10 Signs Religious Fundamentalism Is in Decline

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-signs-religious-fundamentalism-decline



***SNIP

1. Coming out atheist is up and coming. In May 2013, after a deadly tornado destroyed her home, young mother Rebecca Vitsmun gave an unexpected answer when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked whether she thanked the Lord for her decision to flee. Vitsmun tells the story in a sometimes-tearful interview with Seth Andrews, host of the Thinking Atheist. “I had this moment in which I realized you either lie or tell the truth, and I’m not a liar.” In that moment, Vitsmun outed herself not only to a national media audience but also to her Christian parents and friends.

***SNIP

2. The cutting edge of freethought is less cutting and edgy. In generations past, coming out as an atheist required a devil-may-care attitude. The social and even financial costs were so high that most admitted atheists were also unflinching social activists, people who had a high degree of zeal and high tolerance for conflict. Most were also white males who were comparatively safe taking on the religious establishment. Until recently, then, atheism was virtually synonymous with anti-theism, and even today people complain that pioneers of the New Atheist movement like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and the late great Hitchens are unnecessarily antagonistic.

***SNIP

3. Biblical sexuality is getting binned. Finally. In the last part of December, marriage equality became law in three more states: New Mexico, Ohio and—drumroll—Utah! Even more exciting is the fact that legal changes can barely keep up with shifting attitudes about queer sexuality. Things are changing when it comes to straight sex, too, and not in keeping with biblical priorities. Perhaps the most consistent sexual theme in the Bible is that a woman’s consent is not needed or even preferred before sex. By demanding an end to rape culture, today’s young women and men are making the Bible writers look as if they were members of a tribal, Iron Age culture in which women were property like livestock and children—to be traded, sold and won in battle. Small wonder the culture warriors have ramped up their fight against contraception and abortion. Imagine if, on top of everything else, all women got access to expensive top-tier contraceptives and the power to end ill-conceived childbearing.

4. Recovering believers are reclaiming their lives. Most atheists and agnostics are former believers, which means that many carry old psychological baggage from childhood beliefs or some post-childhood cycle of conversion and deconversion. While many former believers slip out of religion unscathed, some do not, and believers in recovery now have a name: reclaimers. A small but growing number of cognitive scientists are exploring the relationship between religion and mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders and panic. Marlene Winell, a California consultant who works full time with recovering fundamentalists, has brought attention to a pattern she calls Religious Trauma Syndrome. Darrel Ray has created a matching service for secular clients and therapists, while Kathleen Taylor at Oxford has raised the question of whether religious fundamentalism itself may one day be treatable.

[chervilant]

1. Personally, I would add that

I have more friends who are atheists, and my uber religious friends are less likely to proselytize.

[longship]

2. Dennett is unnecessarily antagonistic????

Where do these people get these ideas? Apparently they've never read his book "Breaking the Spell" or listened to anything he's said. But I suppose common wisdom is that the first four big atheists must all be mean and nasty because they all must be the same evil type of people.

Common wisdom is bullshit and Daniel Dennett is a cuddly teddy bear. Or Santa Claus maybe. Certainly he is not an antagonist.

Otherwise it's not a bad article.

R&K

[Demo_Chris]

3. Nor was Hitchens. nt

[longship]

4. Well, "God is not Great" was pretty much a polemic.

So there's that. But during his cross country book tour he cut straight through the Bible Belt, debating theists everywhere he stopped. Many of his theistic opponents commented on how gracious he was. The crowds were large everywhere and sometimes they scheduled an extra debate. The theists were happy to accommodate Hitch.

But Hitchens could also take one down hard if he had a mind to do so. He had a rapier wit and wasn't afraid to use it.

I really loved the guy. Every interview I have heard or seen he is very polite and gracious. Now when he went on the news programs against fundie fools, look out. The gloves come off.



My favorite Hitch line: about Jerry Falwell's death, if they had given him an enema they could have buried him in a matchbox.

