Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Causation, correlation, controlling for income levels? Screw it. Previous entry: Obligatory post on “The Help”

In defense of the low road

I love most of this review of the double episode of "Louie" by Alyssa Rosenberg, but I have to object to this:

I should note that I tend to hold jokes made by liberals about evangelical Christians to a higher standard. If you’re going to venture into an arena of humor where it’s easy to take low roads and cheap shots and still be rewarded fairly handsomely for it by your audience.

Now maybe Alyssa objects generally to low roads, and expects all humor to be on a higher plane, but I see this attitude a lot coming from liberals, and I think it's coming from the wrong place.  It's generally coming from a mistaken belief that mocking evangelicals (really, fundamentalists) is punching down.  Liberals who don't get a lot of direct exposure to fundamentalists, in other words, buy fundamentalist myths about themselves: that they're outcast, that they lack social power and wealth, that they're somehow underpriivileged as a group.  Which goes back to what I was saying yesterday, about the illusion that the Tea Party is predominantly economically stressed people.  In reality, Tea Partiers tend to be wealthier than average.  

And for all their posturing, fundamentalists are not oppressed.  On the contrary!  Their political power outstrips their numbers, to begin with.  But more importantly, they hold often unchecked power in red state communities.  Actually walking through a parking lot of a megachurch on a Sunday morning will do a lot to quell any misconceptions that they're just earnest, beleaguered, underprivileged people who happen to have kooky beliefs.  Far from being the oppressed class, they are they are the oppressors.  In their communities, they terrorize queer people, atheists, anyone perceived as outside their norms, and sexually active women, even those sexually active women sitting in their pews.  In the South, Bible-thumping is also intertwined with racism and the continued devotion to segregation in many communities.  I think a lot of liberals who haven't done much time in these areas think of fundamentalists as ruling the trailer parks, but in reality, they rule the suburbs that are stuffed with McMansions. Believe me; for a lot of us when I was living  in Austin who are definitely on the outs with that community, if we found ourselves stepping outside of the city limits into the suburbs that are ruled by Bible-thumpers, we made damn sure to minimize our time there.  For much of the audience of any TV show or comedian that mocks fundies, a shot across the chin to fundamentalists is big time punching up.  What outsiders might perceive as a low road could save the life of young people stuck in these communities who question evangelical beliefs. 

They have social, political, and economic weight.  The only thing fundamentalists don't have is cool.  Of course, the social capital of cool is often complicated, since so much of cool comes from subcultures that have no social capital outside of cool.  Cool is a very real threat to fundamentalist communities and their ability to pass on their beliefs to their young, which is why they spend so much time trying to keep their young separated from pop music and youth fashion.  But so what?  Cool is really the only weapon we have against a group of people that actively and gleefully oppresses other classes.  Fuck 'em.  A sneering, mocking low road can actually be the road out for those ensnared in the culture who are having their doubts.  We shouldn't tear up that road on the grounds that it's a low road. Some times just pointing and laughing at someone can deprive them of a lot of power to do harm to others.  

Which isn't to say that I objected to that episode of "Louie".  But I don't think he was taking the high road so much as he had to have the fundamentalist Christian be a certain way for the events of the episode to unfold the way they did, since the episode was more about him and not really about her.  

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:43 AM • (68) Comments

I find the sudden uncontrolled laugh, then “oh, you’re serious?  Really?” to be a very good response to certain of my fairly near family (like my mother).  Not to mention keeping the soul crushing “damn, what happened to the hippy who raised me” questions at bay.

Comment #1: helen w. h.  on  08/16  at  09:31 AM

I think the point is not exactly about who is or is not oppressed, and more about the difference between actual humor and what I call “yuk-yuk-yukkery.”

Yuk-yuk-yukkery is when you make a “joke” that’s really just in-group signaling - basically you’re reassuring everyone that they’re all part of the in-group by stating a prejudice or belief that everyone in the in-group is supposed to hold. 

That’s not bad because it oppresses people - it’s bad because it’s tiresome, and not funny.

Comment #2: Ape Man  on  08/16  at  09:33 AM

I live in a progressive city in the South and I completely agree that Tea Partiers and Fundies are the McMansion assholes and not the denizens of trailer parks (although many poor “white trash” folks might hold some similar views in terms of theology and general hatred for “others” they don’t have the social or financial clout to belong to the trendy mega-churches or to wield policy making powers). Just this morning, I saw a run-down mini-van with a Palin sticker on it and it occurred to me that that was strange. Here was that poor bigot bolstering the Christianist/Fundie movement, but Palin stickers are far more common on Range Rovers than on junkers. The exception that proves the rule was pretty blaring. Thanks for continuing to discuss reality in the face of the popular myths we like to retell each other!

