Dissecting a fundie freeper post....

[Emit]

or, trying to understand the flip side and counteract it.

I know a lot of DUers get pissed when others here post freeper material. But, I just can't resist posting this example, and not just because I enjoy watching these things get torn apart by all of you great DUers who so often nail these freepers' butts. I'd really like to get some opinions, not just on this fundie message below, but on the discussion that precedes it.

Over the past few days, I've read a few posts here on DU asking, "Who is it that still supports Bush?" (paraphrased), one particular post about Puritanism and fundamentalists that was very insightful, and "I need to bitch -- Thanksgiving prayer was political." I think it is extremely important to learn where these fanatics are coming from. We shouldn't ignore this.

My in-laws are registered Republicans (not Bush supporters, though, thankfully). They used to be very active in their local party, but in the 80's, they were really turned off because of all the religiosity of the meetings. Instead of dealing with it then, they just stopped participating. Today, they both regret that, and wish they had continued to fight back then. They didn't realize how important it was, and the disastrous effects of what this fanatical religiosity that crept into their party would bring to our nation.

This ongoing 'war on secularism' coming from these fanatics has been a real eye-opener for me personally over the last few years. It is significant to our country, and very telling of the dangerous, cult-like rise of fundamentalist religiosity that is tearing our nation apart.

The following is from a poster on another board that I frequent who is an adamant Bush bot. I think his/her message here pretty much sums up, IMO, the simple-mindedness and fanatical thinking of your typical Bush supporter (the type who sees themselves as religiously superior), and is indicative of how much they have been taught to hate the 'evil Humanist secularists,' aka 'liberals' or, basically, anyone who doesn't think like they do. That's what they are being taught; that's what they teach their kids.

Their simple-minded, black and white thinking, of which they've come to rely upon and which their churches undoubtedly foster and encourage, is a difficult code to crack. I say that from personal experience, having some close relatives who are brainwashed by this type of thinking, and who I have oftentimes become so frustrated with that I have to walk away. Just walk away.

Having a background in Psychology, and having worked for years with persons with severe mental disabilities (i.e., personality disorders, schizophrenia, etc.), I am so curious as to whether these people come to believe this way due to innate characteristics, or whether it is a learned perspective. Is it a personality type, perhaps one that is more susceptible to being drawn into cult-like thinking? Is it a personality disorder that comes about from chemical imbalances? Or is it just sheer stupidity or bigotry?

But, most importantly, how can we address this, and put a stop to this uprising? Last year, before the (s)election, after having done a lot of research on the 'rise of the religious right,' I contacted and visited several churches in my area. I joined various groups on line, like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, as there were no local chapters in my city. I'm considering trying to create a local chapter in my city in order to do something more about this.

The Rise and Fall of Humanism

A major question that I have had was, "Did Christians do enough to maintain America as a Christian nation?"

I use the word Humanism instead of Atheism because I do not think people knew what they were getting into, but I believe Humanism will always lead to Atheism. Most of the following is based on PBS documentaries on the UN and Influenza.

The rise of Humanism started with the medical profession and reached its peak when small pox and polio vaccines were discovered. The United Nations basically eradicated small pox and polio from the world.

~snip~

Humans may go to the moon, but if they get there without the Christian Religion, it will be hell.

Humanism does lead to Atheism because the only restraint on sexual perversion is the Bible and the Christian Religion. As soon as you get rid of the Bible every person will do that which is right in their own sight, and that will always be sexual perversion, which is the main element of Atheism. America is deeply into the Atheistic practices of socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic lifestyle.

Americans have a choice to try to hold on to the disastrous philosophy of Humanism/Atheism or return to the philosophy of the Christian religion that has caused America to become the greatest nation on earth and protected America from internal destruction.

~snip~

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=42419

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I don't even bother with them anymore. They are too wrapped up in

their weird faith to hear what I have to say.