[el_bryanto]

5. This deceptively titled article certainly belongs in General Discussion

I say it's deceptively titled because while it talks about "religious fundamentalism" it presents the alternative to "religious fundamentalism" as atheism and agnosticism, which kind of makes it seem like "religious fundamentalism" is just another way of saying "religious."

Also I can see why Atheists/Agnostics would look forward to a future in which religious belief is treatable. But as a religious person you might see how I find that a little threatening.

Bryant

[jeff47]

6. Yes, it's entirely about crushing religion

Alternatively, you could read the article. Or even the excerpt.

[el_bryanto]

7. I did read the article. Maybe you didn't? nt

[jeff47]

8. If what you got from the article is atheists are out to crush religion

then you need to work on your literacy.

The entirety of the article is that atheists and agnostics are becoming much less afraid of being "out", and some are creating parallel institutions to churches.

What in the article, specifically, makes you think it says "atheists are out to crush religion".

[el_bryanto]

9. A few points and a few questions

One is that the article title implies that it's about Religious Fundamentalists, but it really does seem to be about religion in general. You can note that by the absence of moderate or liberal religious types - rather each point (except arguably 8) are either about Atheists being more open or about religious types getting shot down. The article posits the two sides of the debate as Religious Fundamentalists and Atheists/Free Thinkers. Where are the moderate/liberal religious types?

Secondly there is this line --> "Kathleen Taylor at Oxford has raised the question of whether religious fundamentalism itself may one day be treatable." That is a bit troubling, depending on what is meant by religious fundamentalism.

And my questions - do you think this article belongs in General Discussion?

Where did I use the phrase "atheists are out to crush religion?"

Bryant

[jeff47]

10. It's not about you.

One is that the article title implies that it's about Religious Fundamentalists, but it really does seem to be about religion in general. You can note that by the absence of moderate or liberal religious type

It's only the fundamentalists who are interested in crushing atheism. The moderate's and liberal's "live and let-live" attitude applies to atheists as well as other religions. As a result, there isn't really a conflict between atheists/agnostics and moderate/liberal religious people.

"Kathleen Taylor at Oxford has raised the question of whether religious fundamentalism itself may one day be treatable." That is a bit troubling, depending on what is meant by religious fundamentalism.

The lumping in of all religious people to "fundamentalist" is something you are doing. Not the article. Religious fundamentalism is far different than religion - it only masks itself as religion.

And my questions - do you think this article belongs in General Discussion?

It's discussing the political and social effects of atheists and religious fundamentalists. As a result, it's not talking about religion, but the effects of some (non)religions.

Where did I use the phrase "atheists are out to crush religion?"

It's heavily implied by:

Also I can see why Atheists/Agnostics would look forward to a future in which religious belief is treatable. But as a religious person you might see how I find that a little threatening.

[el_bryanto]

11. It's heavily implied?

Funny every time I try to suggest something is implied, things don't go so well for me.

I would suggest that like religious folk, not all atheists think the same either. Obviously there are some atheists/non-believers who are more upset at liberal Christians for providing cover for the Fundamentalists by suggesting that there's something valuable in belief. I wouldn't accuse you of being that sort of Atheist, but I've certainly run into them at DU. Just this week someone commented that anybody who genuinely believed in a spiritual world was delusional; certainly she might be interested in seeing my delusions treated, even if you wouldn't.

But of course I wouldn't hold you responsible for her words.

As for

It's discussing the political and social effects of atheists and religious fundamentalists. As a result, it's not talking about religion, but the effects of some (non)religions.

Come on - that response is so broad as to allow any discussion of religion on GD, particularly if it is coming from an atheist secular point of view. You know why the prohibition of religious discussion exists, and this post is exactly the sort of post it's designed to preclude.

Bryant

[jeff47]

12. When a post is talking about political ramifications of religion, it should be in GD.

When a post is talking about the best way to appease invisible sky fairies, then it should be in Religion. (Apparently I need to ramp up my atheist street cred if you aren't taking offense!!)

