Thoughts on evangelical Christianity and American liberalism

[Bhim]

This post started as a reply to a post made in the Kathy Griffin thread. I saw the word "misogyny" used by TrueScotsman, began writing a response, and realized my ruminations were substantive enough to warrant their own thread. I welcome all opinions. Also, if you're reading this TrueScotsman, I'm not trying to pick on you; you just happened to be the one who said something which got me thinking about this topic.

 

As I've mentioned previously, back when I converted to Christianity, in some ways I became more liberal. And I'm not referring to theology; I believed in Biblical inerrancy, creationism, the historicity of Jesus, and that any person who fails to believe in Jesus Christ will go to eternal hell. But aside from paying token homage to the pro-life and anti-homosexual causes (about which I was never that passionate), my political views aligned closely with American liberalism and with the Democratic Party. I believed in taxing the middle class, rooting out racism, and many other liberal ideals. It was only in the past couple years that my views have started to shift. Indeed, the Republican nomination of Donald Trump last year made it very easy for me to begin calling myself a "conservative" in the political sense, because the conservative party's leader is a man so thoroughly un-Christian that he audaciously pays token homage to Jesus while disobeying numerous teachings of Jesus. As someone who hates Jesus, this appeals to me greatly. I have a litany of complaints about the President, but I don't intend for this to be a thread about Donald Trump and so I don't want to mention them here. Rather, I want to talk about what triggered the shift in my social and political thinking

 

I've often found it strange and curious that we find so many conservatives on a forum populated by ex-Christians. And I think I finally realize why this is the case. My thesis, which I submit for discussion and debate, is that liberalism is a godless form of Christianity. The values and teachings are different, but liberals seem to have discarded Jesus and his commandments whilst retaining the intellectual scaffolding that he built.

 

Classical American liberalism had previously been a set of economic and political beliefs. Regulation of industry, suffrage for minorities and women, and a generally more active government are what I feel most people meant by "liberalism" even a decade or so ago. More recently, I've detected that liberals concern themselves with how we feel about certain topics. It is not enough to believe the government shouldn't regulate marriage. One must genuinely believe that gay relationships are as legitimate as straight ones (note, I do happen to believe this, but that's beside the point). It is not enough for a white male to believe in equal voting and employment rights for all races; he must accept that there is systemic discrimination against women and black males, and that he is a member of a white patriarchy which perpetuates this discrimination. It is now commonplace for the media to highlight stories about liberals suppressing free speech and thought on university campuses. There is a plethora of reports about conservative commentators being dis-invited from speaking engagements, or for people to be harassed for wearing Halloween costumes which "appropriate" the cultures of minorities. I've read/watched most of these reports on liberal media sources such as NPR, Bill Maher, etc., but I recently learned that Fox News (a medium I do not frequently consume) reports on these stories regularly.

 

I lean towards calling this behavior "modern liberalism," though I acknowledge this way of thinking has existed for decades alongside classical liberalism. That said, I do think the pendulum has swung wildly in the direction of modern liberalism more recently.

 

Now, If you find my premise reasonable, then it would seem that modern liberals seem to care about peoples' mental state as much as, if not more than, actual economic or political policy. Where have we heard that before? I know a lot of us here were previously adherents to some evangelical form of Christianity. For those of you who - like me - were evangelicals, how many times did we hear that God cares about the state of your heart? Evangelicals claim that God can forgive almost any sin. It does not matter if you were a thief, if you lied on your taxes, or even if you had an abortion. But there is one sin that God will not forgive: failure to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for your sins. Ultimately, the eternal state of your soul depends on what you think. Evangelicals believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. Note the same dual emphasis on speech and belief in liberalism. While liberals will laud those who perform service trips to poor African villages, they offer equal praise to those who post social media comments in support of poor Africans. They would likely condemn a man as racist for criticizing villagers who aren't able to take care of themselves, even if that man is a volunteer in Africa.

 

I find a strong parallel between modern campus protests and ancient Christian witch hunts, tempered only by modern sensibilities against lynching people (although I would argue that seeking to ruin someone's career is almost as bad). Referring to people as "misogynist" and "racist" also has the same undertones as calling a man a "heretic" or a "pagan" for teaching heliocentricity or evolution. I'm sure a liberal reader might even call me a misogynist because in the previous sentence I used a male pronoun instead of a gender-neutral alternative.  American liberalism, with its obsession on the heart condition of liberals, very much reminds me of the evangelical Christianity I sought so desperately to escape seven years ago when I deconverted. I imagine if I had a large number of liberal friends now, I might feel a similar pressure to confess specific doctrines with my lips rather than dissent.

 

I'm eager to hear others' opinions on my comments.

[dangitbobby83]

I think you need to be careful, Bhim, otherwise you might slip into the black and white thinking that seems to dominate american politics. (And religion of course.)

 

I'm liberal. I'm also against the whole notion that someone who is white who supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, should also adopt the mindset of white automatically means privileged and incapable of understanding those who are underprivileged.

 

An argument can be made that being born white does come with certain statistical privileges. But that doesn't mean automatically "1%er bourgeoisie" privileged. A poor, white man from the south suffers from underprivilege and is capable of understanding racial plight that still bogs down this country, despite the fact he might be better off than a poor black woman. 

 

As with everything in life - there is a spectrum of both liberal and conservative beliefs and I think it's important to remember that many people on both sides of the isle love this country and want to see it and it's people prosperous. We just have different ideas on how to make that happen. 

[Bhim]

 

I'm liberal. I'm also against the whole notion that someone who is white who supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, should also adopt the mindset of white automatically means privileged and incapable of understanding those who are underprivileged.