[Warpy]

4. Good idea

You can obliterate their arguments with logic and bury them with facts, and it won't make a dent. You see, they're only putting up with you so they can TESTIFY, and once they do that, they've WON.

I just listen to them for a minute, then quietly say, "That's the most unchristian thing I've ever heard." and walk away.

Or, depending on the rant, I just laugh and say, "Oh, you really BOUGHT that????" and walk away.

Both tactics just cut them off, reject their garbage utterly, and tell them that there's nothing they can do about it.

[Greyhound]

2. Sorry no help here. He/She makes a series of unsupported

declarations to which the only response is "that is not true". I don't think this person would listen to, nor comprehend, any reasoned argument you might make. Just ignore it and it might go away. (If we're really lucky they're right and the 'rapture' will rid us of them.)

[Amonester]

5. Yeah. Many wish their Jesus would (finally) come back...

down here, and pay 'em all a free ride to Paradise.


No. I'm not being sarcastic!

No :sarcasticicon: here. (wink-wink-knudge-knudge) LOL!

[leftstreet]

3. Just agree with them. Suggest true Christians should set sail

and find a new country where they can practice their true faith. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

[jokerman93]

8. I'm beginning to believe

I'm beginning to believe that it was just the opposite. The religious cultists all came to the new world to form their own communes and private governments. We've inherited a certain puritan radicalism that seems to be re-emerging.

Maybe we should find some area of Greenland or the Arctic that's now exposed from glacial meltdown from global warming and just send them all there. They can set up their own Jebusland - kind of like the old idea for Liberia. Also, it would make it easier for Jebus to find them all when he comes back on the clouds. Let 'em all go and out-stupid each other down to the last wingnut.

Maybe we can still save this country.

:sarcasm:

[leftstreet]

9. Global Warming part of a divine plan = New Greenland Christian Colony

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

6. it is hard for me to dissect a disjointed set of non-seqiturs

The theme is too broad and is not the least bit substantiated.

However, when you say: "indicative of how much they have been taught to hate the 'evil Humanist secularists,' aka 'liberals' or, basically, anyone who doesn't think like they do."

It seems to me that is a natural human tendency. We, or some of us, seem to have learned to hate the "evil religious wacko" or to some extent, at least on this board, "anyone who doesn't think like we do." Differences of opinion become evidence of malevolent ignorance, bigotry, lunacy, knuckle-dragging, etc. The person who posits them is a freeper, a troll, a bushbot, or a mental defective. "Is it a personality disorder that comes about from chemical imbalances? Or is it just sheer stupidity or bigotry?"

Well, thank goodness WE don't hate, or feel contempt or pity for, people who don't think like we do.

[Amonester]

7. The key words are: "they have been taught to hate"

The questions are: 'By who?' and 'For what?'

In these 'lie' an "eternal" answer, IMHO. It's the 'easiest form' of teaching: 'they' (manipulators) use words of love to teach how to hate...

Ironic, indeed.

[hfojvt]

12. Isn't it logical for anyone who loves peace

to hate war? For anyone who loves good, to hate evil? I thought that was the basis for my hatred of the Bush cabal and my lying Republican Congressmen. Anyone who loves truth, hates liars.

Have they been taught to hate, or have they also learned it? Is their hatred of secular humanists any worse or substantially different than secular humanist's hatred (or contempt) for "the religiously insane" which often means "anyone who claims to be a Christian"? In both cases it is perhaps the hateful fringes who make more noise even if they do not represent the more reasonable "silent majority".

[Amonester]

19. The biggest problem (I see) with (almost all) Religions are, IMHO

that most of their (what they think to be 'attractive') concepts are the (false, again IMHO) promises that, by 'applying' (either with good will or by force, if necessary... and History 'knows' it always ends up in the 'by force' camp, sooner or later), what they 'teach' would become (unrealistic) wall-to-wall 'solutions' to all the problems (even those that are not necessarily real problems, but differences) into some yet undefined future.