Comment #3: Thealogian  on  08/16  at  09:47 AM

A sneering, mocking low road can actually be the road out for those ensnared in the culture who are having their doubts.  We shouldn’t tear up that road on the grounds that it’s a low road. Some times just pointing and laughing at someone can deprive them of a lot of power to do harm to others.

This is a really good point. Taking the low road takes a certain kind of guts. Liberals and secularists should aim to develop those kinds of guts.

Comment #4: atheist  on  08/16  at  09:48 AM

As a native Oklahoman and cultural anthropologist, I think a lot of this attitude toward fundamentalists is a holdover from the earlier religious stratification in the South.  Prior to WWII, most fundamentalists came from the working classes and poor.  After the war, the massive upward mobility moved millions of those people into the middle and professional classes and they kept their religious affiliations.  since the 1960s, their numbers have grown dramatically among the more prosperous.  Even the Pentecostals, confined to the poor when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, are rapidly expanding among middle and professional class Americans.

Comment #5: DrDick  on  08/16  at  09:57 AM

Ape, maybe—-but then wouldn’t she have objected to the low road completely, and not just when it comes to evangelicals?

When you set aside a specific group as exempt, you’re saying they deserve that exemption, not that you object to a specific kind of humor. 

It’s the difference between saying, “When it comes to farts, I object to the low road.” vs. “I object to all humor about bodily functions.”

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/16  at  10:04 AM

DrDick, more than that—-I’ve seen a real move of middle and upper class people towards converting to these religions because their ministers tell them stories about how they’re superior to others.  The religion rationalizes a conservative, oppressive worldview, and so the top tiers of society are naturally supportive.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/16  at  10:10 AM

I think a lot of liberals who haven’t done much time in these areas think of fundamentalists as ruling the trailer parks, but in reality, they rule the suburbs that are stuffed with McMansions.

This. Absolutely fucking this. What people forget is that trailer park denizens flat out do not have the money to really uphold the fundamentalist rightwing belief structure which is rooted largely in an ability to isolate themselves from everything that doesn’t support their world view. The trailer park folk (and any other poor community for that matter) can’t afford to shuffle away a pregnant daughter. They don’t have the money for “pray out the gay” camps. They can’t quit their job because they don’t want to work under a woman or a minority and they can’t up and change homes because immigrants are starting to move into the neighborhood. Poor folk can be plenty prejudiced and active in that pursuit but they have a much harder time maintaining it through the generations because they cannot hold up the levels of denial suburbia exists to create.

@thealogian: Could be the old family minivan passed onto the kid with a matching sticker on Mom’s new Lexus.

Comment #8: scrumby  on  08/16  at  10:14 AM

The Gospel of Prosperity did a lot to bring the more affluent into the fundie fold.  Hard to resist “You are (or can be) wealthy and that’s how God wants it!! Wealth is a sign that God loves you!” It negates the original message to sell everything and give it to the poor.  Besides, the more monied people in the pews, the more money in the offering plate. Once preachers turned up the “you’re special ‘cause you’re rich” message and left the snake-handling behind, megachurches were born.

Comment #9: NobleExperiments  on  08/16  at  10:23 AM

I think a lot of liberals who haven’t done much time in these areas think of fundamentalists as ruling the trailer parks, but in reality, they rule the suburbs that are stuffed with McMansions.

I would say that you probably meant “who haven’t spent much time,” but I’ve been there. “Done time” is pretty accurate.

Comment #10: DEstlund  on  08/16  at  10:28 AM

Done time is exactly what I meant.  As you noted, that’s how it feels.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/16  at  10:31 AM

@scrumby, thealogian: Yup, sounds like home to me.

My Indiana hometown is split through by a river, into an east side and west side.  The east side people have the bigger houses, the new cars, and control the levers of power in the community, including the churches.  As you say, it’s not that west side people are flaming liberals; they hate black people and oppose abortion.  They’re just not in charge.

The Ryan Lizza New Yorker profile drove this home for me; Michele Bachmann wants us to think that she’s west side, but she’s strictly east side.

Comment #12: dopus dei  on  08/16  at  10:34 AM

I think this varies by region. Here in vermont, it’s been mostly the ramshackle houses along the back roads or near the edge of towns that had the “Take Back Vermont” (homophobic anti-marriage movement) signs on them. But then we don’t have a lot of mcmansion suburbs…

Comment #13: paul  on  08/16  at  10:56 AM

Absolutely. Modern-day American Christian fundies think they share some spiritual affinity with the martyrs of pre-Catholic Rome. They’re so impossibly far removed from those martyrs, but why let reality get in the way of your sense of aggrievement? Their idea of being oppressed is that dissenting opinions exist, and that there are people out there having way more fun than they are.

The best humor flows upstream. Of course the people upstream are going to whine about it, but that doesn’t mean we have to take them seriously.

