http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fundamentalism-racism-fear-and-propaganda-an-insider-explains-why-rural-christian-white-america-will-never-change/

In deep-red white America, the white Christian God is king, figuratively and literally. Religious fundamentalism is what has shaped most of their belief systems. Systems built on a fundamentalist framework are not conducive to introspection, questioning, learning, change. When you have a belief system that is built on fundamentalism, it isn’t open to outside criticism, especially by anyone not a member of your tribe and in a position of power. The problem isn’t “coastal elites don’t understand rural Americans.” The problem is rural America doesn’t understand itself and will NEVER listen to anyone outside their bubble. It doesn’t matter how “understanding” you are, how well you listen, what language you use…if you are viewed as an outsider, your views are automatically discounted. I’ve had hundreds of discussions with rural white Americans and whenever I present them any information that contradicts their entrenched beliefs, no matter how sound, how unquestionable, how obvious, they WILL NOT even entertain the possibility it might be true. Their refusal is a result of the nature of their fundamentalist belief system and the fact I’m the enemy because I’m an educated liberal.

At some point during the discussion, “That’s your education talking,” will be said, derogatorily, as a general dismissal of everything I said. They truly believe this is a legitimate response because to them education is not to be trusted. Education is the enemy of fundamentalism because fundamentalism, by its very nature, is not built on facts. The fundamentalists I grew up around aren’t anti-education. They want their kids to know how to read and write. They are anti-quality, in-depth, broad, specialized education. Learning is only valued up to the certain point. Once it reaches the level where what you learn contradicts doctrine and fundamentalist arguments, it becomes dangerous. I watched a lot of my fellow students who were smart, stop their education the day they graduated high school. For most of the young ladies, getting married and having kids was more important than continuing their learning. For many of the young men, getting a college education was seen as unnecessary and a waste of time. For the few who did go to college, what they learned was still filtered through their fundamentalist belief system. If something they were taught didn’t support a preconception, it would be ignored and forgotten the second it was no longer needed to pass an exam.

Knowing this about their belief system and their view of outside information that doesn’t support it, telling me that the problem is coastal elites not understanding them completely misses the point.

Another problem with rural, Christian, white Americans is they are racists. I’m not talking about white hood-wearing, cross-burning, lynching racists (though some are). I’m talking about people who deep down in their heart of hearts truly believe they are superior because they are white. Their white God made them in his image and everyone else is a less-than-perfect version, flawed and cursed.

The religion in which I was raised taught this. Even though they’ve backtracked on some of their more racist declarations, many still believe the original claims. Non-whites are the color they are because of their sins, or at least the sins of their ancestors. Blacks don’t have dark skin because of where they lived and evolution; they have dark skin because they are cursed. God cursed them for a reason. If God cursed them, treating them as equals would be going against God’s will. It is really easy to justify treating people differently if they are cursed by God and will never be as good as you no matter what they do because of some predetermined status.

Once you have this view, it is easy to lower the outside group’s standing and acceptable level of treatment. Again, there are varying levels of racism at play in rural, Christian, white America. I know people who are ardent racists. I know a lot more whose racism is much more subtle but nonetheless racist. It wouldn’t take sodium pentothal to get most of these people to admit they believe they are fundamentally better and superior to minorities. They are white supremacists who dress up in white dress shirts, ties, and gingham dresses. They carry a Bible and tell you, “everyone’s a child of God” but forget to mention that some of God’s children are more favored than others and skin tone is the criterion by which we know who is and who isn’t at the top of God’s list of most favored children.

For us “coastal elites” who understand evolution, genetics, science…nothing we say to those in fly-over country is going to be listened to because not only are we fighting against an anti-education belief system, we are arguing against God. You aren’t winning a battle of beliefs with these people if you are on one side of the argument and God is on the other. No degree of understanding this is going to suddenly make them less racist, more open to reason and facts. Telling “urban elites” they need to understand rural Americans isn’t going to lead to a damn thing because it misses the causes of the problem.

Because rural, Christian, white Americans will not listen to educated arguments, supported by facts that go against their fundamentalist belief systems from “outsiders,” any change must come from within. Internal change in these systems does happen, but it happens infrequently and it always lags far behind reality. This is why they fear change so much. They aren’t used to it. Of course, it really doesn’t matter whether they like it or not, it, like the evolution and climate change even though they don’t believe it, it is going to happen whether they believe in it or not.

Another major problem with closed-off, fundamentalist belief systems is they are very susceptible to propaganda. All belief systems are to some extent, but fundamentalist systems even more so because there are no checks and balances. If bad information gets in, it doesn’t get out and because there are no internal mechanisms to guard against it, it usually ends up very damaging to the whole. A closed-off belief system is like your spinal fluid—it is great as long as nothing infectious gets into it. If bacteria gets into your spinal fluid, it causes unbelievable damage because there are no white blood cells in it whose job is to fend off invaders and protect the system. This is why things like meningitis are so horrible. Without the protective services of white blood cells in the spinal column, meningitis spreads like wildfire once it’s in and does significant damage in a very short period of time. Once inside the closed-off spinal system, bacteria are free to destroy whatever they want.