So in reality, by believing these lies (for greed), not only they ain't solving the biggest problems, but also, they have the potential to 'create' other bigger problems, which end up in the way of the real good human beings who want to get themselves involved into working for solving the down to earth daily problems which our species is facing: global warming, the ever expanding polluted land, air, and water, health issues, no-oil-left-soon (and then what: back to riding horses? If we even 'get' there...), and on, and on...

I sure don't hate any Religious person, and I never will, no matter what they do, because I personally consider all hate feelings to be 'primitive' and counter-productive. I can only wish they just could understand the historic fact that they ain't (and won't be) solving any (big) problem, and never will. All they do (and will do) is create MORE (big) problems, and even worst: they are (and always will be) in the way!! :(

:rant:

On edit: That is not to say they should be persecuted... That's not what I'm sayin'... That was just my personal 'obvervation' I only wish they'd "understand" but I know they won't...

[hfojvt]

20. big problems are never really solved anyway

and I certainly do not buy the notion that they are necessarily in the way. Churches and religious people have built more schools and hospitals than they get credit for. It was not a church or religious principles which led either to WWII or Auschwitz.

I would say that the false religions of materialism and nationalism have caused more problems to me than Christianity ever has. The sad thing is in times of war people abandon their Christianity to take up arms, and many of the rich and powerful who claim to be Christians, really are not.

You come from a Voltaire perspective where ignorance and superstition are causing so many problems or preventing science from solving them. I think more of the problems come from greed and selfishness, which require a spiritual rather than a technical solution.

[Amonester]

22. Those were the religions I was posting about also, but

I have been 'abused' by some 'official religious' women for months when I was just 6, so, for me, it's not enough to build 'schools' (need not explain in detail about what they did to me), but also care about what 'a few' sick (IMHO) individuals actually commited inside them.

It was (and sure will always be) nothing less than criminal.

[Emit]

26. I see your point and hope you read further down to #23

To gain some insight into why I posed those questions.

LOL, though, I see that my own questions, especially the 'sheer stupidity or bigotry thingy' might have come off rather hypocritically, and perhaps is. I don't know.

In defense of myself, I honestly am trying to objectively define the "why?" part, and that's why I pointed out my interest and b/g in Psych. Is it stupidity that leads to intolerance and hate and prejudice? Am I, then, being intolerant because I point this out? Again, I don't know.

I don't hate these people, nor do I feel pity for them. However, I do have some contempt, I will be honest to admit because of what this movement is doing to our nation on the whole. This isn't just a few folks that I'm talking about here. This is a large group, with varying degrees of the aspects I'm referring to, who, as one poster pointed out, have been gaining momentum for the past thirty years, with the intent of ridding our nation of its secular foundation---the very foundation that has allowed them to practice their brand of religion in the first place!

It's not that I feel contempt because they don't think like me. And therein lies the rub. IMHO, being liberal by nature, I have an immense amount of open-mindedness, understanding, acceptance of others, am less bothered by others' differences, am more inclusive, etc., just as most other liberals are/do. So we accept their differences and give them their space and freedoms, while they're going to all this effort to try to squelch us, restrict us, limit us, and, possibly, redefine our nation and take our freedoms away.

Bottom line is I do not think a strict, authoritarian, theocratic group can rule over a free-thinking, open, democratic Republic. It just doesn't work for the benefit of the whole.

[hfojvt]

34. some of that is political battle

and the "secular foundation" is debatable. And moot. Part of the problem is how the battle takes place. "Under God" has been in the Pledge of Allegiance for about sixty years. Should it be there? I think the whole pledge business is kinda stupid anyway. But who should decide if it belongs there or not? Should seven people decide that, or the majority of the voting public?

Some of it is the argument over the progress we have made since the 50s. Some people want to go further, others want to undo some of it. Are they taking our freedoms away? Was life that bad in the fifties? Probably for blacks and gays, so they have more of a dog in the hunt.

