more complex than religious texts can comprehend.

But for some, they are comforted from not needing to try and understand nuance, or to be spared from making a choice. I think this is why so many right wing, christian fundamentalist parents will disown their gay son or daughter. The complexity that is a life, such as their child's, doesn't align with the narrow world view of whatever religion.

So in order to avoid contemplation of a complex situation, they replace cognitive dissonance with ignoring things around them. In effect, cocooning themselves off from the real world.

And while we have to deal with this magnified, naive view and how it affects public policy, the real victims are the fundamentalists themselves. They shut themselves off from the modern world and all of the interesting things it holds. It's sad, really.

[NMMNG]

77. Read "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges

Also read The Authoritarians. You'll get all the answers you seek.