The very same is true with closed-off belief systems. Without built-in protective functions like critical analysis, self-reflection, openness to counter-evidence, willingness to re-evaluate any and all beliefs, etc., bad information in a closed-off system ends up doing massive damage in short period of time. What has happened to too many fundamentalist belief systems is damaging information has been allowed in from people who have been granted “expert status.” If someone is allowed into a closed-off system and their information is deemed acceptable, anything they say will readily be accepted and become gospel.

Rural, Christian, white Americans have let in anti-intellectual, anti-science, bigoted, racists into their system as experts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, any of the blonde Stepford Wives on Fox, every evangelical preacher on television because they tell them what they want to hear and because they sell themselves as being “one of them.” The truth is none of these people give a rat’s ass about rural, Christian, white Americans except how can they exploit them for attention and money. None of them have anything in common with the people who have let them into their belief systems with the exception they are white and they “speak the same language” of white superiority, God’s will must be obeyed, and how, even though they are the Chosen Ones, they are the ones being screwed by all the people and groups they believe they are superior to.

Gays being allowed to marry are a threat. Blacks protesting the killing of their unarmed friends and family are a threat. Hispanics doing the cheap labor on their farms are somehow viewed a threat. The black president is a threat. Two billion Muslims are a threat. The Chinese are a threat. Women wanting to be autonomous are a threat. The college educated are a threat. Godless scientists are a threat. Everyone who isn’t just like them has been sold to them as a threat and they’ve bought it hook, line, and grifting sinker. Since there are no self-regulating mechanisms in their belief systems, these threats only grow over time. Since facts and reality don’t matter, nothing you say to them will alter their beliefs. “President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood who hates white Americans and is going to take away their guns.” I feel ridiculous even writing this, it is so absurd, but it is gospel across large swaths of rural America. Are rural, Christian, white Americans scared? You’re damn right they are. Are their fears rational and justified? Hell no. The problem isn’t understanding their fears. The problem is how to assuage fears based on lies in closed-off fundamentalist belief systems that don’t have the necessary tools for properly evaluating the fears.

I don’t have a good answer to this question. When a child has an irrational fear, you can deal with it because they trust you and are open to possibilities. When someone doesn’t trust you and isn’t open to anything not already accepted as true in their belief system, there really isn’t much, if anything you can do. This is why I think the whole, “Democrats have to understand and find common ground with rural America,” is misguided and a complete waste of time. When a 3,000-year-old book that was written by uneducated, pre-scientific people, subject to translation innumerable times, edited with political and economic pressures from popes and kings, is given higher intellectual authority than facts arrived at from a rigorous, self-critical, constantly re-evaluating system that can and does correct mistakes, no amount of understanding, no amount of respect, no amount of evidence is going to change their minds, assuage their fears.

Do you know what does change the beliefs of fundamentalists, sometimes? When something becomes personal. Many a fundamentalist has changed his mind about the LGBT community once his loved ones started coming out of the closet. Many have not. But those who did, did so because their personal experience came in direct conflict with what they believe. My own father is a good example of this. For years I had long, sometimes heated discussions with him about gay rights. Being the good religious fundamentalist he is, he could not even entertain the possibility he was wrong. The Church said it was wrong, so therefore it was wrong. No questions asked. No analysis needed. This changed when one of his adored stepchildren came out of the closet. He didn’t do a complete 180. He has a view that tries to accept gay rights while at the same time viewing being gay as a mortal sin because his need to have his belief system be right outweighs everything else.

This isn’t uncommon. Deeply held beliefs are usually only altered, replaced under catastrophic circumstances that are personal. This belief system alteration works both ways. I know die-hard, open-minded progressives who became ardent fundamentalists due to a traumatic event in their lives.

A really good example of this is the comedian Dennis Miller. I’ve seen Miller in concert four different times during the 1990s. His humor was complex, riddled with references, and leaned pretty left on almost all issues. Then 9/11 happened. For whatever reasons, the trauma of 9/11 caused a seismic shift in Miller’s belief system. Now he is a mainstay on conservative talk radio. His humor was replaced with anger and frustration. 9/11 changed his belief system because it was a catastrophic event that was personal to him.

The catastrophe of the Great Depression along with the progressive remedies by FDR helped create a generation of Democrats from previously die-hard Republicans. People who had, up until that point, deeply believed the government couldn’t help the economy only the free market could change their minds when the brutal reality of the Great Depression affected them directly, personally.

I thought the financial crisis in 2008 would have a similar, though lesser, impact on many Republicans. It didn’t. The systems that were put in place after the Great Recession to deal with economic crises, the quick, smart response by Congress and the administration helped make what could have been a catastrophic event into merely a really bad one. People suffered, but they didn’t suffer enough to where they were open to questioning their deeply held beliefs. Because this questioning didn’t take place, the Great Recession didn’t lead to any meaningful political shift away from poorly regulated markets, supply side economics, or how to respond to a financial crisis. This is why, even though rural Christian white Americans were hit hard by the Great Recession, they not only didn’t blame the political party they’ve aligned themselves with for years, they rewarded them two years later by voting them into a record number of state legislatures and taking over the U.S. House.

Of course, it didn’t help matters there were scapegoats available they could direct their fears, anger, and white supremacy towards. A significant number of rural Americans believe President Obama was in charge when the financial crisis started. An even higher number believe the mortgage crisis was the result of the government forcing banks to give loans to unqualified minorities. It doesn’t matter how untrue both of these are, they are gospel in rural America. Why reevaluate your beliefs and voting patterns when scapegoats are available?