And yes, claiming that atheists "look forward to" medical treatment for religion would mean atheists are out to crush religion. But again, religious fundamentalism is not religion. It's totalitarianism wearing a religious mask.

[el_bryanto]

13. Are you trying to offend me?

That's interesting.

At any rate, the moderators have not agreed with you; and if you actually visit the religion forum you'll see that most of it is exactly this kind of discussion, with, perhaps, a bit more heat. It's set up so that people who want to lay into each other on religion can do it, without it spilling over into GD and creating harsh feelings.

As for your last statement, that's your definition of religious fundamentalism; but your fairly narrow definition might not be the only one. Have you never encountered an online atheist suggesting that religious belief is a mental disorder before?

Bryant

[jeff47]

19. Nope. That was sarcasm.

See, most people would realize that if I was out to offend you, I wouldn't have bothered actually discussing the issue. Instead, I'd just start with the insults and name calling.

Have you never encountered an online atheist suggesting that religious belief is a mental disorder before?

Do I get to declare you a religious fundamentalist because I've seen religious fundamentalists before?

No, that would be stupid.

Same with the atheists. We want to be left alone. The religious don't like that. If you need some evidence, just re-read your posts here.

The degree to which they don't like that is based on how far to the religious right they are. You'll post a complaint on a message forum after taking a article massively out-of-context in an attempt to be the victim. The Taliban will use torture.

[el_bryanto]

20. Do you feel like you speak for all Atheists? nt

[jeff47]

21. Do you feel like you speak for all theists?

Do you realize that this is a stupid line of questioning?

Look, you entered this thread in an attempt to play victim. You took a story about atheists vs fundamentalists, and decided that all religious people were being thrown in the fundamentalist category so that atheists could institutionalize all of you.

It was explained that you were wrong, with specific details. You're still clinging to victimhood.

[el_bryanto]

22. It was argued that I was wrong; which I haven't conceded.

I don't think I was wrong; I think that that the author of this article chose a misleading title.

I also think it doesn't belong in GD, but there it is.

Bryant

[snooper2]

15. You know how you tell a fundie from any other religious person?

Fundies actually follow their holy book...


I'm having déjà vu now, didn't I try to explain this to you before? LOL

Maybe Bill Maher can explain it better than I. Watch this and pay particular attention at 2:50 on--

[el_bryanto]

16. Nods - where good Christians ignore the Bible?

or, more accurate, hypocritically pretend to believe the good bits while ignoring the bad bits?

Yes we've had this discussion before - do you think it belongs in GD or in the religion forum?

[snooper2]

17. where do I think it belongs? I have no opinion

i'm agnostic on that question

[Zorra]

14. Thanks, xchrom. I would LOVE to work with recovering fundamentalists,

and am going to do some research to try to find out if any positions are available anywhere. I love where I live and what I do, but if the perfect job for me in this field was available, I'd probably take it.

"A small but growing number of cognitive scientists are exploring the relationship between religion and mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders and panic. Marlene Winell, a California consultant who works full time with recovering fundamentalists, has brought attention to a pattern she calls Religious Trauma Syndrome. Darrel Ray has created a matching service for secular clients and therapists, while Kathleen Taylor at Oxford has raised the question of whether religious fundamentalism itself may one day be treatable."

I saw this movie last night, 5 stars and for the symbolism.

[Brigid]

18. I am a Catholic.

I am going to remain as such, because there is plenty there that is worth defending. I don't need "treatment."

[Zorra]

23. Fundamentalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

If you are not a neurotic, anxious, depressed, unhappy RW religious extremist whose life has been ruined by brainwashing, submission and service to some quasi-cult hate group calling itself a church, and you are not seeking help to overcome external causes of mental illnesses, there's no reason to seek treatment, is there?

[Brigid]

25. Around here . . .

With all the bashing of Catholics and of religion in general, I've learned to be wary. Interestingly, I've not run into nearly as much of it IRL. I avoid most of the Religion forum like the plague.

[we can do it]

24. Um, we don't have marriage equality in Ohio.

Just the couple with the dying man got to put him as spouse on the death certificate.