Comment #14: Triplanetary  on  08/16  at  11:04 AM

Alyssa’s point is what’s wrong with most media descriptions of the tea party vs. how they describe progressives. Tea baggers must be handled with kid gloves, but you can say whatever you like about liberals. This double standard hides behind the untrue notion that tea baggers are poor and oppressed and we shouldn’t make fun of them. Thank you Amanda for always taking the time to point out who they really are.

#9 Noble, I grew up in a big city and I can tell you that there was no such thing as a mega church when I was a kid in the 80’s. But once that “prosperity gospel” crap hit, the suburbs exploded with gigantic churches with parking lots full of bmw’s, and absolutely no programs to assist the poor.

Comment #15: serious bette  on  08/16  at  11:28 AM

Fuck the fundies and their stupid ridiculous beliefs.

They deserve to be made fun of. High or low road.

Comment #16: Mark  on  08/16  at  11:39 AM

But… but… but… why are you East Coast Secular Elitists stealing our free-doms!  I have the right to not have my fee-fees bruised!  :-p

Funny is funny.  If you can base fundies and make it comical, go for it.  If you can base liberals and make it comical, go for that too.  Everyone needs to be taken down a peg once in a while.

The high road / low road distinction feels kinda hollow.  It’s less about the target audience and more about the skill of the comedian.  Can you get an audience to laugh?  Can you get an audience to laugh at themselves?  Can you take something relatively serious, boring, or droll and make it hilarious?  Can you make the joke ring true?  That’s good comedy.

But yeah, I don’t see why rich entitled shmucks hiding in their Crystal Cathedrals and sanctified Ivory Towers would get a pass.  Don’t doubt for a second they’d laugh at us.  I’ll feel free to laugh at them.

Comment #17: Zifnab  on  08/16  at  11:50 AM

Well, as we all know, being uncool is far, far worse than being poor or a minority. They know they suck; do we have to keep rubbing it in? Unless we’re not rubbing it in, which proves that they don’t suck at all.

Comment #18: junk science  on  08/16  at  11:56 AM

I think liberals get caught up in the idea that religious people mean well, and perhaps at some point they did, but religion is so corrosive that even if people want to do the right thing, like feed the homeless they are far more interested in punishing someone or teaching them a lesson, than really feeding them.  The end result is that progressives treat religion with respect it doesn’t deserve, which comes out in taking the high road.  Plus, religious types tend to freak out when they get criticized or have any of their beliefs challenged so it’s easier to ignore the weird crap that comes out of their mouths.

Comment #19: John Rove  on  08/16  at  12:26 PM

“Yuk-yuk-yukkery is when you make a “joke” that’s really just in-group signaling - basically you’re reassuring everyone that they’re all part of the in-group by stating a prejudice or belief that everyone in the in-group is supposed to hold.” 

I actually dislike this kind of humor, especially coming from liberals who otherwise espouse tolerance and object to the in-group signalling of wingnuts.  You’d think they’d get that it’s just as tiresome and not-funny when they do it.  That said, if it’s funny, I’m fine with it.  Jokes that are just a thin veneer for racism, prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance just aren’t funny—they, like bigotry, are lazy.  Jokes *about* racism, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance can be hilarious, and I’m all for mocking those things whenever possible.  Skewering hateful attitudes with smart humor is a healthy and fun thing to do.

Comment #20: Kit-Kat  on  08/16  at  12:30 PM

I know we’re not supposed to do this, but I’m no good. I count seven things in Still Here’s post that you’d have to be just flagrantly idiotic to believe.

Comment #21: witless chum  on  08/16  at  12:30 PM

Excellent points in this post. Another thing I wish liberals would take more seriously about evangelicals is their millenial outlook. They really do BELIEVE in the Rapture, that Jesus is going to come back and smite the wicked non-Christians. They YEARN for this to happen. A lot of liberal commentators, to the extent they’re even aware of end-times cosmology, seem to think it’s kind of a joke and of no consequence, like magic underwear for Mormons. But it’s deadly serious. I have heard serious conversations where people were saying we should just have a nuclear war so we could all go up to heaven. It scares me to think of one of these nuts getting near the nuclear football.

Comment #22: TiminIowa  on  08/16  at  12:35 PM

I’m sure the Illuminati have an irradiated pig skin just for that moment Tim.

Comment #23: scrumby  on  08/16  at  12:41 PM

Timiniowa:

Good point about the rapture thing.  The left behind books really should be required reading, they do a great job of showing the christian mind set.

Comment #24: John Rove  on  08/16  at  12:42 PM

Cleanup on Aisle 19…

Comment #25: MikeEss  on  08/16  at  12:57 PM

They really do BELIEVE in the Rapture, that Jesus is going to come back and smite the wicked non-Christians.

As with many fundie beliefs, they cling to the parts that feed their bigotry while discarding the parts that would personally inconvenience them. They love the idea of everyone outside their tribe suffering for seven years AND THEN burning in hell forever. So much do they love this that my mom’s Southern Baptist pastor believes that, during the seven-year Tribulation, nobody can be saved. Meaning that the seven years of suffering, in his view, isn’t a final attempt to get people to believe, it’s just sadistic torture per the caprice of a “loving” God.