How do you make climate change personal to someone who believes only God can alter the weather? How do you make racial equality personal to someone who believes whites are naturally superior to non-whites? How do you make gender equality personal to someone who believes women are supposed to be subservient to men by God’s command? How do you get someone to view minorities as not threatening personal to people who don’t live around and never interact with them? How do you make personal the fact massive tax cuts and cutting back government hurts their economic situation when they’ve voted for these for decades? I don’t think you can without some catastrophic events. And maybe not even then. The Civil War was pretty damn catastrophic yet a large swath of the South believed and still believes they were right, had the moral high ground. They were/are also mostly Christian fundamentalists who believe they are superior because of the color of their skin and the religion they profess to follow. There is a pattern here for anyone willing to connect the dots.

“Rural, white America needs to be better understood,” is not one of the dots. “Rural, white America needs to be better understood,” is a dodge, meant to avoid the real problems because talking about the real problems is viewed as “too upsetting,” “too mean,” “too arrogant,” “too elite,” “too snobbish.” Pointing out Aunt Bee’s views of Mexicans, blacks, gays…is bigoted isn’t the thing one does in polite society. Too bad more people don’t think the same about the views Aunt Bee has. It’s the classic, “You’re a racist for calling me a racist,” ploy. Or, as it is more commonly known, “I know you are but what am I?”

I do think rational arguments are needed, even if they go mostly ignored and ridiculed. I believe in treating people with the respect they’ve earned but the key point here is “earned.” I’ll gladly sit down with Aunt Bee and have a nice, polite conversation about her beliefs about “the gays,” “the blacks,” “illegals,”…and do so without calling her a bigot or a racist. But, this doesn’t mean she isn’t a bigot and a racist and if I’m asked to describe her beliefs these are the only words that honestly fit. No one with cancer wants to be told they have cancer, but just because no one uses the word, “cancer,” it doesn’t mean they don’t have it. Just because the media, pundits on all sides, some Democratic leaders don’t want to call the actions of many rural, Christian, white Americans, “racist/bigoted” doesn’t make them not so.

Avoiding the obvious only prolongs getting the necessary treatment. America has always had a race problem. It was built on racism and bigotry. This didn’t miraculously go away in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It didn’t go away with the election of Barack Obama. If anything, these events pulled back the curtain exposing the dark, racist underbelly of America that white America likes to pretend doesn’t exist because we are the reason it exists. From the white nationalists to the white, suburban soccer moms who voted for Donald Trump, to the far left progressives who didn’t vote at all, racism exists and has once again been legitimized and normalized by white America.

The honest truths that rural, Christian, white Americans don’t want to accept and until they do nothing is going to change, are:

-Their economic situation is largely the result of voting for supply-side economic policies that have been the largest redistribution of wealth from the bottom/middle to the top in U.S. history.

-Immigrants haven’t taken their jobs. If all immigrants, legal or otherwise, were removed from the U.S., our economy would come to a screeching halt and prices on food would soar.

-Immigrants are not responsible for companies moving their plants overseas. Almost exclusively white business owners are the ones responsible because they care more about their share holders who are also mostly white than they do American workers.

-No one is coming for their guns. All that has been proposed during the entire Obama administration is having better background checks.

-Gay people getting married is not a threat to their freedom to believe in whatever white God you want to. No one is going to make their church marry gays, make gays your pastor, accept gays for membership.

-Women having access to birth control doesn’t affect their life either, especially women who they complain about being teenage, single mothers.

-Blacks are not “lazy moochers living off their hard earned tax dollars” anymore than many of your fellow rural neighbors. People in need are people in need. People who can’t find jobs because of their circumstances, a changing economy, outsourcing overseas, etc. belong to all races.

-They get a tremendous amount of help from the government they complain does nothing for them. From the roads and utility grids they use to the farm subsidies, crop insurance, commodities protections…they benefit greatly from government assistance. The Farm Bill is one of the largest financial expenditures by the U.S. government. Without government assistance, their lives would be considerably worse.

-They get the largest share of Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

-They complain about globalization but line up like everyone else to get the latest Apple product. They have no problem buying foreign-made guns, scopes, and hunting equipment. They don’t think twice about driving trucks whose engine was made in Canada, tires made in Japan, radio made in Korea, computer parts made in Malaysia.

-They use illicit drugs as much as any other group. But, when other people do it is a “moral failing” and they should be severely punished, legally. When they do it, it is a “health crisis” that needs sympathy and attention.

-When jobs dry up for whatever reasons, they refuse to relocate but lecture the poor in places like Flint for staying in towns that are failing.

-They are quick to judge minorities for being “welfare moochers” but don’t think twice about cashing their welfare check every month.

-They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their farm subsidies, helps maintain their highways, and keeps their hospitals in their sparsely populated areas open for business.

-They complain about “the little man being run out of business” then turn around and shop at big box stores.

-They make sure outsiders are not welcome, deny businesses permits to build, then complain about businesses, plants opening up in less rural areas.

-Government has not done enough to help them in many cases but their local and state governments are almost completely Republican and so too are their representatives and senators. Instead of holding them accountable, they vote them in over and over and over again.