 

I'm glad to hear it! I am not white, and honestly I have a certain level of pity for white people because they are legally disadvantaged via affirmative action policies, regardless of their actual social standing. But that's a topic for another thread...

 

Your point about black and white thinking is well-taken. And this is why I distinguish between what I term "classical" and "modern" liberalism. I may be using terms sloppily here, but I do think there is a strong and growing version of liberalism which is more of a religion than a set of policies. Reading over your post, your brand of liberalism seems to be a set of proposals of things that should be done at the legal or social level. Let's say for the moment that I accept the existence of a gender pay gap. Equal pay for equal work is something that can be legislated or implemented at the corporate level. Let's further say that I believed women shouldn't earn as much as men. If I am an HR representative at a large company and upheld internal regulations on pay equity, would my personal beliefs bother you to the extent that you might seek my termination? Based on what you've said so far I think you would not. Many people though - the type that Burnedout might label "SJWs" - would not so much as suffer my existence. Dare I say, they might burn me at the stake simply for professing a certain belief.

[Daffodil]

I think you are definitely on to something, Bhim, allowing for the distinction between classical and modern liberalism.  SJWs and third wave feminism fall under that modern liberalism as well.  I think what makes it apparent to me is the complete lack of rationality and reason in their behavior and statements.  To call every single white person racist simply because of their skin color, with no knowledge whatsoever of their background or beliefs, is completely devoid of logic and belies racism on the part of the accuser!  Similarly, evangelicals believe every atheist is inherently without morals simply because of their lack of faith in god, no matter how virtuous atheists may actually behave.  It defies logic.  And yes, they do both focus on what is in your "heart" rather than on your speech or behavior.  Modern liberalism has a word for racism that exists within a person without that person's knowledge.  I can't remember and couldn't find it on a quick search (might be inherent, but that doesn't sound right to me), but when you are accused of that, how can you defend yourself!?  It's like their "mike drop" moment that silences their opponents.  Evangelicals have similar tricks they try as well.  Interested to hear what others think as well.

[Wertbag]

As a non-American I would say the image that is projected to us about the US is a very 'us and them' divided nation. It feels like the news is always Republican vs democrat, left vs right, black vs white, rich vs poor etc.  It is probably more media hype than anything but certainly the US political system is seen in a poor light around the world. The electral college and Trump winning with less total votes runs against what most people expect from democracy.

To my mind most labels are too specific for the grey of human opinions.  If a label is not a yes/no question then it is too vague to be of great value.  You can't use a label like feminist or liberal without following up with a range of clarifications on the various related subjects. This really makes the labels of limited value.

[Guest]

 

This post started as a reply to a post made in the Kathy Griffin thread. I saw the word "misogyny" used by TrueScotsman, began writing a response, and realized my ruminations were substantive enough to warrant their own thread. I welcome all opinions. Also, if you're reading this TrueScotsman, I'm not trying to pick on you; you just happened to be the one who said something which got me thinking about this topic.

 

As I've mentioned previously, back when I converted to Christianity, in some ways I became more liberal. And I'm not referring to theology; I believed in Biblical inerrancy, creationism, the historicity of Jesus, and that any person who fails to believe in Jesus Christ will go to eternal hell. But aside from paying token homage to the pro-life and anti-homosexual causes (about which I was never that passionate), my political views aligned closely with American liberalism and with the Democratic Party. I believed in taxing the middle class, rooting out racism, and many other liberal ideals. It was only in the past couple years that my views have started to shift. Indeed, the Republican nomination of Donald Trump last year made it very easy for me to begin calling myself a "conservative" in the political sense, because the conservative party's leader is a man so thoroughly un-Christian that he audaciously pays token homage to Jesus while disobeying numerous teachings of Jesus. As someone who hates Jesus, this appeals to me greatly. I have a litany of complaints about the President, but I don't intend for this to be a thread about Donald Trump and so I don't want to mention them here. Rather, I want to talk about what triggered the shift in my social and political thinking

 

I've often found it strange and curious that we find so many conservatives on a forum populated by ex-Christians. And I think I finally realize why this is the case. My thesis, which I submit for discussion and debate, is that liberalism is a godless form of Christianity. The values and teachings are different, but liberals seem to have discarded Jesus and his commandments whilst retaining the intellectual scaffolding that he built.

 

Classical American liberalism had previously been a set of economic and political beliefs. Regulation of industry, suffrage for minorities and women, and a generally more active government are what I feel most people meant by "liberalism" even a decade or so ago. More recently, I've detected that liberals concern themselves with how we feel about certain topics. It is not enough to believe the government shouldn't regulate marriage. One must genuinely believe that gay relationships are as legitimate as straight ones (note, I do happen to believe this, but that's beside the point). It is not enough for a white male to believe in equal voting and employment rights for all races; he must accept that there is systemic discrimination against women and black males, and that he is a member of a white patriarchy which perpetuates this discrimination. It is now commonplace for the media to highlight stories about liberals suppressing free speech and thought on university campuses. There is a plethora of reports about conservative commentators being dis-invited from speaking engagements, or for people to be harassed for wearing Halloween costumes which "appropriate" the cultures of minorities. I've read/watched most of these reports on liberal media sources such as NPR, Bill Maher, etc., but I recently learned that Fox News (a medium I do not frequently consume) reports on these stories regularly.

 

I lean towards calling this behavior "modern liberalism," though I acknowledge this way of thinking has existed for decades alongside classical liberalism. That said, I do think the pendulum has swung wildly in the direction of modern liberalism more recently.