But all of those people who claim to truly believe that the Rapture will come before they die… why do they have pets? Aren’t they worried about what will happen to the pets after they’re raptured? Why do they have retirement accounts? They seem pretty convinced that they’re not going to need them. Why are they fighting so hard to allow the upper class to hoard wealth? They can’t take it with them when they get raptured ANY DAY NOW.

Comment #26: Triplanetary  on  08/16  at  01:02 PM

TiminIowa: I’ve explained the millenial mindset to people who should understand the danger of religion. Often, they will refuse to believe Evangelicals could believe that. I guess one has to simply get more evidence, and repeat again.

Comment #27: atheist  on  08/16  at  01:05 PM

@DEstlund: Yeah, the best way to describe living in the suburbs in the deep south to someone that’s never been there is “Go to a big Tea Party rally. Now stay there for the next 18 years. More if you can’t find a job that pays enough to allow you to escape, which is likely.”

Doing time is totally accurate.

Comment #28: JThompson  on  08/16  at  01:08 PM

Amanda and all, just to super-emphasize and expand what’s been here- and just in case you want to up your daily dose of outrage- check out this truly mind-boggling piece on “Christian” “girl’s homes,” places where Xtian families can send their young hussies and trollops so they can be confined and have the sluttiness beaten, literally, out of them.. This is NOT an exaggeration or a joke, and not for the faint hearted:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/new-bethany-ifb-teen-homes-abuse

Man, if you are going to be Xtian, people—this particular brand, anyway—make sure you are not a teenage girl.

Comment #29: Theresa  on  08/16  at  01:09 PM

The millennial stuff also fits into the anti-environmentalism. If the end times are coming anyway, conserving for the future doesn’t make much sense. (Oddly, when you question this, it often comes out as technological optimism, but minds are capacious things.)

Comment #30: paul  on  08/16  at  01:11 PM

Theresa—I picked up that issue of Mother Jones for a trainride and by the time I was done reading that article, I was seeing so much red I was seriously having fantasies of getting a bus and a bunch of guns and raiding those compounds like you would raid a POW camp.

Comment #31: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/16  at  01:14 PM

The rich fundies may hold the power, but the poor fundies are still numerous. They bring out the vote and they are serious about it. Plus, they tend to do as they are told (great respect for authority, especially religious authority), even if the rules they are told to uphold are not to their benefit and are, in fact, to their detriment.  I know that anecdote does not equal data, but I’ve been watching this very phenomena in my own family. Cognitive dissonance just means that they refuse to listen and escape [whatever is presenting information that does not fit their fundie world view] as soon they can so that they stop thinking about a problem and just pretend that it doesn’t exist.

But hey, members of my family think that watching Twilight encourage young people to want to be vampires. Because vampires exist and are to be feared. Or that you can make “evilutionist” a villian’s defining evil characteristic. (Yes! Believing in evolution is the reason the character is a villain and needs to be vanquished by the hero!) They firmly believe in the Rapture. They are so far gone there is no arguing with them, no matter how painful it is to watch what they are doing to themselves and their children.

Comment #32: wondering  on  08/16  at  01:17 PM

I like the idea of Cool as a weapon.  Obviously it works and sends some into a tizzy.

Comment #33: ewellone  on  08/16  at  01:34 PM

I think the point is not exactly about who is or is not oppressed, and more about the difference between actual humor and what I call “yuk-yuk-yukkery.”

Yuk-yuk-yukkery is when you make a “joke” that’s really just in-group signaling - basically you’re reassuring everyone that they’re all part of the in-group by stating a prejudice or belief that everyone in the in-group is supposed to hold.

That’s not bad because it oppresses people - it’s bad because it’s tiresome, and not funny.

I think yuk-yukking (i.e., snark) actually can be funny.

My problem with it is different. I don’t like snark IN SITUATIONS WHERE AN ARGUMENT IS NEEDED.

In other words, if a comedian or a radio talk show host wants to laugh about evangelicals, fine. But if you are actually discussing issues, lots of people confuse in-group signaling with actually arguing things.

Snark happens to be lots of fun, and it also happens to be easier than actually putting ideas together. But that means people rely on it when they should actually be arguing their position, and it can also allow people to skate by without realizing that the arguments for their position aren’t very good.

So I’m fine with the yuk-yukking about evangelicals (or anyone else) as long as it is deployed in appropriate situations.

Comment #34: Dilan Esper  on  08/16  at  01:53 PM

“They are so far gone there is no arguing with them, no matter how painful it is to watch what they are doing to themselves and their children.”

I was born and raised a fundamentalist Christian, and I’m all too familiar with this sort of thing.  Minds completely impervious to facts, logic, or reality.  Home lives that were often a living hell for them and (often worse) their kids. 