-All the economic policies and ideas that could help rural America belong to the Democratic Party: raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, infrastructure spending, reusable energy growth, slowing down the damage done by climate change, healthcare reform…all of these and more would really help a lot of rural Americans.

What I understand is that rural, Christian, white Americans are entrenched in fundamentalist belief systems; don’t trust people outside their tribe; have been force-fed a diet of misinformation and lies for decades; are unwilling to understand their own situations; and truly believe whites are superior to all races. No amount of understanding is going to change these things or what they believe. No amount of niceties will get them to be introspective. No economic policy put forth by someone outside their tribe is going to be listened to no matter how beneficial it would be for them. I understand rural, Christian, white America all too well. I understand their fears are based on myths and lies. I understand they feel left behind by a world they don’t understand and don’t really care to. They are willing to vote against their own interest if they can be convinced it will make sure minorities are harmed more. Their Christian beliefs and morals are truly only extended to fellow white Christians. They are the problem with progress and always will be, because their belief systems are constructed against it.

I grew up in So. California and had a great career working for a major airline that moved me around a few times. Starting in the rocky mountain west and then living in a few southern cities and then retiring to a southern city, not by choice so much as to help my sister who is alone and suffering from age related health issues. So growing up with west coast 1960s liberal thinking (I never had Mormon friends,and the few I knew I wanted nothing to do with) I can relate to all of what you wrote and agree with it very much.

The masses are asses

Actual factual comparison

I'm just glad we finally found a group of people we can condemn as an entire group without fear of being labeled bigots. Substitute "white" or "Christian" in this piece for any other group, and boy would we be in trouble!

Thank God Southern white Christians are such an ignorant and lowly class of people that they are worthy of this sort of unbiased and totally accurate condemnation as an entire group! I especially liked the part where only Democrats have all the answers to their woes. If this isn't a global undeniable truth, what is?

I kinda like this beingabigotwithoutbeingabigot thing. Can we come up with any other groups we can completely dismiss, offer blanket condemnation of, and strip of their individuality without being a bigot?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 03:20PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Which I have witnessed in the south Central Valley...

Having recent haughty shocking experience where Protestant fundamentalists aticulated their vision for a secular institution Where I worked, and I found them mind blowing indeed.

Guess TMSH didn't read the article, where it said:

"It’s the classic, “You’re a racist for calling me a racist,” ploy."

You know, the ploy he just used. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 04:53PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess TMSH didn't read the article, where it
> said:
>
> "It’s the classic, “You’re a racist for
> calling me a racist,” ploy."
>
> You know, the ploy he just used. :)


Honestly, you're better than this. I expect this level of dementia from our OP, but are you really willing to rally behind this screed attacking southern white Christians as if they are some monolithic group that all share the bizarre traits hatched in a series of left wing talking points? That's the textbook example of what a bigot does.

I understand your disagreement with the faith, I cannot understand your embrace of a bigoted view of adherents.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, you're better than this. I expect this
> level of dementia from our OP...

...people who disagree with you don't have degenerative brain disorders.

> ...but are you really
> willing to rally behind this screed attacking
> southern white Christians...

...actually, the "screed" was "an insider's view," from time the author spent growing up/living with the group he was talking about, which was "rural" white christians, not southern white christians.

> as if they are some
> monolithic group that all share the bizarre traits
> hatched in a series of left wing talking points?

Of course it's a generalization. Which, of course, doesn't apply to all members of the group.
However, his points were from personal observation and are backed by statistics as to their prevalence in the overall group -- they're not "bizarre traits hatched in a series of left wing talking points." Your attempt to belittle his personal observations by using such inaccurate, outrageous rhetoric don't do your case any good, you know.

> That's the textbook example of what a bigot does.

bigotry: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices

Pointing out what you've observed/experienced among a group isn't bigotry. Calling out the observed bigotry of a group you've been in isn't bigotry. And you calling it such shows that you did indeed miss the point he made IN the article which I quoted above.

> I understand your disagreement with the faith, I
> cannot understand your embrace of a bigoted view
> of adherents.

Calling people out on their bigotry isn't bigotry (for the third time). You keep using the very dodge he criticized many members of the group he observed for using. Time to get the point?

Yes, you're right in that the author's post is a generalization that doesn't apply to all rural, white christians. Pointing that out would have been entirely appropriate and reasonable. Nothing else in your replies has been reasonable. Or accurate.

Tell me the name of the author and his/her background.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me the name of the author and his/her
> background.

Why, so you can engage in further ad-hominem fallacies?

The author gives his/her background in the post.
The author wrote this piece under the pseudonym "Forsetti's Justice."

If you want to know more, here's the author's e-mail:

forsetti1960@gmail.com

Incidentally, the author says he/she grew up in a small, rural town in Southeastern Idaho. So, "south" Idaho, yeah. "The South," not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 08:27PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course it's a generalization. Which, of
> course, doesn't apply to all members of the
> group.

This invalidates the entire piece. Is this piece not about the stupidity and bigotry of "rural, white Christians?" Did I miss the part where the anonymous writer encourages readers to understand that these are just personal observations and it would be wrong to categorically apply them to the whole? Actually, isn't that the point of the entire piece?