 

Now, If you find my premise reasonable, then it would seem that modern liberals seem to care about peoples' mental state as much as, if not more than, actual economic or political policy. Where have we heard that before? I know a lot of us here were previously adherents to some evangelical form of Christianity. For those of you who - like me - were evangelicals, how many times did we hear that God cares about the state of your heart? Evangelicals claim that God can forgive almost any sin. It does not matter if you were a thief, if you lied on your taxes, or even if you had an abortion. But there is one sin that God will not forgive: failure to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for your sins. Ultimately, the eternal state of your soul depends on what you think. Evangelicals believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. Note the same dual emphasis on speech and belief in liberalism. While liberals will laud those who perform service trips to poor African villages, they offer equal praise to those who post social media comments in support of poor Africans. They would likely condemn a man as racist for criticizing villagers who aren't able to take care of themselves, even if that man is a volunteer in Africa.

 

I find a strong parallel between modern campus protests and ancient Christian witch hunts, tempered only by modern sensibilities against lynching people (although I would argue that seeking to ruin someone's career is almost as bad). Referring to people as "misogynist" and "racist" also has the same undertones as calling a man a "heretic" or a "pagan" for teaching heliocentricity or evolution. I'm sure a liberal reader might even call me a misogynist because in the previous sentence I used a male pronoun instead of a gender-neutral alternative.  American liberalism, with its obsession on the heart condition of liberals, very much reminds me of the evangelical Christianity I sought so desperately to escape seven years ago when I deconverted. I imagine if I had a large number of liberal friends now, I might feel a similar pressure to confess specific doctrines with my lips rather than dissent.

 

I'm eager to hear others' opinions on my comments.

Let's start off by addressing the fact that people in that thread were calling for her to be bent over a chair, and essentially taught a lesson, was expressed by multiple posters and were the same that were declaring that she also should go to prison.  If you think that observation has something totally to do to ideology, then I would ask you to read their statements and consider if someone might think they're misogynistic as an accurate description.  

 

The larger problem here is that you're attempting to make connections based on what you're witnessing now, and then trying to pin "Modern Liberalism" with Evangelical Christians.  I will show you here where I agree with you, and then ultimately where I think this observation is more troublesome than helpful.  

 

It should be noted that there is not just an ideological trend in American politics, but that these ideological trends come about in regional contexts.  For instance, the New England States have a particular Liberal brand of politics, and one also sees on the West Coast a similar Leftist bent, while the South might be more traditionally conservative the mid-west is more typically Libertarian.  That Northeastern ideological heritage does in fact include the Puritans, such as Jonathan Edwards and this moralistic way of interpreting society has been a common thread throughout its history, even though its values largely began to drift in the late 19th Century largely I think in part due to the rise in Secularism with Darwin's discoveries.  This is because political beliefs and ideologies become culture embedded entities which survive into further generations, and there is even evidence that political beliefs do in part follow a genetic trajectory and that there might be particular moral palate that people have which may tip them towards an ethics of fairness, and therefore more Liberal and of course this works out to be so for Conservatives too.  

 

However, beliefs do matter especially in a democracy because beliefs govern behavior, particularly that of voters.  But I agree with you that too many Progressives (I would call them), are concerned with moralizing the next story and getting outraged and I sincerely hope you don't think that's what I spend my time doing.  I have been very outspoken about some of the troublesome behavior at a college in my city, Evergreen State College which occurred recently which was anti-free speech and anti-intellectual in that it negated the possibility for conversation in favor of intimidation and shaming.  Having said that, I don't hesitate to call a spade a spade, but don't assume that just because I happen to adopt a view that leans towards Active State Liberalism that I am therefore on some kind of social crusade to shame Conservatives into the shadows.  I find it more interesting, although sometimes frustrating, to talk to Conservatives and have spent almost an equal amount of my time in Conservative sources both in terms of the news media and the primary ideological fathers of the tradition old and new.  

 

Now where I disagree with you, is that Liberals are not just these kids at colleges shouting down Conservative speakers, but that most Liberals are not as extreme and are more center leaning than people actually realize.  For instance, I am against Socialism and for Capitalism though I think some markets do run into trouble with purely market based solutions, such as healthcare, utilities, etc.  I have also been a critic as have many other Liberals I know, of some of the cultural aspects of Identity Politics, such as the multiculturalism movement which have somewhat veered off course.  I don't think the Conservative approach of viewing American/Western culture as supreme is the answer, but I think we need a higher civic culture in which we do have a sense of being united but also allowing for that tier of personal culture which is distinct to who you are and where you come from as an individual.  I also disagree with you that it is more important about what is in your heart, than what you actually do, this is no core tenet of Liberalism.  In fact, Active State Liberalism is not about talking, but about using communication to achieve political breakthroughs to aid in the management of socio-economic issues to care for the general welfare of the people, particularly groups which have been most impacted historically.  Conservatives like to disagree here, but they also throw out social science largely as pseudoscience while also propping up their climate change denying and creationism, but I do think they largely base this off of their bias here, as Sociology and Psychology are very broad fields not just pertaining to ideology.

 

I also am confused about being placed among Evangelical Christians, when it is in fact the Secular Conservatives who are actually allied to them politically in support of Trump over the alternatives, which I would say is a bigger problem rather than actually appearing to perhaps be like them.  

[florduh]

The groups of people who embrace things you don't like such as Christianity and Liberalism are bound to get conflated. It's normal, though not necessarily accurate.

[Geezer]

 

As a non-American I would say the image that is projected to us about the US is a very 'us and them' divided nation. It feels like the news is always Republican vs democrat, left vs right, black vs white, rich vs poor etc.  It is probably more media hype than anything but certainly the US political system is seen in a poor light around the world. The electral college and Trump winning with less total votes runs against what most people expect from democracy.

