Google




The Authoritarians: Chapter 4 Email Print

Chapter 4: Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism

Welcome to Week 4 of my recently declared, possibly temporary Sunday Night Book Club.  I'd been reading Dr. Bob Altemeyer's book, "The Authoritarians", which is published free online at the link above.  I thought it would make a great topic for discussion amongst progressives here at The Next Agenda.  As a Canadian bonus, Dr. Altemeyer is at the University of Manitoba! Week 1 is the intro and Chapter 1.

In week 2/Chapter 2, we briefly discussed the two things that work in conjunction to make a Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) follower prone to commit acts of violence against a target of their leader's choosing.  The instigator is fear, and the releaser is self-righteousness.  We also touched on the fact that experiences are what can change someone from being a blind zombie follower to a somewhat free-thinking person a bit lower on the RWA scale.  

Last week, in Chapter 3, we got into the Seven Deadly Shortfalls of Authoritarian Thinking.  That was a doozy.

Chapter 4 deals with religious fundamentalism.  You see, religious fundamentalists tend to run very high on the RWA scale.  Shocking, I know.  Like Chapter 3, Chapter 4 is formatted in 7 sections, this time preceded by a short quiz - the Religious Fundamentalism scale - (my score is 17, btw).

1. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals in America
This section starts with an explanation of the use of the terms "fundamentalist" and "evangelical".  "Fundamentalist" as a term seems to have started in 1920 by a Baptist editor who used the word to describe those who would "do battle royal for the Fundamentals" of Christianity in a rapidly modernizing world. Fast forward to 1940's - Rev. Billy Graham popularizes evangelism.  Not only should you defend fundamental Christianity, you should attempt to convert others. So, they aren't the same, but according to Altemeyer's studies, fundamentalists tend to be evangelical, and evangelicals tend to be fundamentalists, so we're basically talking about the same people in the US (and Canada).  Certainly, fundamentalists exist in all religions, but Fundamentalism has a particular meaning in the US.

2. Fundamentalism and Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Go figure, fundamentalists mostly score very high on the RWA scale.  According to Dr. Altemeyer:

A solid majority of them are authoritarian followers. The two traits,
authoritarianism and fundamentalism, go together so well that nearly everything I
have said about high RWAs in the previous chapters also applies to high Religious
Fundamentalists.

Since authoritarianism can produce fundamentalism if one grows up
submissively in a religiously conservative family, and (conversely), fundamentalism
can promote authoritarianism with its emphases on submission to religious authority,
dislike of out-groups, sticking to the straight and narrow, and so on, one immediately
wonders which is the chicken and which is the egg.

3. Fundamentalism as a template for prejudice

Who are you?  If asked that question, say by someone you've just met, would you mention your religious affiliation?  A fundamentalist likely would say "I'm a Christian" along with "My name is John, I'm 37, and I own a cleaning business".  People who are religions fundamentalists tend to very strongly, you could say extremely, self-identify with their religion, especially if they were raised in an environment that encouraged it and discouraged contact with out groups.  That can create a very strong "us versus them" mentality, which in turn sets up a fundamentalist perfectly for racial, ethnic, or sexual prejudice.

Dr. Altemeyer has a Religious Ethnocentrism scale that he uses, and fundamentalists tend to agree with statements like,

Our country should always be a Christian country, and other beliefs should be ignored in our public institutions.

Nonchristian religions have a lot of weird beliefs and pagan ways that Christians should avoid having any contact with.

All people may be entitled to their own religious beliefs, but I don't want to associate with people
whose views are quite different from my own.

They disagree with statements like these:

If there is a heaven, good people will go to it no matter what religion they belong to, if any.

You can trust members of all religions equally; no one religion produces better people than any
other does.

People who belong to different religions are probably just as nice and moral as those who belong to mine.

Charming.  

4. The Mental life of Evangelists

Now this is where it gets really interesting.  That nasty tendency to have double standards rears it's ugly head again, as does dogmatism.  Not surprisingly, fundamentalist Christians would have no problem with Christianity and proselytizing inserted into public education.  That would be the will of the majority, they say, so if you don't like it you can pay for private education or leave.  But if presented with the same scenario in an Arab country using Islam as the religious example , heavens no! Unacceptable!

When you asked them why, they said that obviously this would be unfair to people who help pay for public schools but who want their children raised in some other religion. If you ask them if the majority in an Arab country has a right to have its religion taught in public
schools, they say no, that the minority has rights too that must be respected. Nobody's
kids should have another religion forced upon them in the classroom, they say.