It used to be that many of them walled themselves off from the secular world in an attempt to protect their unique world view from the ravages of the rest of humanity (who, ironically were most likely to be other Christians, just not the “correct” flavor).  They would live in communities that no outsider could really penetrate and understand.  (Sometimes these “communities” were actual physically separate places, but often the separation was more virtual — you go to your own church, your own schools, possibly work for/with other churchgoers, engage in church-sponsored activities for “entertainment”, etc.  Basically living separate and drastically different lives from the rest of the people around them.) 

I’ve noticed in recent years that many of the True Believers are no longer content to isolate themselves from the evils of the secular world, but now openly seek to re-form the secular world after their own image.  This is the sort of thing that scares the hell out of me when it comes to politicians like Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann and Rick “Bush Jr. Without the Blue Blood” Perry.  They believe their purpose on earth is to make the rest of the world their bitch.  And we’re all in their sights. 

Christian Dominionism, baby!...

Comment #35: MikeEss  on  08/16  at  01:54 PM

Theresa and Mighty Ponygirl - my distant relative founded one of the houses mentioned in Mother Jones. Never met him until recently, but in the family, he was always known as the religious extremist who founded a home to help “wayward girls” shape up. My grandparents received the home’s newsletter, and it was always full of positive news, blessings, prayers (gag-inducingly saccaharine). I think most of us knew at the time that the house was strict—inhabitants couldn’t cut their hair or wear pants—and that it was extreme-Christian (which most in the family aren’t), but we didn’t know about the abuse. It’s not something one would necessarily trumpet at family Thanksgivings, you know? A couple of years ago I stumbled on the website for survivors of the house. I wish I could say their stories were a surprise or that I was shocked that someone could abuse young women in the name of religion.

I met him in person at a family reunion. Just like the happy-seeming button-down traveling girls’ choirs mentioned the MJ article, he looked like a normal guy. All smiles and joy and lightness and love when he shook my hand. It was incredibly creepy, and I wondered if it was an act, or if he was eating his own dogfood and believed himself to be doing good.

Comment #36: Proboscidea  on  08/16  at  02:11 PM

“Ape, maybe—-but then wouldn’t she have objected to the low road completely, and not just when it comes to evangelicals?” 

Not necessarily—she might have chosen to use this example because it was what was relevant to the subject of the article.  She’s not writing a treatise on high-low forms of humor, she’s discussing a specific episode of a television show.  We don’t know what other kinds of humor she might object to on the grounds that they are only cheap laughs.

Comment #37: Kit-Kat  on  08/16  at  02:18 PM

Probo—My vote’s on dogfood. The religion has built-in excuses that beating the everliving shit out of kids is good for them.

Comment #38: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/16  at  02:27 PM

The millennial stuff also fits into the anti-environmentalism. If the end times are coming anyway, conserving for the future doesn’t make much sense. (Oddly, when you question this, it often comes out as technological optimism, but minds are capacious things.)

And yet they are just constantly pretending to wring their hands over the debt that we’ll supposedly leave our grandchildren.

But I think they really do genuinely believe in the Rapture coming before they die, while also still believing that they’ll need that retirement account.  If there’s one thing fundies are good at, it’s cognitive dissonance.

Comment #39: bananacat  on  08/16  at  02:46 PM

a real move of middle and upper class people towards converting to these religions because their ministers tell them stories about how they’re superior to others.

As I noted in my comment, there has been a marked increase among Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals in the more affluent sectors of society and this is a major factor.

Comment #40: DrDick  on  08/16  at  02:47 PM

Whatever you do, please no feeding trolls.  I’m on it.

Comment #41: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/16  at  02:49 PM

I met him in person at a family reunion. Just like the happy-seeming button-down traveling girls’ choirs mentioned the MJ article, he looked like a normal guy. All smiles and joy and lightness and love when he shook my hand. It was incredibly creepy, and I wondered if it was an act, or if he was eating his own dogfood and believed himself to be doing good.

And this really is the case with most bad people.  They just like everyone else.  This is one issue that comes up with victim-blaming, like victims should be able to tell scam artists or rapists or muggers just by looking at them.  But if it were really that easy, then there would be no criminals because everyone could easily avoid them.

For every raving Fred Phelps analog out there, there are a thousand people who are just as hateful but better at hiding it in polite company.

Comment #42: bananacat  on  08/16  at  02:49 PM

In a general sense, mockery is one of the very most effective persuasive tools I’ve found in response to the truly insane wingnuts.  Laughing at bad behavior in a “Oh, well, you just can’t help yourself, can you?” kind of way is delegitimizing in a way that has few effective counters.

Comment #43: Punditus Maximus  on  08/16  at  02:52 PM

Punditus, they’ll just rejoin that they’ll pray for you.