To my mind most labels are too specific for the grey of human opinions.  If a label is not a yes/no question then it is too vague to be of great value.  You can't use a label like feminist or liberal without following up with a range of clarifications on the various related subjects. This really makes the labels of limited value.

 

The United States is not & has never been a "Democracy". That is one of the characteristics that makes it unique & the reason Trump could be elected. The majority does not necessarily win in a representative form of government.

 

I agree that the United States is a deeply divided country. It is true that the U.S. has its share of radicals on both the right & left, but I believe the radical left is stronger, more organized, & far more dangerous than the radicals on the right who are a weak, mostly irrelivent, minority.

 

The Christian Right is a noted exception but they are rarely violent unlike the radical left. The left controls the media & that gives them an enormous advantage. 

[florduh]

"The left controls the media & that gives them an enormous advantage."

 

Everyone keeps saying it, but.....

 

http://www.poynter.org/2016/is-media-bias-really-rampant-ask-the-man-who-studies-it-for-a-living/435840/

[Bedouin]

"Modern liberalism has a word for racism that exists within a person without that person's knowledge.  I can't remember and couldn't find it on a quick search (might be inherent, but that doesn't sound right to me)..."

 

This interests me as well.  In an interview with The Huffington Post (okay, admittedly a liberal leaning publication), Dr. Priscilla Dass-Brailsford, of Georgetown U., had this to say:

 

"Studies have shown that many people have subtle, or implicit, racial biases that they’re completely unaware of. Are racial biases often unconscious? How do these unconscious biases over time develop into hateful beliefs and actions?

 

Implicit biases are when you’re not aware that you have a race bias. You behave in a discriminatory way without realizing that you have racist values. That occurs a lot in the medical profession, for example — physicians don’t realize that they’re treating some patients differently to others based on race and often based on class as well.

 

Again, you develop attitudes and stereotypes from socialization. Here’s a common example: An older woman is walking down the road and she sees a black man approaching. She holds her purse tighter thinking that it’s going to be snatched. Research has found that both black and white people often behave in this way because of our socialization. It’s because of what the media says about young black men being thieves and robbers and bag-snatchers. We all tend to behave in that way based on the socialization."

 

I think that the same applies to misogyny.  It's a product of how we have been socialized.  But this begs the question as to whether or not we have the any justification to continue in our "socialized beliefs" given all of the information that is, quite literally, available at our fingertips.

 

In my own experience, Christianity, as it is practiced in today's America, is far more conservative than liberal, and much more hypocritical as well.  The goal of the Christian right, it seems to me, is the establishment of a theocracy through legislation based upon highly selective citations of biblical literature. 

 

As far as admiring Trump because he is, in fact, the least Christian of any politician ever, and, as an atheist I should applaud him, well...ummm...no.  While I'm confident that his own thirst for fame and wealth, in this world, makes him unlikely to want to bring on the final battle between good and evil so that Jesus can come back is secondary to my concern that an insult to his fragile ego will prompt him to order a tactical nuclear strike against his perceived antagonist(s).  Equally dangerous, for different reasons.

[Lucy]

 

 

It's a product of how we have been socialized.  But this begs the question as to whether or not we have the any justification to continue in our "socialized beliefs" given all of the information that is, quite literally, available at our fingertips.

 

 

The article is about subconscious biases. It would take quite a lot of reprogramming the mind to unlearn these things if one is unaware of them. However, the example of the lady clutching her purse because of what she saw on the media is a biased one itself. There is a difference in someone who formed their opinion based solely on biased media reports and experiencing things firsthand. What if someone gets their racist, sexist, or classist bias from interacting with people in everyday situations instead of from the media? A lot of these biases are fueled by negative interactions in real life."Socialized beliefs" are learned from far more sources than just "biased media."

[Bedouin]

 

 

 

The article is about subconscious biases. It would take quite a lot of reprogramming the mind to unlearn these things if one is unaware of them. However, the example of the lady clutching her purse because of what she saw on the media is a biased one itself. There is a difference in someone who formed their opinion based solely on biased media reports and experiencing things firsthand. What if someone gets their racist, sexist, or classist bias from interacting with people in everyday situations instead of from the media? A lot of these biases are fueled by negative interactions in real life."Socialized beliefs" are learned from far more sources than just "biased media."

 

That's the point.  Biased media is not the cause, unless that is where we get our information exclusively.  How we have been socialized determines how we see the "other."

[Lucy]

 

 

That's the point.  Biased media is not the cause, unless that is where we get our information exclusively.  How we have been socialized determines how we see the "other."

 

Then perhaps I misunderstood you.

 

 

 But this begs the question as to whether or not we have the any justification to continue in our "socialized beliefs" given all of the information that is, quite literally, available at our fingertips.

 

This is implying to me that reading information online about these issues will help with biases because one would realize their beliefs are unjustified if only they read the right information. There is a lot of information available online to make one feel less biased or more biased. I don't see it as a matter of being well informed or not. This is why I was emphasizing human interaction's involvement in forming socialized beliefs over media in the post above. I just don't think access to the right information would be likely to nullify one's perceived justification of biases gained over a lifetime of social interactions, particularly subconscious biases.

[dangitbobby83]

 

If I am an HR representative at a large company and upheld internal regulations on pay equity, would my personal beliefs bother you to the extent that you might seek my termination? Based on what you've said so far I think you would not. Many people though - the type that Burnedout might label "SJWs" - would not so much as suffer my existence. Dare I say, they might burn me at the stake simply for professing a certain belief.

 

Nope. I don't give a rats ass what people believe, so long as they follow the law. 