> However, his points were from personal observation
> and are backed by statistics as to their
> prevalence in the overall group -- they're not
> "bizarre traits hatched in a series of left wing
> talking points." Your attempt to belittle his
> personal observations by using such inaccurate,
> outrageous rhetoric don't do your case any good,
> you know.
>

My wife spent several years living in a majority-black urban community and attending school there. She will carry physical scars for the rest of her life from violence she suffered at the hands of some members of this community. At school, many of the black majority regularly bullied and intimidated the white minority. They acted with impunity and by all appearances had the full approval of the entire community.

Would you support my wife's findings as valid and a good offering into the conversation if she were to write her insider's view of black, urban, youth, and encourage that her experience was normative? It's undeniably true as a personal experience, and black youth are statistically more prone to violence than their caucasian peers. Is there any problem with her encouraging us to believe that urban black youths are as she experienced?



> > That's the textbook example of what a bigot
> does.
>
> bigotry: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's
> own opinions and prejudices
>
> Pointing out what you've observed/experienced
> among a group isn't bigotry. Calling out the
> observed bigotry of a group you've been in isn't
> bigotry. And you calling it such shows that you
> did indeed miss the point he made IN the article
> which I quoted above.
>

Would you agree that urban black youths are violent and hateful? Would you defend a piece written like this one that shows this? May we add that their violence is entirely due to failed Democrat policies that have created the environment for nurturing such anti-social behavior?


> > I understand your disagreement with the faith,
> I
> > cannot understand your embrace of a bigoted
> view
> > of adherents.
>
> Calling people out on their bigotry isn't bigotry
> (for the third time). You keep using the very
> dodge he criticized many members of the group he
> observed for using. Time to get the point?
>
> Yes, you're right in that the author's post is a
> generalization that doesn't apply to all rural,
> white christians. Pointing that out would have
> been entirely appropriate and reasonable. Nothing
> else in your replies has been reasonable. Or
> accurate.

I have a feeling that if you ran across a piece written by my wife as "Insider's view of black, urban youth," your response would be entirely different, even though the foundation is virtually identical to this one you seem so fond of.

Whether I would accept such an article from your wife would depend entirely upon to what she attributed the "hatefulness" of black, urban youth.

This article attributed the hatefulness of rural, white Christians to their fundamental belief in their own superiority as white Christians. Add to that the fact that generations of white, Christian Americans have acted on that belief--or complied with it--to keep blacks down.

This country was founded on a Constitution that defined a black man as only a percentage of a white man. The state of Oregon entered the Union with a constitution that forbade blacks from owning property in the state, residing in the state, or even entering the state. Let's here your false equivalency for all of the oppression visited upon whites by blacks.

Your argument from your wife is basically, "when black people have got power, they abuse it too." And I won't argue with that. But it hasn't got much to do with the ways whites defend their privilege.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Of course it's a generalization. Which, of
> > course, doesn't apply to all members of the
> > group.
>
> This invalidates the entire piece.

Not really. The attitudes he mentions are prevalent and powerful in conservative Christian America. He just shouldn't have used such a broad generalization.

thexedman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not really. The attitudes he mentions are
> prevalent and powerful in conservative Christian
> America. He just shouldn't have used such a broad
> generalization.


"The broad generalizations he mentions about conservative Christian America are prevalent and powerful. The author shouldn't have used such a broad generalization."

Will you walk through the dozen or so criticisms he makes of this group and provide your evidence that these are actual, verifiable traits and not something that merely matches the author's (and yours it would seem) low opinion of the group?

I'm not really in a position to do that much research, so take my comments as my opinion. My experience is that the attitudes described are common with religious fundamentalists. Probably not that many people will display all of them, but they are common enough to wield significant political influence. The point to me is not that fundamental Christians are bad people, but that there are attitudes in fundamentalism that cause real harm. Reading through the article a couple of times, it seems to me the tone of the article is probably counter productive.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will you walk through the dozen or so criticisms
> he makes of this group and provide your evidence
> that these are actual, verifiable traits and not
> something that merely matches the author's (and
> yours it would seem) low opinion of the group?

Will you walk through the dozen or so criticisms and provide reasonable critiques of why you think they aren't traits of a significant % of the group he mentions?

Rather than claim it's bigotry, dementia, or complain about the author?

Or say we should dismiss all of it because part of it may be wrong by being overly general (which would be like claiming an entire encyclopedia was worthless because one or two entries had errors).

You know, exactly what you haven't done yet?

You've done everything *except* critique the contents of the piece. Which is why I've been busting your chops so much.
Hell, I don't agree with everything the guy says -- some of which is opinion, some of which are factual errors on his part. But you haven't addressed any factual errors, or said why you think his opinions are wrong. Those would be reasonable, useful critiques/arguments. Try some of them.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This invalidates the entire piece.

No, it doesn't.
First, it's opinion based on observation.
Second, do the opinions and observations apply to "fundamentalists" in that population or not?
You can argue that point.
You haven't.

> I have a feeling that if you ran across a piece
> written by my wife as "Insider's view of black,
> urban youth," your response would be entirely
> different, even though the foundation is virtually
> identical to this one you seem so fond of.

Upon leaving mormonism, I learned that feelings weren't facts.
Might be a good lesson for you to take in :)

Want facts instead of "I have a feeling...?"
Have your wife post something.

