Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 448 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Will Fundamentalist Hubris Lead to A Great Religious Re-a-Weakening?

Hubris is always the downfall of the villain in Disney cartoons and B-movies. You know: the bad guy could get away with his life if he’d just let the hero save him at the precipice, but he won’t let go of the Holy Grail in order to grab the hero’s hand and escape the chasm of terror. Pride goeth before the fall. So down he goes. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa….

But is hubris also a possible route to downfall in the real world? Amanda Marcotte thinks so. She writes a pretty long piece that, restated, makes the following argument, sort of:

1. Religious fundamentalists have gotten cocky and — ditching a live-and-let-live standard, the polite strategic agreement between different religious belief systems that it will be deemed rude (offensive, even!) to question the veracity of any religious belief system — have been simultaneously attacking the secular church-state system and other religions head-on:
a) demanding that everybody talk about Christmas and nobody talk about any other December holidays;
b) demanding that images, ideas and expressions offensive to their fundamentalist sensibility be censored;
c) demanding that governments install monuments to Christianity on federal property;
d) demanding that schools ditch teaching of evolution and teach a creationism that fits with Christianity instead.

2. However, the response of religious fundamentalists to criticisms of their attempts to dominate American politics, economy and society is to appeal to the very standard they’ve ditched. “Oh, How Rude,” they bleat, “we are offended that you would Bash our religion! Oh, the Offense! Ouchie, we bleed! Stop hitting Baby Jesus!” They depend on people to habitually cling to the Question Not Religious Belief agreement, to habitually sense that yes, it is wrong to criticize fundamentalists because they’re religious, and you Just Don’t Critique Religion.

3. Of course, this is hugely hypocritical, and because people are not complete sheep-like morons, they notice the glaring inconsistency after the fifth time the fundamentalists have beaten them over the head with it. Once people notice the hypocrisy, they respond to the hypocrisy by trying to resolve it in one of two ways. One response is to call fundamentalists rude for being pushy about their own religious standards. Another response is to question why it is that you Just Don’t Critique Religious Belief, since clearly the fundamentalists are doing just that. Maybe it is OK to question religious belief. In fact, maybe it’s a good idea!

4. As a result of the fundamentalists’ hubris, more and more people are deciding that it is an OK thing, and maybe even a good thing, and maybe even a necessary thing, to question and critique religious beliefs — to subject them to critique in the way Americans already subject all other ideas not called “religious” to critique.

5. Thanks to the fundamentalists’ hubris, look for more and more Americans to reject religion over the decades to come.

It’s an interesting idea, and it’s worthwhile to read Marcotte’s expression of it.

1 comment to Will Fundamentalist Hubris Lead to A Great Religious Re-a-Weakening?

  • Iroquois Honky

    Yes, a good discussion, thank you for finding it.

    A few points, maybe oversymplifying the discussion, but:
    1)fundies are getting aggressive therefore atheists should get aggressive. The fundie attitude is described in negative terms: cocky, rude, offensive, so atheists want to use them as a role model and become negative too? It seems to me the fundies are (possibly, but more about that later) responding to their own inner moral code and what they perceive as their identity. The atheists, on the other hand seem like ships without rudders, not steering by their own internal value system, because everyone knows atheists are without morals. As we used to say in high school, would you jump off a cliff just becasue Johnny jumped off a cliff?

    2)a lot of speculation about “hothousing” of fundies, decline of mainstream churches etc. is way off the mark. There is 30 years of research on this topic, and the best anyone has come up with is the fundie churches have infrastructure in those parts of the country which are growing most rapidly and have the lowest labor costs. A lot of speculation that the content of a religion has something to do with its growth has been disproven.

    3)one of the commenters brought up the idea of “civil religion”–acting as if our government intitutions are a religion. Are we enshrining the bill of rights instead of the ten commandments? (I say yes, we are, and it is a Good Thing)

    4)An observation just to throw out there–it is said that the answer to extreme Islam is moderate Islam. But what if the answer to extreme Islam is extreme Chritianity? Perhaps these religious reactions are not rising spontaneosly but are really REACTIONS…responses to increasing contact with an exotic religion, and some are picking up on the least desirable parts of this relgion to incorporate into our own culture.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>