 

If someone wants to hold bigoted asshole beliefs, well, fine by me. So long as they don't break the law, then they shouldn't be fired from their job. 

 

However, that does come with a caveat, though. I'm not much a fan of guaranteed employment either. Should someone be fired due to their skin color or sexual orientation? If they are assholes in private or hold bigoted beliefs but do not act on them while in a position power (follow the law)? No, however...if you have a very public PR person who acts like an asshole in public, something which could damage your brand, I am all for the firing of that person. As a business owner, if I hire a public face to the business and I found out that person was doing stuff on their own time that made me/my business look bad, I would want them gone.

 

Of course, we are getting into a grey area of free speech vs. free assembly and how much the government can regulate industry in this regard. If a public PR person says on his own time, on his own twitter, that he "hates those damn ni**ers", but never does so on his business twitter account, I would still want to be rid of him. People do associate things - they would call into question my business ethics of hiring such an openly racist individual, even if he kept to the law and company line on the clock.

[Daffodil]

 

 

Then perhaps I misunderstood you.

 

 

This is implying to me that reading information online about these issues will help with biases because one would realize their beliefs are unjustified if only they read the right information. There is a lot of information available online to make one feel less biased or more biased. I don't see it as a matter of being well informed or not. This is why I was emphasizing human interaction's involvement in forming socialized beliefs over media in the post above. I just don't think access to the right information would be likely to nullify one's perceived justification of biases gained over a lifetime of social interactions, particularly subconscious biases.

 

I agree that just reading about it will not nullify biases.  As the mother of a mixed race child, I have had several of my biases (or is it just ignorance?) exposed.  I always thought it was vanity or something that made black people get really sensitive about people touching their hair or about getting their hair wet when swimming.  After learning over time how to care for my daughter's part very curly/part kinky hair, I completely understand why they hate that!  Their hair is very dry naturally and requires a lot of extra effort and "products" to make it manageable and people touching it and getting it wet in water (which is actually drying to their hair, amazingly) can ruin all the effort they put into it.  Also, as my daughter is quick to tell you, many people treat her hair like a toy.  When we finish working it (EVERY SINGLE MORNING), it is all beautiful, well-defined coils all over her head.  She is constantly getting people trying to play with her coils (even teachers!).  Very annoying!  She has decided she wants to try dreadlocks because she is sick of all the effort required to make her hair look good.  So, I have now entered into yet another area of knowledge I never thought I would learn as I try to figure out how to make that happen for her.  

 

It IS possible to learn and overcome biases, but I think it takes personal contact with the object of bias.  One of the problems I see with both evangelicals and modern liberals is a lack of personal contact.  Evangelicals don't generally know atheists or LGBTQ folks, so they can't learn.  Modern liberals don't know farmers in the Midwest, or women who don't wear their feminism as a badge of whatever, or conservatives who have nothing against poor people but realize that welfare can and does often create a cycle of dependency.  Because of their lack of personal contact, they are left believing that those people are all racist, mysoginist, classist, etc.  

[Lucy]

 

Also, as my daughter is quick to tell you, many people treat her hair like a toy.  When we finish working it (EVERY SINGLE MORNING), it is all beautiful, well-defined coils all over her head.  She is constantly getting people trying to play with her coils (even teachers!).  Very annoying!  She has decided she wants to try dreadlocks because she is sick of all the effort required to make her hair look good.  So, I have now entered into yet another area of knowledge I never thought I would learn as I try to figure out how to make that happen for her.

 

Have you tried the tiny braids all over? It's also a lot of work but it lasts for a long time before you have to redo it. And if people are touching it, it doesn't mess it up. I know a guy who did dreads who is mixed so he probably has similar hair to your daughter. He said getting dreads was really easy. He just stopped combing it out and run his fingers in the morning to separate it into parts to make dreads with his fingers. After a while it just started forming into dreads on its own. His hair is down past his waist now. But unfortunately people still want to touch it.

 

 

 

It IS possible to learn and overcome biases, but I think it takes personal contact with the object of bias.  One of the problems I see with both evangelicals and modern liberals is a lack of personal contact.  Evangelicals don't generally know atheists or LGBTQ folks, so they can't learn.  Modern liberals don't know farmers in the Midwest, or women who don't wear their feminism as a badge of whatever, or conservatives who have nothing against poor people but realize that welfare can and does often create a cycle of dependency.  Because of their lack of personal contact, they are left believing that those people are all racist, mysoginist, classist, etc.  

 

Everyone is becoming more divided lately. It is to the point that people don't even seem to understand the other side's viewpoints anymore. Contrary to previous expectations, the internet is helping with segregation instead of integration. Everyone wants to consume information confirming their biases instead of learning new things. The only time they watch something about what "the other side" thinks is when they are viewing a rebuttal video. Opinion pieces are done without considering the viewpoint of the side they want to convert so they tend to have either no impact or a strong opposite reaction. You can't appeal to an audience you don't understand.

[Daffodil]

 

 

Have you tried the tiny braids all over? It's also a lot of work but it lasts for a long time before you have to redo it. And if people are touching it, it doesn't mess it up. I know a guy who did dreads who is mixed so he probably has similar hair to your daughter. He said getting dreads was really easy. He just stopped combing it out and run his fingers in the morning to separate it into parts to make dreads with his fingers. After a while it just started forming into dreads on its own. His hair is down past his waist now. But unfortunately people still want to touch it.