Comment #44: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/16  at  02:53 PM

Having been had by a few truly awful human beings, I can’t agree with bananacat @42 more: passing as decent human beings is a basic survival skill for these folks, and they’re good at it.

Comment #45: Punditus Maximus  on  08/16  at  02:53 PM

I’ve noticed in recent years that many of the True Believers are no longer content to isolate themselves from the evils of the secular world, but now openly seek to re-form the secular world after their own image.  This is the sort of thing that scares the hell out of me when it comes to politicians like Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann and Rick “Bush Jr. Without the Blue Blood” Perry.  They believe their purpose on earth is to make the rest of the world their bitch.  And we’re all in their sights.

Christian Dominionism, baby!...

This is why I absolute hate the tv shows about the Duggars.  They are Dominionists but they lie so hard and pretend that they’re just a big happy family, and you can be a big happy family too if you just drink their Kool-aid.  They try very hard to isolate their kids and don’t even own a tv, but they are perfectly willing to have a tv show to lure other people into their lifestyle.  And luring is exactly what it is.  I’ve known Evangelicals like them and was almost converted, and there is a very strong emphasis on hiding all the bad aspects until after you have convinced someone to join.  They hide so much on their show and pretend it’s all great, without revealing the way they beat their children from infancy and use them as slave labor.  And as much as they like to pretend they aren’t Quiverfull, that is exactly what they are.  Their goal in having so many kids is to outbreed the nonbelievers.  If they can have 100 grandchildren, that will skew the election results in a small town to elect the dad or one of his sons (the dad was already a politician and his second son has been running for local offices).  And in many ways, I think this is so much more dangerous than attempting to take over the government and convert people by force.  They are con artists and they want to spread their lifestyle by pure deceit.

Comment #46: bananacat  on  08/16  at  02:57 PM

#39- At the logical extreme, hardcore fundagelical belief has to be that anything that isn’t about getting into the right afterlife is irrelevant or even dangerous. If a finite life is the test for an infinite afterlife, nothing else matters.

Unbelievers see that for the dangerous nonsense it is, and have trouble understanding that yes, these people really do believe what they say they believe. I think that’s why mainstream Christians are so willing to enable these people; they don’t get just how different fundamentalist beliefs are from their own.

The way so many evangelicals *don’t* act like that shows how much trouble they have believing it too.

Comment #47: ScottK  on  08/16  at  02:59 PM

“Unbelievers see that for the dangerous nonsense it is, and have trouble understanding that yes, these people really do believe what they say they believe. I think that’s why mainstream Christians are so willing to enable these people; they don’t get just how different fundamentalist beliefs are from their own.”

I think there’s something to that.  Most mainstream non-fundie Christians are ordinary decent people.  They might not even think that much about their beliefs, frankly, but they generally think that being Christian means, in practical terms, being kind to others and trying to be a good person.  They don’t think the end of the world is nigh, they are pretty live-and-let-live people, and they dislike hypocrisy.  They just don’t get that real fundies are just not like that.  And because they are not especially introspective about their beliefs, they lack the tools to confront fundamentalism and articulate the problems with such an absolutist worldview.  At most, they have a sense that the fundies are “going too far.”  There are certainly progressive theologians and other Christians who have thought about these things and are better equipped to confront it, but I’d say they are in the minority.

Comment #48: Kit-Kat  on  08/16  at  03:43 PM

“I met a former Hell’s Angel
Born-again Christian at the Shreveport, Louisiana Texaco.
And he asked me if I believed in God.
And I said ‘um, uh, I don’t know.
But I did know a guy who took 8 hits of acid
then said he saw God at a Metallica show
Ain’t life crazy, ain’t life weird,
I didn’t even know God liked Metallica’
Guess I should have read that Gideon’s Bible at the Econolodge
Oh well, maybe they’ll have one at Super 8.”
—Wally Pleasant

Comment #49: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/16  at  04:06 PM

@Mighty Ponygirl: Later, rinse, repeat.  “Oh ho ho, I’m sure you will, hon.  Pray for me, pray for rain, pray in one hand and piss in the other, see which fills up first.”

Comment #50: Punditus Maximus  on  08/16  at  04:23 PM

As for why a Rapture-wanting fundie would have a retirement account, well, geez. Who else should have his money?! You don’t expect him to give it to the needy, now do you?

I really do think there’s a nagging suspicion that they can take it with them, so they’d best not spend it.

Comment #51: benvolio  on  08/16  at  04:48 PM

Sharp elbows need to be thrown. Ridicule is often your most effective weapon. Another great post.

Comment #52: nihilix  on  08/16  at  04:55 PM

I lived in Texas, too, in the suburbs when I was in high school. Membership at one particular evangelical Megachurch was required to be a member of this suburb’s elite. The parking lot was full of BMWs, while the more working-class people were going to the Catholic church (which was heavily Hispanic) or the smaller, less influential Baptist churches.