Altemeyer then goes on to talk about the fundamentalist obsessive opposition to the theory of Evolution.  I suggest for something fun and illuminating that you read this section, and then go to this link (there's sound, watch out!)- because ladies and gentlemen, Kirk Cameron is going to take you to school on evolution.  Excuse me while I die laughing, after which I will surely burn in hell for all eternity.

5. Happiness, Joy, and Comfort

Fundamentalists tend to poll very high in happiness - their faith, they say, brings them enormous amounts of happiness.  So why would anybody want to leave?
This chapter goes a bit into zealotry and proselytizing.  Altemeyer gives a survey to the parents of some of his students and finds an apparent double standard among the Fundamentalists, so he then gives the same survey to the students:

I probed this apparent double standard with a large sample of Manitoba students. Half were told a troubled teenager who had been raised in a strong Christian family went to an atheist for advice. "Would it be wrong for the atheist to try to get the teen to abandon his family's teachings?" A solid majority of both low and high
RWA students (70 percent in each case) said yes, it would be wrong.

The other half of the sample got the mirror image situation of a troubled teen raised an atheist who went to a Christian for advice. A solid majority (61 percent) of the low RWAs again said it would be wrong for the Christian to try to get the teen to abandon his family's teachings. But only 22 percent of the high RWAs thought proselytizing would be wrong in this case. Instead, the great majority of them thought it would be right for a Christian to try to convert the youth. That's a double standard big enough to drive a busload of missionaries through.

6. Keeping the Faith, Not

Does all that zealous proselytizing, evangelizing, and raising children in a Fundamentalist bubble pay off?  Dr. Altemeyer says it actually can backfire.  If you go to Kirk and what's-his-names creepy/funny segment  "Hell's Best Kept Secret"  he teaches you how to bypass that intellect so you can convert the unsaved because so many people end up leaving the church and not being decision makers for Jesus anymore. Or something. He literally admits, and is proud of, that they try to bypass the intellect.   The guy is clearly bananas.

7. Shortfalls in Fundamentalists' Behavior: Hypocrisy

Ronald J. Sider, a theologian at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently
followed up Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind with The Scandal of
the Evangelical Conscience. He observed that, despite Jesus' unequivocal stand on the
permanence of marriage, evangelical Christians divorce as often as others do. And
despite Jesus' great concern for the poor, the political agenda of prominent evangelical
political movements rarely includes justice for the impoverished. The number of
unmarried couples living together jumped more in the Bible Belt during the 1990s,
Sider pointed out, than in the nation as a whole. Of the evangelical youth who took a
"True Love Waits" pledge to abstain from intercourse until marriage, 88% broke it,
he reported. Evangelicals proved more likely to object to having African-American
neighbors than any other religious group. He reminded his readers that many
evangelical leaders either opposed the civil rights movement or else said nothing. And
"saved" men were reported just as likely to use pornography, and to physically abuse
their wives, as "unsaved" men.

Ahem.  This is one of the main things that keeps secular, and also a lot of religious types from taking Fundamentalism at all seriously as a path to enlightenment.  YOU think you need to save ME?  With your "cheap grace"?  Please.  If you really want to make some points, why don't you start with actually reading the Bible...

I'll let Dr. Altemeyer wrap this one up:

A Few Surprising Findings about Fundamentalists. Since fundamentalists insist
the Bible is the revealed word of God and without error, you would think they'd have
read it. But you'd often be wrong. I gave a listing of the sixty-six books in the King
James Bible to a large sample of parents and asked them, "How many of these have
you read, from beginning to end? (Example, if you have read parts of the Book of
Genesis, but not all of it, that does not count.)" Nineteen percent of the Christian High
fundamentalists said they had never read any of the books from beginning to end,
which was neatly counterbalanced by twenty percent (but only twenty percent) who
said they had read all sixty-six. (I tip my hat to anyone who put her head down and
plowed through the first nine chapters of Chronicles I. Look it up.)
On the average, the high fundamentalists said they had read about twenty of the
books in the Bible--about a third of what's there. So they may insist that the Bible is
totally accurate in all that it teaches, but most of them have never read a lot of what
they're so sure of. They are likely, again, merely repeating something they were told
while growing up, or accepted when they "got religion." Most of them literally don't
know all that they're talking about. (But they are Biblical scholars compared to others:
Most of the non-fundamentalist parents had not read even one chapter.)

I couldn't agree with him more on this:

The Most Amazing Discovery of All (to me, anyway). Isn't there something
profoundly strange about the fact that so many fundamentalists have apparently
skipped over so much of the Bible? Wouldn't you read the Bible, cover to cover, over
and over, until the end of your days, if you really thought this was the revealed word
of God? Let's remember who that is: GOD, damn it all, the almighty, eternal, omnipresent--
not to mention all-knowing--creator of the universe. What else could you
read that would be as important as God's message, if you believed that's what the
Bible is? What could be one-zillionth as important? What on earth is going on? Don't
the fundamentalists themselves believe what they preach to everyone else?