 

 

Everyone is becoming more divided lately. It is to the point that people don't even seem to understand the other side's viewpoints anymore. Contrary to previous expectations, the internet is helping with segregation instead of integration. Everyone wants to consume information confirming their biases instead of learning new things. The only time they watch something about what "the other side" thinks is when they are viewing a rebuttal video. Opinion pieces are done without considering the viewpoint of the side they want to convert so they tend to have either no impact or a strong opposite reaction. You can't appeal to an audience you don't understand.

 

You know, as I think about it, I don't think the two sides even want to learn anymore.  You're right -- they focus on sites that confirm rather then challenge their biases.  I noticed the reactions to the documentary, The Red Pill, and people wouldn't even give it a chance.  The woman who did the doc was a strong feminist who decided to see what the other side looked like and it transformed her views, and it was all because of personal contact with the object of her bias.  I haven't seen it yet, but I have been listening to guys on here and reading about the issues, and even though it isn't exactly face to face contact, I think it counts because the guys on here have shared their personal experiences.  That has changed my perspective on the whole feminism issue.  

[Lucy]

 

 

You know, as I think about it, I don't think the two sides even want to learn anymore.  You're right -- they focus on sites that confirm rather then challenge their biases.  I noticed the reactions to the documentary, The Red Pill, and people wouldn't even give it a chance.  The woman who did the doc was a strong feminist who decided to see what the other side looked like and it transformed her views, and it was all because of personal contact with the object of her bias.  I haven't seen it yet, but I have been listening to guys on here and reading about the issues, and even though it isn't exactly face to face contact, I think it counts because the guys on here have shared their personal experiences.  That has changed my perspective on the whole feminism issue.  

 

When I try talking about opinions from people on "the other side" the response I get is to SCREAM. This applies to both sides. Scream and call names. Scream over someone so they can't talk. I haven't seen that movie yet but I asked some friends if they wanted to see it with me and the reaction was extreme shock that I would even consider watching it and to suggest protesting if there was a theater showing it. There are serious issues with men's rights, but if you try talking about it you will get either screamed out or just the standard "men are scum so they deserve it" sort of attitude. I know a couple that went through divorce last month. She got the house, the ranch, both cars, all furniture, and he was ordered to pay her half his income for the rest of his life so she can maintain her lifestyle. He's living at his mom and dad's place now. She screamed at him and attacked him and their son during the relationship. Child support hasn't been brought up. The half income thing is just for her lifestyle maintenance even though she earns twice what he earns at her job. He's not bothering to fight it since he's a super Christian and believes divorce is a sin. He says everything is worth it to not live with her anymore. He thinks everything he owns and half his income is a just atonement for his sin. He's still mowing her lawn for her while she's dating other men already. He's more worried about how he can get right with god again instead anything tangible.

[Daffodil]

 

 

When I try talking about opinions from people on "the other side" the response I get is to SCREAM. This applies to both sides. Scream and call names. Scream over someone so they can't talk. I haven't seen that movie yet but I asked some friends if they wanted to see it with me and the reaction was extreme shock that I would even consider watching it and to suggest protesting if there was a theater showing it. There are serious issues with men's rights, but if you try talking about it you will get either screamed out or just the standard "men are scum so they deserve it" sort of attitude. I know a couple that went through divorce last month. She got the house, the ranch, both cars, all furniture, and he was ordered to pay her half his income for the rest of his life so she can maintain her lifestyle. He's living at his mom and dad's place now. She screamed at him and attacked him and their son during the relationship. Child support hasn't been brought up. The half income thing is just for her lifestyle maintenance even though she earns twice what he earns at her job. He's not bothering to fight it since he's a super Christian and believes divorce is a sin. He says everything is worth it to not live with her anymore. He thinks everything he owns and half his income is a just atonement for his sin. He's still mowing her lawn for her while she's dating other men already. He's more worried about how he can get right with god again instead anything tangible.

 

That story is so common these days, I really don't understand how no one believes it or just poo-poos it away!  I can kind of understand a ruling like that if the woman was a stay-at-home mom and kept everything going at home while he provided for them.  After a divorce, she would have to get a job and pay for childcare, so it makes sense that she get at least something to help make ends meet.  But when the woman makes as much or more than the man!?  How is that even remotely logical?

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

Everyone is becoming more divided lately. It is to the point that people don't even seem to understand the other side's viewpoints anymore. Contrary to previous expectations, the internet is helping with segregation instead of integration. Everyone wants to consume information confirming their biases instead of learning new things. The only time they watch something about what "the other side" thinks is when they are viewing a rebuttal video. Opinion pieces are done without considering the viewpoint of the side they want to convert so they tend to have either no impact or a strong opposite reaction. You can't appeal to an audience you don't understand.

 

First off, this.

 

 

 I noticed the reactions to the documentary, The Red Pill, and people wouldn't even give it a chance.  The woman who did the doc was a strong feminist who decided to see what the other side looked like and it transformed her views, and it was all because of personal contact with the object of her bias.  I haven't seen it yet, but I have been listening to guys on here and reading about the issues, and even though it isn't exactly face to face contact, I think it counts because the guys on here have shared their personal experiences.  That has changed my perspective on the whole feminism issue.  

 

It was AMAZING, I truly enjoyed it. It was interesting to watch her wrestle with challenging information.