That said, they also cry “oppression” whenever they’re not allowed to just force their religious beliefs on people. They think they have a right to get a job as a pharmacist, refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, and keep their job even if the boss wants to fire them. It’s “oppression” whenever the schools insist on teaching scientific facts about the history of the solar system and the earth, instead of the made-up belief that the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

Comment #53: Ashley Herzog  on  08/16  at  05:30 PM

I really do think there’s a nagging suspicion that they can take it with them, so they’d best not spend it.

Their money is so tied up in their self-identity - they’re worthwhile human beings because they have money - that I don’t think they can comprehend not “taking it with them” in some sense, whether literal or not. Surely they assume that their inherent class superiority will be recognized in Heaven.

Comment #54: Triplanetary  on  08/16  at  06:01 PM

I’ve been known to take friends to task for being overly gleeful in their mockery of fundamentalists, not because it’s punching down, but because if they THINK it’s punching down, why is it such a thrill? If they’re such a weak opponent, why do you keep bothering them?

But simple mockery ignores what power these ideologies have over individuals, not just political power. I was raised on conservative talk radio, I love my religious conservative parents, and one time at church camp I cried about how beautiful Jesus dying for our sins was. Now, a good ex-Catholic atheist, it makes my skin crawl when people who have never been “inside” in this way fail to recognize the cultural context in which these ideologies gain power over people like my young self. Like any drug, you can’t understand it til you’ve tried it, except the only way to “try it” is to have been marinated in Christian doctrine since birth.

So it bothers me when those who haven’t had the dubious honor of “trying it” have the audacity to think that they are completely rational beings, immune to the emotional influences that drive so much of religious belief, and that they are that way because of some innately superior intellect. While mockery is absolutely called for sometimes, it misses the point completely to just write it all off as crazy talk by crazy people. So yeah, I’m going to hold your jokes to a higher standard.

Comment #55: sarahh  on  08/16  at  07:08 PM

“Probo—My vote’s on dogfood. The religion has built-in excuses that beating the everliving shit out of kids is good for them.”

This is what scares me about this flavour of wingnut. Some of the child-rearing guides that have come out of the fundie mindset have been directly linked to harm and even death of children. These people promise that they have ‘the answer’ to having a good family, good kids, etc. and I can easily see how parents who want the best for their kids can be led down this road of ruin.  A strict, rule-oriented system appeals to many people, and it can take a long time for those who are swept into it to wake up and see that things aren’t that simple. By then, the harm has already been done.

Comment #56: Jayn Newell  on  08/16  at  07:15 PM

It’s extremely difficult to criticize “Christians” of any sort, if one is in a community of conservatives and criticizing from a leftward perspective.  The devil is not permitted to draw his or her own conclusions about the ones anointed of God. 

These days, in post-revolutionary Zimbabwe, many who want to remain socially and materially dominant choose the rhetoric of religion to justify their status.

Comment #57: scratchy888  on  08/16  at  09:09 PM

It’s extremely difficult to criticize “Christians” of any sort, if one is in a community of conservatives and criticizing from a leftward perspective.  The devil is not permitted to draw his or her own conclusions about the ones anointed of God. 

These days, in post-revolutionary Zimbabwe, many who want to remain socially and materially dominant choose the rhetoric of religion to justify their status.

Comment #58: scratchy888  on  08/16  at  09:09 PM

check out this truly mind-boggling piece on “Christian” “girl’s homes,” places where Xtian families can send their young hussies and trollops so they can be confined and have the sluttiness beaten, literally, out of them.

It’s nice (in a not-nice-at-all sort of way) to know that the Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on that sort of misogyny.

Comment #59: Golgaronok  on  08/16  at  09:10 PM

I’ve known Evangelicals like them and was almost converted, and there is a very strong emphasis on hiding all the bad aspects until after you have convinced someone to join.

That’s standard in all sorts of religions and quasi-religious groups: the Mormons don’t exact fill you in on the details about things like the ritual undergarments, and the Scientologists don’t exactly inform you about Xenu before your first audit.

I’ve met quite a few Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and I’ve noted they are very careful not to mention that their idea of the perfect society on Earth rather resembles that of the hard-core sharia boogeyman they’re happy to scare people with (just with slightly different funny rituals).

Comment #60: KeithM  on  08/16  at  11:06 PM

@sarahh: I did try it, though.  I was Catholic until I was 10 years old.  It took hearing someone say they weren’t completely sure there was a God to make me feel like I even had permission to think about it.  Everyone held talking about religion to a different standard than talking about anything else- that was the first time I ever heard anyone breathe a word of doubt in my presence.  Holding it to a different standard was part of the problem.  It made (Christian) religion into something taboo to discuss, criticize, even to think about.  That immunity from discussion, criticism, and even the same simple thoughtless mockery that people sometimes do of any random thing they disagree with gives religion more power to do harm.