I just do not think it is consistent to use hateful names and labels like "bigot" or "stupid" and also claim that they are irrationally hateful. Again, I see alot of intolerance for "Freepers and Bushbots" (which are widely defined) here on DU. I know alot of Republicans who seem to me neither stupid nor intolerant.

[Emit]

36. Yeah. I'm married to one, a Republican that is. n/t

[Midnight Rambler]

10. What is with the fundie obsession with sex?

t seems to be the chief issue this guy is arguing, that if we let go of Christianity, sexual perversion will take over. The main element of atheism? Gee, and here I always thought that the main element was a lack of belief in the supernatural. This guy clearly has some deeply repressed urges, and he's taking out his frustrations on anyone who doesn't throw themselves headlong into the bible.

[Emit]

30. Yup. And, as far as I can tell, from conversations

and from these boards where discussion occurs with folks who hold these beliefs is that, what they keed referring to as the secularists, which they say is a religion that has been controlling them---they believe that the liberal secularists in our nation have created this immoral framework that is the fault for all of the ills, including most social ills (i.e., rampant sexual promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, abortion, homosexuality, etc.)

From what I gather, they think that if they have a chance to 'rule' the country, instead of the secularists, then through their brand of religiosity-- strict rules based on the bible, etc.-- they will be able to correct the problems in our country, and these things will magically disappear.

Also, there are actually groups of fundamentalists who believe it is their duty to prepare a place for Christ before he can return. This notion of changing our nation into a Christian nation stems from Dominionism and Reconstructionist forms of Christianity, in a nut shell.

Sadly, a great many seem to be motivated by one political issue: that of abortion--'the killing of innocent lives'-- which has been drilled into them for years now, and which, in their black-and- white-thinking mind, is so evil that they would never support a liberal for fear that they would be supporting the murder of unborn children. They simply can not grasp the grey areas of that argument, ever.

[the_real_38]

11. I suggest that you read the book "Don't Think of an Elephant" ...

... by George Lakoff, which has been a hot item among the Democratic leadership, by the way. He talks about 'framing', which is basically the notion that some people make their decisions (political, religious, e.g.) based on narratives and metaphors.

He pigeonholes the dominant frames on the right ('Strict Father Morality'), and includes a very interesting finding: the concepts that drive this 'narrative flow' and support the continuing adherence to these codes are actually stored in the synapses of the brain . This, to me, is explosive - what you're proposing (at one level) is that there are biological (not necessarily genetic, though) differences between wingnuts and regular people. Their brains are different. The author, a 'cognitive semiotician', takes this in a positive light, saying that what the Democrats need to do is 're-frame' the nut jobs (my phrase, not his) by using the appropriate shifts in language.

I have my doubts. If you've ever argued with a right-wing nut job, as so many people here have, and seen them dismiss or refuse to admit facts that don't hold up the consistency of their metaphor-based worldviews, you know how difficult it will be to get through to them. They have conflated all of their beliefs about American Supremacy, Jesus, and globalized capitalism into an impenetrable core in their neural structures. They may be physically incapable of making political judgments based on reason.

Like I say, read the book, and get back to me if you want to continue the discussion.

[Emit]

15. Thanks for the suggestion

I did read "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" by Lakoff, which actually helped me a lot in dealing with some relatives who were Republicans, but not necessarily big fundies or even heavy Bush supporters. It helped me to frame my discussions and actually win over a few who were not paying attention and who were supporting Bush just to oppose the 'liberals.'

I will read the one you suggest.

[TrogL]

13. The war on logic

It's a pity a can't reply at length, but there's been an ongoing war against logic and reason going on for more than 30 years.

That was has come to fruition and we have basically lost. It appears that the typical American can no longer think nor trust the evidence of his own eyes.