 

 

When I try talking about opinions from people on "the other side" the response I get is to SCREAM. This applies to both sides. Scream and call names. Scream over someone so they can't talk. I haven't seen that movie yet but I asked some friends if they wanted to see it with me and the reaction was extreme shock that I would even consider watching it and to suggest protesting if there was a theater showing it. There are serious issues with men's rights, but if you try talking about it you will get either screamed out or just the standard "men are scum so they deserve it" sort of attitude. I know a couple that went through divorce last month. She got the house, the ranch, both cars, all furniture, and he was ordered to pay her half his income for the rest of his life so she can maintain her lifestyle. He's living at his mom and dad's place now. She screamed at him and attacked him and their son during the relationship. Child support hasn't been brought up. The half income thing is just for her lifestyle maintenance even though she earns twice what he earns at her job. He's not bothering to fight it since he's a super Christian and believes divorce is a sin. He says everything is worth it to not live with her anymore. He thinks everything he owns and half his income is a just atonement for his sin. He's still mowing her lawn for her while she's dating other men already. He's more worried about how he can get right with god again instead anything tangible.

 

That is just awful. I don't understand being cruel to others, in general, it's just not something I can identify with.

 

With regard to OP, I think the similarities between the radical left social justice warrioring and religion have more in common with a cult than with each other. THIS was a really interesting post about cults for reference.  I was still really interested by your comparison, it was really good food for thought.

 

One beef I have, in general, is labeling others in a way that puts them and all their life experiences and thoughts into a box, or brushing off someone's legitimate feelings and opinions because you "know better than them." We all think we completely understand the viewpoints of others, until we actually do. Deconverting has one of my biggest life examples of this. When I actually listened to what people were saying, TRULY heard and understood someone, my opinion WAS changed. 

[Bedouin]

 

 

I agree that just reading about it will not nullify biases.  As the mother of a mixed race child, I have had several of my biases (or is it just ignorance?) exposed.  I always thought it was vanity or something that made black people get really sensitive about people touching their hair or about getting their hair wet when swimming.  After learning over time how to care for my daughter's part very curly/part kinky hair, I completely understand why they hate that!  Their hair is very dry naturally and requires a lot of extra effort and "products" to make it manageable and people touching it and getting it wet in water (which is actually drying to their hair, amazingly) can ruin all the effort they put into it.  Also, as my daughter is quick to tell you, many people treat her hair like a toy.  When we finish working it (EVERY SINGLE MORNING), it is all beautiful, well-defined coils all over her head.  She is constantly getting people trying to play with her coils (even teachers!).  Very annoying!  She has decided she wants to try dreadlocks because she is sick of all the effort required to make her hair look good.  So, I have now entered into yet another area of knowledge I never thought I would learn as I try to figure out how to make that happen for her.  

 

It IS possible to learn and overcome biases, but I think it takes personal contact with the object of bias.  One of the problems I see with both evangelicals and modern liberals is a lack of personal contact.  Evangelicals don't generally know atheists or LGBTQ folks, so they can't learn.  Modern liberals don't know farmers in the Midwest, or women who don't wear their feminism as a badge of whatever, or conservatives who have nothing against poor people but realize that welfare can and does often create a cycle of dependency.  Because of their lack of personal contact, they are left believing that those people are all racist, mysoginist, classist, etc.  

 

There is a difference between reading and learning.  While still a Christian, I read quite a bit from the "other side."  I read the atheist/agnostic literature with the goal of being able to refute the arguments.  As time went on, I began to actually internalize the information that I gathered.  That is to say, I applied the arguments against religion in general, and Christianity in particular in my own life.  There was no need for me to meet and interact with an atheist.  I came to realize that there was no logical reason for me to retain the religion that I inherited.

 

Bias is inherited.  As I said before, bias is the result of socialization.  If one associates with white, middle class people (not that all white people are middle or upper class), it is natural that one takes on the views of those people.  If one associates with black, lower class people (again, not all black people are lower class), then one takes on the biases that come with it.  Same if one only socializes with the religious, or conservatives, or liberals.

 

In my case, meeting and socializing with atheists, in and of itself, would not have changed my mind.  My own biases would have made the experience repulsive.  Educating myself made the difference.

 

If I may, here's an example.  I grew up in a neighborhood that was racially mixed.  Black, White, Puerto Rican, Jewish, Gypsy.  As children we all played together.  No problem.  When I turned 17, I joined the US Navy (1974).  I took my world-view into the service with me.  I quickly found out that my world-view was erroneous.  In 1976, I reported aboard my first ship, a submarine.  I was the only black kid on the boat.  Being on a boat involves quite a bit of advanced education.  Hydraulic systems, electrical systems, nuclear power plant operations, weapons systems, communications systems, knowing what valves to shut off or open in a given situation, responding to spills, leaks, fires, flooding.  There were those on the boat that placed bets that I was too stupid, as a black man, to ever be able to qualify ships.  I qualified ships on my first patrol.  Those same people refused to accept that I accomplished that, saying that I had been passed because I was black. 

 

So, even though they had access to me, had chances to interact with me, they still wouldn't change their opinion of me.  To this day.

 

I don't believe that interaction with the dreaded "other," whether racially, politically, or as pertains to gender alone will change peoples minds.  I still think that education, internalizing information with an honest and open mind can change people to at least be open to a real dialogue.  One has to want to.

 

 

[Lucy]

 

So, even though they had access to me, had chances to interact with me, they still wouldn't change their opinion of me.  To this day.

 

I don't believe that interaction with the dreaded "other," whether racially, politically, or as pertains to gender alone will change peoples minds.  I still think that education, internalizing information with an honest and open mind can change people to at least be open to a real dialogue.  One has to want to.

 

There is a lot of confirmation biases at work here. If someone thinks black people are stupid, then they notice mistakes black people make as confirmation that this is true and ignore any information to the contrary. People don't want to learn new things contrary to what they already believe because it makes them doubt themselves. They want to reaffirm things they already believe. But people have to be willing to change beliefs about others in this sort of situation or else it doesn't matter how much information you throw at them, they will just make some excuse to dismiss it. It's like you said, they have to want to. In my experience if people think you fit the stereotype of or belong to a group considered "not smart" then anything you accomplish is either a fluke, an exaggeration, or simply not true. I can relate to that well.

