The Christofascists
I’ve been reading about the Christian right, I recommend both books: Kingdom Coming and American Fascist. Very interesting, even in light of the self-destruction of the right wing coalition. An important take away for me was that we must not forget that the crazy right wing christians actually believe what they are saying. Their followers vote for “moral issues”, against their own self interest, because they think that those issue are more important. Also, these people are unreachable. We cannot change their minds or convince them of the error of their ways. They are true believers, and we can only fight them when they try and impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
May 27th, 2007 11:47
Woah, woah, hold on a sec… I think you might be capitulating to quickly to a view that the christofascists are unreachable and unchangeable in their beliefs, and that all we can do is fight them head-to-head. Although I agree with you that this is probably the case for most adult christofascists, I do not think we can say the same for their kids. Check out the movie “Jesus Camp.” These kids are indoctrinated through systematic training within institutions (churches, home-schooling, summer camps) that substitute for a secular education. Although are currently enabled to indoctrinate their children with christofascism, I think that there are many ways that we could take away the enabling conditions for this. For example, the mass media could make clear the difference between education and indoctrination, and raise public awareness of the difference between institutions that perform one or the other. The American Association of University Professors made this distinction in their founding 1915 document on academic freedom: education takes place in universities devoted to the free and open pursuit of truth through critical discussion, while indoctrination takes place in schools devoted to the propagation of a particular doctrine. The former serve the public good through the development of knowledge, the teaching of critically thinking students, and the training of experts for public service. The former universities are deserving of academic freedom, the latter proprietary institutions are not. I think that this distinction should be generalized to cover not only universities but also primary and secondary educational institutions (in addition to other reasons for why we should overcome the artificial division between universities and earlier education). If home-schooling and religious schools were considered indoctrinatory and non-educational, and hence unworthy of academic freedom, (and hence unworthy of public support because they do not serve the public good), then they would be subject to a) a withdrawal of all public funds - no tax breaks, b) interference by the government (e.g., they could be outlawed and their children could be forced to attend public schools until age 18 (or even better, age 22 - so that everybody would be mandated to have a college education - for free, of course)), and c) a general public disapproval of all theocratic relgious instruction (e.g., a religious upbringing could be considered by companies, in their hiring decisions, to be equivalent to a past history of drug use - since they are two functionally similar methods of coping with the anxiety that individuals experience in a capitalist society.) Though this suggestions may seem unrealistically, why not aim high? (and not be ‘high’ when we aim).
May 27th, 2007 12:09
I really think that these people can not be reached. Let them have their religious schools and home schooling. Their children can only be indoctrinated by keeping them from any source of information, an impossible task. Demographics is against them, their ranks are dwindling. I suspect that they will get weirder and scarier as they become fewer, because a central part of the world few is that they are under attack by secular forces. The fact is that religious extremists really believe what they say and are highly unlikely to change their minds. I don’t think forcing people to do things would help at all either, it is somewhat offensive to challenge religious freedom, which I agree is a fundamental right. Don’t worry, people that don’t believe in evolution aren’t going to get into medical school.
May 27th, 2007 12:46
But people who don’t believe in evolution are going to get into the corporate boards of powerful corporations (wal-mart, etc.) and into Congress and the fuckin’ White House! … Are you sure that their ranks are dwindling? I thought that Christian fundamentalism was growing, but I don’t have any evidence of that at my fingertips. … Sure, let them have their religious schools and home schooling… But don’t give them tax breaks! .. Also, are you sure that it is such an impossible task to keep their children from any source of information? Isn’t it precisely the function of home-schooling to restrict their access to information? I wouldn’t have such strong faith in the modernizing march of technology to spread all information to everyone. What is it that makes you think that it’s impossible to withhold information from children - especially during their formative years? (e.g., in this movie, ‘jesus camp,’ these kids usually become ‘born again’ at a very young age… between 4 and 12). …. Another more theoretical point: why do we say “their children”? Why do we accept that these people are compentent enough to be parents? E.g., (though I hesitate to make this analogy, I’m going to throw it out there for argument’s sake): why not think of christofascist parents as analogous to crackhead parents? The latter get their children taken away by the state, so why should christocrackhead parents be allowed to keep their kids? I think we should explore the structural parallels between theocratic religion and drugs more. Both serve similar psychological functions - addictions to treat anxieties produced by individuals sense of meaningless and fragmented identity within capitalism. (though I would reject the ‘war’ metaphor, if we have a ‘war on drugs,’ why not a ‘war on theocratic religion’?).
May 28th, 2007 10:03
interesting debate. I don’t have anything insightful to add. but we should be careful in our rhetoric. not all christians are “christofascists” and some even have really thoughtful things to say on the subject. like our friend nate madsen, for example:
http://www.xanga.com/N8Ma/581278682/on-the-road-again.html
May 28th, 2007 13:45
Yes, definitely, I agree, not all christians are “christofascists.” I was overgeneralizing way too much in those previous posts. I submit my apologies to Nate and other thoughtful christians. There are certainly many sects of christianity and other religions that are much better than others w/r/t their openness to science and critical thinking.
However, I won’t retract my general opposition to theocratic religion, nor my opposition to teaching it to children. How should I articulate this argument in the simplest and most convincing way possible? Unfortunately, as I’m trying to think about this, I’m realizing that this is a very difficult issue! The biggest problem I’m seeing is that, once someone has accepted the main premises of a theistic religion, then they acquire an easy out from any reasonable conversation: to reply that what I argue may matter here on Earth, but it won’t matter in the afterlife (Heaven or Hell). Particularly, the best argument against the beliefs of theistic religion is that they are both unnecessary and hindering of the progressive composition of a good common society and world. (E.g., theistic beliefs are inconsistent with certain beliefs developed by modern science (e.g., evolution), and understanding the latter is necessary for participating well in policy debates about science, health, the environment, etc.). The religious person could then reply that these reasons are not valid for them because they care less about making a good society on Earth than about securing a good position for themselves in the afterlife.
I don’t know how to respond to that at the moment… How do you convince a religious person to suspend their belief in the afterlife? Perhaps the big ideological battle needs to be fought over the opposition between transcendental view of the world (God, the spiritual Self, the afterlife, the fetishization of commodities in capitalist exchange) and an immanent view (just one ontological, material plane of existence).
Or maybe some of these recent ‘Anti-God’ books have better arguments… Check out this New Yorker review: “Atheists with Attitude.”
May 28th, 2007 21:34
I certainly don’t think all Christians are christofascists. Often, in fact, it is easy to think that the very small number who are literally fascists (dominionists) represent a huge movement, but there is no evidence that they do. My only concern with them is that they are much more powerful that there numbers would indicate. They have people in powerful places, especially after the Bush administration has stacked the ranks of the US government civil service with graduates of Liberty and Regent University.
Often liberals think that there is this vast army of christian rubes who we just need to figure out how to talk to. Which is absurd because it assumes that their beliefs aren’t real or that if they just heard our arguments they would change their minds…