Okay, book clubbers, there you have it!  Let 'er rip.  

Poll

Jesus:
My personal Lord and Savior, and it's really none of your busines, but I'd be glad to tell you about it if you're interested. 0%
My personal Lord and Saviour, and you'll make it your business or burn in the fiery pits of Hell with the rest of the blasphemers and adulterers! 0%
Was way cool. I wish more Christians were like him. 33%
Is coming - look busy! 0%
Is most likely sickened and saddened at what is done in his name. 66%
Built my hot rod. 16%
Loves you. 16%
Would probably really enjoy Saskatoon Pie. 66%

Votes: 6 | Comments: 21
Results | Other Polls
Gotta pay for a moving van.  Again.  

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/13/2007 11:54:51 PM EST

but there's a very curious chapter in Genesis which should cause Christian fundamentalist head explosions. Chapter 6 begins:
"When people began to multiply on the face of the ground,and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose...{ }...The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of reknown."

Then Noah built his ark and God flooded the world to wipe out wicked humans, saving only Noah and his family.

Skip ahead to Numbers 13, and the Israelites come upon the Anakites "There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim);and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

Well, that would explain the "and also afterward" part...sons of God getting busy with human women again.

Now let's skip ahead to the New Testament and John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

Can anyone explain how the OT God had sons, but the NT God had only one, if every word in the Bible is true?

Just one example of many contradictions but, um, fundamentally important...

by anniethena on 05/14/2007 07:44:04 PM EST

I became a bit concerned that I had quoted too much from this last chapter, so late last night I emailed Dr. Altemeyer and asked his permission.  Of course I said if he'd rather I would remove the blockquotes from the diaries.

He emailed me back by this morning and basically said that a page or two or four was okay to lift, but no whole chapters (obviously) as he wants the book to be read at one place - that's here, once again.

Uh, guys, I also invited him to have a peek here, which he said he would soon.  So look sharp! And smart!  Omg, how's my hair?  ;-)

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/14/2007 10:47:07 AM EST

This has always been one of the most baffling aspects of the religious persons I've met. It's almost as if there's a correlation between their fervor and their hypocrisy (just generalizing here - of course there are exceptions.)

How can people whisper about how "those people" aren't welcome in their church? And how the hell do you keep from laughing in their faces?

Re: reading the bible
This point is one I'd never heard or thought of before. I'd just assumed that those that went to "Bible study" actually studied it. Who knew?

Could it be that the inconsistencies in the book itself are what keep people from reading it? It wasn't until I was most of the way through it that I really started questioning religion as portrayed by my parents.

Or perhaps it's just good ol' American laziness: if they read it, thought and effort would be required, so best to have someone else give 'em a quick summary and a few catchy phrases.

    are agnostics more moral than the religious because they practice morality for its own sake rather than from fear?
    is the motivation of a moral judgment relevant to that judgment or does the judgment stand alone?

by daMule on 05/14/2007 11:24:38 AM EST

Part of my job is to interview and hire people.  I phoned a woman yesterday to set up an interview.  I asked her a few general questions regarding her availablility, and she told me that she's just arrived in town and had been lucky to find a place to stay in a good Christian home.  Now, I am not one to discriminate based on religion, especially in hiring.  Not only is it illegal, but I find it somewhat immoral personally.  However, I get the feeling that this woman may be fairly high on the Fundamentalist scale since she pretty much told me she was a Christian before she told me her work history, qualifications, or when she'd be available for an interview.  My concern is not that she's a Christian, but that she's an evangelical fundamentailst and that I'll end having problems due to proselytizing and witnessing in the course of her work.  

 

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/15/2007 10:33:20 AM EST

And I couldn't give a hoot that this woman is a Christian.  But having learned more about the fundamentalist evangelical type (remember the section about the strong identification), I'm concerned that if I hire her I'll have to deal with her trying to 'save' people.  I can't go too much into it, but I hire people to work with kids.  If her pastor says to her, "what a wonderful opportunity for you to spread the Word", I'm going to have a huge problem.  

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/15/2007 10:53:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That wasn't intended as an attack - a simple observation/commiseration that when encountered within one's self, it's not only difficult to deal with (recognition doesn't make it go away) but also that it's ugly to find there.

Again, not an attack - I was operating from a strict interpretation the Dictionary.com's 2nd definition:
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable

by daMule on 05/15/2007 11:11:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have to admit to being really on edge lately.  