 

I don't see how you can change how someone else's brain processes information. It seems the individual has to want it themselves.

[Bedouin]

 

 

There is a lot of confirmation biases at work here. If someone thinks black people are stupid, then they notice mistakes black people make as confirmation that this is true and ignore any information to the contrary. People don't want to learn new things contrary to what they already believe because it makes them doubt themselves. They want to reaffirm things they already believe. But people have to be willing to change beliefs about others in this sort of situation or else it doesn't matter how much information you throw at them, they will just make some excuse to dismiss it. It's like you said, they have to want to. In my experience if people think you fit the stereotype of or belong to a group considered "not smart" then anything you accomplish is either a fluke, an exaggeration, or simply not true. I can relate to that well.

 

I don't see how you can change how someone else's brain processes information. It seems the individual has to want it themselves.

 

It has to do with education.  Back when I was in grade school, President Lincoln was touted as "The Great Emancipator."  That was the agreed upon narrative, the accepted collective memory.  Collective memory has to do with the current circumstance. That is to say, we interpret history, and historical figures, in light of the current situation.  As we now know, through education, Abe really could have cared less about freeing slaves, by his own admission.  He articulated that, if he could have saved the Union, without freeing slaves, he would have done so.

 

As Dick Gregory said, years ago, during his commencement address at Kent State, after the murder of the four white students, by the National Guard, who were protesting our military presence in Viet Nam; the duty of educational institutions should be to "teach me how to live, not how to make a living."

 

There is nothing at all wrong about learning how to make a living.  Like my own mom said to me, "son, money isn't everything.  But you just try to live without it."  That was a valuable lesson.  However, in today's world, "getting" seems to have relegated "getting along" to a back seat.  There is no dialogue.  Why? 

 

Honestly, I don't know why.  I wish I did.  Human nature I guess.  I will venture a guess though.  This is not about the majority of us.  Not about black or white.  Not about conservative or liberal.  Not about male or female.  Not about red or blue states, here in the US.  It's about the haves and the have nots.  It's about divide and conquer.  As far as I can determine, as a student of history, it has always been so, and as far as I can see, will continue to be so.

 

If you, or anyone, has a suggestion to change this?  I'm all ears.

[Daffodil]

 

 

There is a difference between reading and learning.  While still a Christian, I read quite a bit from the "other side."  I read the atheist/agnostic literature with the goal of being able to refute the arguments.  As time went on, I began to actually internalize the information that I gathered.  That is to say, I applied the arguments against religion in general, and Christianity in particular in my own life.  There was no need for me to meet and interact with an atheist.  I came to realize that there was no logical reason for me to retain the religion that I inherited.

 

Bias is inherited.  As I said before, bias is the result of socialization.  If one associates with white, middle class people (not that all white people are middle or upper class), it is natural that one takes on the views of those people.  If one associates with black, lower class people (again, not all black people are lower class), then one takes on the biases that come with it.  Same if one only socializes with the religious, or conservatives, or liberals.

 

In my case, meeting and socializing with atheists, in and of itself, would not have changed my mind.  My own biases would have made the experience repulsive.  Educating myself made the difference.

 

If I may, here's an example.  I grew up in a neighborhood that was racially mixed.  Black, White, Puerto Rican, Jewish, Gypsy.  As children we all played together.  No problem.  When I turned 17, I joined the US Navy (1974).  I took my world-view into the service with me.  I quickly found out that my world-view was erroneous.  In 1976, I reported aboard my first ship, a submarine.  I was the only black kid on the boat.  Being on a boat involves quite a bit of advanced education.  Hydraulic systems, electrical systems, nuclear power plant operations, weapons systems, communications systems, knowing what valves to shut off or open in a given situation, responding to spills, leaks, fires, flooding.  There were those on the boat that placed bets that I was too stupid, as a black man, to ever be able to qualify ships.  I qualified ships on my first patrol.  Those same people refused to accept that I accomplished that, saying that I had been passed because I was black. 

 

So, even though they had access to me, had chances to interact with me, they still wouldn't change their opinion of me.  To this day.

 

I don't believe that interaction with the dreaded "other," whether racially, politically, or as pertains to gender alone will change peoples minds.  I still think that education, internalizing information with an honest and open mind can change people to at least be open to a real dialogue.  One has to want to.

 

 

 

That makes me really sad, because I don't know many people that want to.

[JadedAtheist]

Americans are more conservative than other well off western nations which is why you find this correlation here on the forum. You also have to consider the ages of people involved here. As people get older, they tend to get more conservative. The issues you mention with liberals as well is mostly an American thing. The reason you have people reel so far into the left is because they're distancing themselves from what they're smothered by, conservatism. You see this behavior all the time, even on this forum you'll observe that the yanks will tend to be more rabid when it comes to Christians than the rest do (especially after they get an opportunity to settle down after their deconversion).

 

Why? Because you guys literally can't escape it because it's all around you. There is no solace, and that agitates. Hell, I remember one forum member here saying they once were talking to their son about evolution on the street and like 2 people came up to correct him and discuss creationism.  Same with your liberals. Younger people tend to be more liberal, and they feel smothered by the conservatism that surrounds them. They then go to uni and study some entry level subjects and because they're young and immature they start thinking of themselves as the next noam chomsky.

 

The issues you face are mostly cultural. I think it's systemic in the American way of thinking rather than being religious in nature. Americans are punitive and divisive far more so than countries like Australia. This is why you see this berating in both conservatives and liberals, it's ingrained into your social conscious.