Comment #61: Nimravid  on  08/16  at  11:11 PM

No, yeah, absolutely. The introduction of doubt into my diet was delayed far too long, and it definitely felt like a permission thing, and shouldn’t have (apologetics? anyone?). These are good things.

Maybe I hang out with too many privileged secular males who live on reddit. However, I swear if I hear one more dude in a Flying Spaghetti Monster smugly, joyfully hector me like, “I use logic and reason! Exclusively! Isn’t it great how I am so logical all the time, not like these fundamentalists, who are just illogical and wacky?! For instance, did you know they ACTUALLY BELIEVE (hackneyed or accurate interpretation of wacky thing)?!” I’m going to call him out for using their incredible prowess in “logic” and not “womanly feelings” as overcompensation for a little dick. And THEN who’s taken the low road, I ask you.

Comment #62: sarahh  on  08/17  at  02:31 AM

sarahh: “and one time at church camp” — not bad.

A few years ago, when Amanda was on loan to the Edwards campaign, one of her guest bloggers here turned a thread into a crowd-sourced compendium of religious jokes. As might be expected, it wound up being mostly about priests & rabbis, perhaps because Jews and the Irish are the predominant promoters of jokes, but perhaps also because Baptists aren’t that funny.

(I have many times retold one of the jokes about Episcopalians, though, because hell and flatware go together well.)

Comment #63: bad Jim  on  08/17  at  04:10 AM

Bad Jim:

Here’s a guide to religions in America:

Jews don’t recognize Christ as the Son of God.

Methodists don’t recognize the Pope as the head of the Christian Church on Earth.

Baptists don’t recognize each other in a liquor store.

Comment #64: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/17  at  09:06 AM

seriously, one of the best posts I’ve read. I could never articultate why and how their handwringing struck me as impausible. Excellent Amanda.

Comment #65: pitbullgirl65  on  08/17  at  09:06 AM

Punchline to 64 could also be Mormons.

Comment #66: helen w. h.  on  08/17  at  11:30 AM

The awesome Greta Christina wrote a post about this a couple of year ago:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/05/is-it-okay-to-mock-religion.html
“The expectation that religion should be treated with extra respect is one of the main ways that religion protects itself from legitimate criticism… and mocking religion can be an important part of stripping that protection from it and making it defend itself just like any other idea.”

Comment #67: ScottK  on  08/17  at  11:34 AM

helen, I should’ve specified “Southern Baptist” as they’re the ones predominate in the South and West, except for UT and ID.

Of course, you know which state has the highest usage of online porn, right?

BTW,

my noble wife says that a lot of CPAs now are Mormons(In CA, you have to work in a CPA office in order to be certified, see how that one works, one hand washing the other, instead of just having a degree and passing a test, as it was before) and she calls them Morons because the Mormon CPAs she’s run into don’t know shit, and she has to explain stuff to them all the time.

ScottK:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind — that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

“What I Believe” in The Forum 84 (September 1930), p. 139

H. L. Mencken

Comment #68: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/17  at  11:59 AM

Sarahh: Sadly, I know way too many of the same kinds of guys you do. I went to college with hundreds of them. Not talking to them anymore is my favorite part of being out of college.

My stance on making religion jokes, as with just about every other subject on earth, is “It is okay to joke about it if you can come up with something fucking FUNNY to say.” I think discussions of humor tend to focus too much on whether or not jokes are acceptable by the “subject” or what they are “about”, and not what the JOKE is (or is supposed to be). There are many great jokes out there mocking religion! However, there are also unclever comments that superficially resemble “jokes” where the joke is, as previously mentioned, just ingroup-signaling. Ingroup jokes and snark can be hilarious—but again, only if they also contain some sort of humorous element.

As we all were depressingly reminded in these past few weeks during Elevatorgate, atheism is sadly infested with douchey narcissistic dudes, probably of the sort who think it’s “humorous” to tell whatever unfortunate women may wander into their vicinity to get back into the kitchen and make them a sammich JUST KIDDING HA HA IT’S FUNNY COS I DON’T MEAN IT SEE I AM TOTALLY LIBERAL AND THINGS, and who will stomp their feet and cry and call you a bitch if you tell them that you have actually heard that one like eleventy billion trillion googolplex times. These dudes’ senses of humor do not magically improve when the subject is religion.

So when we’re talking about bad or “low road” or whatever religion jokes, I’m basically like “Do we mean those dudes? Cos if we mean those dudes’ jokes, then yeah, it’s bad and we shouldn’t do it. But if we mean like actual joking jokes about religion, go for it. But can you tell me exactly what kind of bad jokes you’re talking about?” I think I’m still disagreeing with this Rosenberg person, though, because “Is this clever, witty, ironic, silly, punny, absurd, or in any other way, shape, or form related to humor?” is the standard I judge all jokes by, so it’s not a “higher” standard for me.

Comment #69: thecynicalromantic  on  08/17  at  11:19 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.