It is awful to recognize prejudice in yourself. We've had this conversation before, almost a year ago. ;-) I have to put myself in check pretty much daily.  My personal prejudices are based on class (mostly way upper), but they're just as ugly as if they were racial, ethnic, religious, or based on sexual preference.  And you're right, recognizing and changing are not mutually exclusive.

So, I'm going to interview the Fundie today.  We'll see how it goes.  But I have a feeling...someone who mentions their religion, to someone who is a complete stranger on the phone, who they're trying to make an impression on to get a job, is a bit suspect in my book.  Especially since she mentioned it almost first and foremost.  My company values diversity, so if I have someone trying to convert others, I'm going to hear about it in a big way.  Hell, I had someone trying to sell some nutritional supplement via work email and people went berserk over that.  Imagine if they start getting "have you heard the Good News?" emails from a co-worker.  My head will be on a platter.  Not to mention the kids and parents she'd potentially be dealing with.  Oy.    

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/15/2007 11:31:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That these people you hire sign? Im sure someone can come up with some loverly wording which basically says that by accepting this job, they accept the philosophy of the company; to accept everyone, to be tolerant and to keep their own spiritual beleifs to thyself.

The real fundies may refuse to sign it, but that would mean they probably had no intention of leaving their religion at home anyway.

Dunno. I know you can already hear the fallout if a seminar turned into a bible class....

I support the separation of Church and Hate....

by Pale on 05/15/2007 01:08:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Word evolution, neologism, word transference, multiple meanings, contradictory meanings, common usage vs literal definition, slang, affectionate slang , intentionally opposite slang,  accidental imputing, deliberate imputing, doublespeak, jargon, argot, lingo, jingo........

Is it any wonder that communication is a biatch?

by Archer on 05/15/2007 12:13:42 PM EST

Cool word o' the day.
    i'll try to work argot into a conversation tomorrow

by daMule on 05/15/2007 12:26:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From MSNBC
The Rev. Jerry Falwell -- founder of the Moral Majority and the face of the religious right in the 1980s -- died Tuesday after being found unconscious in his office, a Liberty University executive said.

Ron Godwin, Liberty's executive vice president, said Falwell, 73, had been found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and was taken to Lynchburg General Hospital.

If there is a 'St. Peter waiting at the Pearly Gates' I wonder what he might have to say to the Reverend.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/15/2007 02:15:01 PM EST

for not being upset by that news.  

Moral Majority.  Feh.  

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/18/2007 02:02:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I must confess that I haven't read chapter 4 yet.  Life has intruded on my computer time of late.  The chapter looks like a good one.  Regarding a visit by the good Doctor - I will endeavor to wear pants while blogging for at least one week.  I sometimes wear a bathrobe.  Sorry you had to hear about that.

The banana link is priceless.  Do you think that anyone has ever told the fellow that the modern banana is mostly a creation of plant scientists ?  You could call what they have done genetic engineering, but it is really good old selective breeding, not modern day gene splicing / insertion.

The ' bypass the intellect ' line is priceless.  God gave us an intellect but doesn't require us to use it.  It appears it will mess us up.

I started watching the ' best keep secret of hell '.  Then I saw that it runs 37 minutes.  I don't have that kind of spare time.  I suspect it will be covered in the orientation lecture when I arrive in hell.  I am pretty sure that I am going to end up there and when I do I reckon I will be meeting some friends and acquaintances there ;-)

Here's a golden oldie - Conserve Water / Shower with a friend

by willy be frantic on 05/15/2007 10:39:44 PM EST

The banana link is priceless.  Do you think that anyone has ever told the fellow that the modern banana is mostly a creation of plant scientists ?  You could call what they have done genetic engineering, but it is really good old selective breeding, not modern day gene splicing / insertion.

Lol, I guess bananas are the only thing we're supposed to eat since they fit so well in our hands.  

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/18/2007 02:00:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'd like what's-his-face to explain coconuts and meat.  

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/18/2007 02:01:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
...by 'what's-his-face' would qualify as a comedy routine, IMO.

Here's a golden oldie - Conserve Water / Shower with a friend

by willy be frantic on 05/19/2007 12:56:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
thing...

Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron

Heh.

I support the separation of Church and Hate....

by Pale on 05/19/2007 10:43:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this morning...

http://www.thenextagenda.ca/story/2006/9/3/123921/1955

I support the separation of Church and Hate....

by Pale on 05/19/2007 11:42:59 AM EST

That was a good one - I'd forgotten about it.  You totally scooped me!  ;-)

Canadian Republicans Suck

by prole on 05/19/2007 12:25:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]