Did you read the article? His main point was that white rural evangelicals are happy living in their cocoon, do not value education beyond the basics, will not listen to arguments based on fact and reason, and see the world through a racist lens with God above them and everyone else below them.


Mormon "smugness" is mentioned quite frequently here. Sounds similar to me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 05:00PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you read the article? His main point was that
> white rural evangelicals are happy living in their
> cocoon, do not value education beyond the basics,
> will not listen to arguments based on fact and
> reason, and see the world through a racist lens
> with God above them and everyone else below them.
>
>
> Mormon "smugness" is mentioned quite frequently
> here. Sounds similar to me.

And you fail to see your own embrace of a group identity that under any other circumstances with any other group would be bigotry. Please continue to tell all of us about these "white rural evangelicals" and their traits. I see neither you nor the author offer any actual statistical support for your claims, because they are untestable. You have a biased view of a group of people and assign that bias to the group as a whole. They are no longer individuals, they're just a group of deplorables, to borrow a phrase.

Please take a moment and go back over all the "they" statements and wonder to yourself why you'd never be caught dead in polite company making such sweeping accusations and generalizations about any other group or ethnicity. Because sweeping generalizations about groups is what bigots do. And you're not a bigot, right?

I see your reply as an attempt at redirection. I will grant you that sweeping statements should usually be avoided and there is a problem with generalizations.

But you don't address any of the real issues listed. I find it hard to believe that you can't see that the issues that the OP listed do exist. But instead of addressing any of the actual concerns, you sweep them all a way with the "You're bigoted for calling another group bigoted".

There is a deep divide in this country right now. Maybe it's tied to religion, maybe it's not. There does seem to be a correlation with region, belief systems, and the issues listed in by the OP (and yes I know about the whole correlation/causation argument).

Ignoring the issues and problems that are causing the divide by denouncing them as "bigotry" or your attempt to call out problems as "reverse bigotry" doesn't help the problem as everyone stops listening at that point... Maybe that's what you were going for, trying to get the person calling out a problem to stop talking.

I will say that when faced with a bigot, calling that person out for their bigoted statements does not make me a bigot. Notice that I limit that to a person, not to an entire social group, though I do think there are social groups that can be safely label as bigoted. We may disagree on which groups fall into that category, but I personally think it's safe to call groups like the Westboro church a bigoted organization, but I think they are using their beliefs as an excuse for said bigotry.

Also, saying that someone has "dementia" for posting their thoughts here is beneath you. That is a personal attack, name calling and an ad hominem. It's another example of the divide and the unwillingness to actually talk things through. You've decided that instead of hearing him, that he's not worth listening to, which is probably why you haven't actually addressed any of the actual concerns in the OP.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, saying that someone has "dementia" for
> posting their thoughts here is beneath you. That
> is a personal attack, name calling and an ad
> hominem. It's another example of the divide and
> the unwillingness to actually talk things through.
> You've decided that instead of hearing him, that
> he's not worth listening to, which is probably why
> you haven't actually addressed any of the actual
> concerns in the OP.


Our OP has a veritable obsession with the evils of religion and religious people. Hyperbole serves a purpose.

Since you appear to accept that location, race, and religion may be reasonable criteria for judging entire groups, will you please complete the following sentences for me?

Southern black Christians are ______________
Jews who live in the north are _________
Muslims are pretty much all ____________
When I think of Hispanics, I generally feel ___________

Feel free to just copy and paste any of the "they" statements offered by our OP above if you cannot come up with your own answers.

Yes ad hominem attacks and hyperbole do serve a purpose, it's called distraction and misdirection. They are a means to shift the conversation away from the topic because the person giving the attack doesn't want to address any of the actual issues.

I will no bother to answer your silly questions as I specifically stated "I will grant you that sweeping statements should usually be avoided and there is a problem with generalizations" You ignored that and doubled down on the "You're a bigot for pointing out bigots!" instead of addressing anything of substance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 09:43PM by Finally Free!.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes ad hominem attacks and hyperbole do serve a
> purpose, it's called distraction and misdirection.
> They are a means to shift the conversation away
> from the topic because the person giving the
> attack doesn't want to address any of the actual
> issues.
>

Usually we would expect an ad hominem attack to actually have a personal attack involved. Are you suggesting that asking you questions is a personal attack? Strange, that.

> I will no bother to answer your silly questions as
> I specifically stated "I will grant you that
> sweeping statements should usually be avoided and
> there is a problem with generalizations" You
> ignored that and doubled down on the "You're a
> bigot for pointing out bigots!" instead of
> addressing anything of substance.

In other words, sweeping statements and broad generalizations should usually be avoided, but you'll make an exception when it suits you?

"I know that bigotry can be a form of prejudice that judges entire groups of people without regard to individuality, but I'm okay with doing that if I personally feel the group I'm judging are themselves bigots."

Please remember, this entire piece is written by one person, anonymously, and claiming his or her personal observations are a valid representation of "rural, white, Christians."

I don't think I was a week into my first logic and argumentation class before we were warned of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. But it serves your purpose, right? Remember, if you claim the group you're condemning as a monolithic whole are a bunch of bigots, you're not a bigot for lumping them together and condemning them as a monolithic whole. That only applies if the group is an ethnicity other than white or a religion other than Christian.

If characterizing entire groups by race and religion is proper and reasonable, why do you hesitate to answer my questions when applying this standard to other races and religions?

>"Usually we would expect an ad hominem attack to actually have a personal attack involved."

You mean like... "I expect this level of dementia from our OP"

That sounds like a personal attack, which is what I was referring to originally.

But please, continue to not address any of the actual issues raised by the article.

>"if you claim the group you're condemning as a monolithic whole are a bunch of bigots"

Where have I done this? I'm not entirely sure why you're coming after me with these arguments since I haven't done what you are complaining about. I haven't "condemned" anyone let alone a "monolithic whole".

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"Usually we would expect an ad hominem attack to
> actually have a personal attack involved."
>
> You mean like... "I expect this level of dementia
> from our OP"
>
> That sounds like a personal attack, which is what
> I was referring to originally.


One of the characteristics of dementia is impaired reasoning. Ask our OP about the dangers of "Christofacists" and how there is a secret cabal of religionists poised at this very moment waiting to implement a Christian theocracy. The description fits.


>
> But please, continue to not address any of the
> actual issues raised by the article.
>
> >"if you claim the group you're condemning as a
> monolithic whole are a bunch of bigots"
>
> Where have I done this? I'm not entirely sure why
> you're coming after me with these arguments since
> I haven't done what you are complaining about. I
> haven't "condemned" anyone let alone a "monolithic
> whole".

The entire article posted is a blanket condemnation of white urban Christians based upon the supposed experiences of one anonymous writer. Do you think that's reasonable way to judge an entire group of people?

>"One of the characteristics of dementia is impaired reasoning."

So you're a doctor now and your statement wasn't ad hominem, but a reasonable diagnosis based on his post... Got it.

"Do you think that's reasonable way to judge an entire group of people?"

I didn't realize that I posted the article or had judged an entire group of people based solely on my experience. In fact I'm pretty sure that I've stated "I will grant you that sweeping statements should usually be avoided and there is a problem with generalizations." But this is the third time I've posted this and you don't seem to have gotten it, which is ironic given that you're diagnosing other people with dementia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

This is a horribly bad novel about how the "West" is wiped out by hordes of brown-skinned immigrants. It's racist trash similar to the infamous "The Turner Diaries."

Unfortunately, there are a great many people (including some in high political office whose names I won't mention but you know who they are) who believe this nonsense or have similar views such as:

Western Civilisation is a product of race and skin colour and not just a culture -- rather that "culture" is a product of race

The "West" is under siege by black and brown hordes and the only way for the West to survive is to expel or subjugate all non-whites

All whites must join togther in a grand alliance to fight the non-white hordes that will destroy them

Liberal whites who favour misegenation, assimilation, multi-culturalism, etc are traitors to white western civilisation and only serve the cause of the barbaric non-white hordes

This kind of thinking is not only totally irrational and wrong but also dangerous in the extreme.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/far-right-migrants-africa-crowdfunding_us_596cc499e4b017418629212e?qo&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2017 07:49PM by anybody.

"In deep-red white America, the white Christian God is king, figuratively and literally. Religious fundamentalism is what has shaped most of their belief systems."

I don't think broad generalizations do much good. People in these areas will rightfully say they know a lot of people who don't fit the description. There are some moderates who will still feel mainstream and that they belong in their communities.

But as a outsider, the effect is of a monolithic powerful group of people who keep you on the outside. My experience is that all of these attitudes in the article have a strong effect on the culture and policies in rural areas.

In many places the Bible promotes prejudice and unjust treatment of people based on the type of body and/or circumstances they are born into. These are some examples (but certainly not limited to):

Against LGBT:
“If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall surely be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13).

Against females:
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing” (Timothy II 2:11-15).

Against slaves (and perhaps their descendants?):
“Servants be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.” (Peter I 2:18 – 19).

I know there are many Christians who rightfully ignore these deplorable passages, but for those on the “superior” end there is great temptation to ride high on this wave. For those who are the “inferiors”, well it doesn’t exactly make them feel at home.

I am very grateful as an “inferior” that the basis of my religious beliefs lies elsewhere. I do, however, have to worry about their politicians making mine and my daughter’s health care unaffordable.

Starting with "people who deep down in their heart of hearts truly believe they are superior because they are white" it seems like the essay's author hasn't really spent much time in such areas looking at a wide swath of people there. Its sad to see such a hate-filled essay like this :( I do see that there are plenty of people that are like that in such rural places. But the supermajority thankfully are not that way.

Experiences from community members ... directed at me myself and my tiny black belt Female Asian friend. Then blythfully driving around Louisiana based out of Shreveport.

I would say based on how that made me feel never again, never stay nor invest a dollar in visiting

So was it racist bigotry? Was it sexist bigotry? Was it sexual bigotry It was a horrible place to be entertained as an outsider

When a daughters old bestie married and left cali for a rural southern state and her husbands home town, she told of people self sorting by type of church and the ethnicity in strict social groups, that's 3 years ago, so it s not just me visiting Lousiana

Then there's the Portuguese dairy owner treated like ---- followed around a tourist trinket shop in Wyoming "like they thought I as shoplifting-" "I could have bought all the stuff in their shop waited to meet with a real actor/ I was looking for property a investment! (Cash is making no returns for me)"

Then there's the cali former smiling giggling foster kid not allowed to touch the family tv clicker and forced to sleep on the porch in
Tennessee..when family matters drug their cusidy into the south far away from their homeland and peoples that loved and conceived them. a regular Mexican multi racial white native black Central Cali kid gifted launched from their Tennessee tenure like a lobbed traumatized stigmatized racially charged in a whole way for black lives matters taking years off to be a political protestor.

This is not selling well. Every contact that any person my daughters know who went into the south experience shockingly biased experiences and reactions directe towards them... and I did as well.

What else can cause such racism if it, if the thoughts weren't supported by the religion? Was it just being an outsider that I'd this, was there a special segregated section of town that was supposed to be friendly to my daughters friends.. or to my ok'd dear friend and myself.

Unkind experiences visiting Louisiana, and daughters friends experiences moving to two southern saves, and dairy owners experience out of state, panic me.

I look for cogent reasons for unkind racially biased actions experienced and I can find adequate justification or even sufficient cultural anthropology rationales to make it an acceptable state of the nation continent.

Despite excuses of primatologist human origins or formidable primitive responses instinctive responses socially among primitively cultures

There's still no acceptable excuse to rationalize and force acceptance of race ethnicity based hierarchy anywhere to me.

What A strange day in my life that was landing in Louisiana.

Trump's true genius was to speak their language. If he's still playing the part, he's doing a great job. Fundamentalist America is alive and well. I grew up there.

This is an unfortunate indication that Mormonism will be with us for a while.

Seldom is there such a fallacious and inaccurate post on this board.
A large proportion of rural white Christians are not fundamentalists. In fact, in many areas of the country we are educated Democrats. Your ignorance in attributing to us the offensive and disgusting beliefs stereotypically associated with fundamentalists and Mormons is appalling.
Anthony Bourdain actually spends time with rural white Christians around the country. Here is his very astute take on why so many rural voters have abandoned the Democratic party.


"The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now.

I've spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America. There are a hell of a lot of nice people out there, who are doing what everyone else in this world is trying to do: the best they can to get by, and take care of themselves and the people they love. When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good. Nothing nauseates me more than preaching to the converted. The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn't change anyone's opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us. We should be breaking bread with each other, and finding common ground whenever possible. I fear that is not at all what we've done."

rural white evangelicals. Not all are racist. But some still are. The one thing the author did not mention is that rural blacks and whites have more in common with each other than they do with big city urban people -- especially in the South.

'When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good. Nothing nauseates me more than preaching to the converted. The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn't change anyone's opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us."
________________________________________________________---

Your absolutely correct!!!!!!

Please don't tell the 'liberals in charge' they hate defeat ----- by doubling down on a bad strategy!

They don't care that they have been losing 'political strength' since 2008 by dividing the county!

Let's see how it works for them in 2018.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2017 08:05PM by spiritist.

"God must love the common man. He made so many of them." (Lincoln)

I've lived in many rural places - Mid-west and Rockies. No matter how long I lived there, I was always a 'move in.' Now, in rural Utah it's worse because everyone knows I'm an apostate. There is something to this, but I try to just ignore the bias. Keeps me less angry.

Religiously and racially devisive, or religiously and racially segregated? Well isn't it? Despite my experience visiting somewhat segregated neighborhoods, I didn't know people's attitudes actions intents their loyalties would also be segregated .... what I experienced visiting Louisiana as an olive toned big haired Italian with my little tiny California born Beloved Old female friend. Her gorgeous silken black straight soft thin hair and her lovely Asian eyed serious stare (she was a a military officer back in the don't tell era)... my friend and my reception off base and touring the state was akin to the time my husband and me parked his 1977 yellow ford courier in Humboldt to "sin" as mormons say it, late one night as the rain poured down and a man with a gun Immerged from the redwood grove ----had steered his truck in off the asphalt down a dirt road on government land and a pot grower /back when it was illegal to grow/ rapped on the window long gun in hand in the dark of the rain, "you two got business here? Move along".
So we drove back to the beach instead several miles up from the decommissioned nuclear power plant in Humboldt Bay. Constant cringing wincing conversation pause, hesitation, in surrounding conversation when getting a piece of pie down the street, other people's silent steady gaze just a hostility in the Louisiana air rose around my friend and me like humidity in the August sky.


What I do know, is, some folks located in the south or center of the continent have been very supportive of me and this board. Insulting their family or relatives or even them directly by impugning vast segments of humanity's capacity to love and think just based on religion, is pessimistic and insulting.

It's like a slug in the belly to those who have loved, and loved well. Uh sorry about that. If there's folks out there who live anywhere, and we're part of any religion, but remain closed intellectually to data and communication, and closed emotionally to processing data and communicating, and who are triggered into primitive responses when faced with anyone or any thing outside of their tribe-- who are cognitively incapable of learning or dealing without a triggered primitively tribal response-- and noting data, responding to data, addressing data based concerns and collaborating in attempting solutions

If there be someone so closed down unable to process data Let me not be one of them. And let me NOT be hurt by by the process of encounter but open to the process of growth.

I would like to apologize to those of you out there with fundamentalist Christian religiousity who are not what the article said, after all then you are the yeast and rising to fight ignorance and hate and bigotry trying to "be the love" from within... there's just such incredible self righteous religious logic based contempt of outsiders built into cults that function either as villages , or voting blocks wherever they are on the planet.