[Emit]

28. Yes, and I often wonder if it's because of the pressure we

experience in our daily lives, and how some just can't deal on their own or with their own resources. More often than not, it seems that those who turn to this strict, authoritarian religion are those who have, in their past, experienced a great deal of problems and needed help. They 'find God' or 'find Jesus' but never really change their underlying issues or behaviors that may have caused their problems. Like a dry drunk. These overly religious become rigid and less tolerant and project their beliefs and values on others. It's like the old adage of the ex-smoker, who is a worse critic than a person who never smoked. (no offense to ex-smokers, who likely have earned their right to be less tolerant of smokers, it's just an analogy)

It's a crutch...an easy out. The church tells me this is the way I'm supposed to think...the church tells me that I will be saved if I think this way...the church knows better...

It's a scary, fast-paced world, and believing that religion will save you in the long run (no matter your actions and mistakes--you can always confess, claim your belief in Jesus and be saved) might provide a lot of comfort to some. But I think it's a form of dependency and brainwashing, personally.

It's as if they have never learned of our history, like we just skipped over the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason. They are taught in their religion that man in selfish and evil if he does think for himself.

My biggest fear? It is that things will have to get worse before they get better...that this is a stage of development in our youthful country and we are too far removed from what brought us to our democratic experiment to begin with.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Looks like a couple of people have already responded very well.

What is it with the Christians that they believe "As soon as you get rid of the Bible" sexual perversion prevails? Seems to me that the Bible is one hell of a source to find sexual perversion explained in detail...Lot and his daughters, for example. And why is there so much 'sexual perversion' in the ranks of priests and church leaders if the Bible is beside the bed?

Edit: forgot a word.

[hfojvt]

21. Andrew Greeley, a Catholic Priest and sociologist

has written, I believe, that the rate of child molestation among priests is no worse than it is among teachers or protestant ministers. It has, however, become the story du jour for the press.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Didn't find his article on the rate, but he is very critical of his fellow

priests. "Most priests assume no responsibility for preventing abuse. It's the bishops' problem, they say, regardless of the savage harm done to the image of the priesthood. The various priest organizations around the country have issued statements which are more sympathetic to the priests than to the victims. One suspects that Jesus would not be pleased with such pharisaical clergy."

Please note that I said 'priests and other church leaders' and did not indicate that the Catholic Church was any better or worse than anyother.

[hfojvt]

27. I am thinking that the churches are not any worse than

secular institutions. A church has no better way of detecting and/or preventing a Dennis Rader from being a member, a Sunday School teacher, or a minister, than any other group. Sadly, their reaction when a bad apple has been found out has not been exemplary.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. from the freeper post:

"the only restraint on sexual perversion is the Bible"

They must not be reading the good parts :)

[greiner3]

17. *

Having a background in Psychology, and having worked for years with persons with severe mental disabilities (i.e., personality disorders, schizophrenia, etc.), I am so curious as to whether these people come to believe this way due to innate characteristics, or whether it is a learned perspective. Is it a personality type, perhaps one that is more susceptible to being drawn into cult-like thinking? Is it a personality disorder that comes about from chemical imbalances? Or is it just sheer stupidity or bigotry?

Having a background in bi-polar disorder. No, actually I have been diagnosed with that 15 years ago. Recently I attended support groups for the same and I can tell you that the majority, by far, are level headed, politically to the left and athiestic. The more out of touch the person was, the more they had a 'god' complex. I don't know what that medically is called but I see that in bush.

[Emit]

23. I see these people more in the camp of someone with a personality

disorder. The reason being is that, like people with some personality disorders, they are so difficult to reason with.

I dealt with a lot of clients with borderline personality disorder, for example, and it literally sent me back to my own therapist on several occasions, just because they were so frustrating to deal with.

In my experience, these are the types who play the mind games, go over your head to get you in trouble (this was almost always the case--that they were not being treated fairly--they were distrustful no matter how much I tried and had a sense of self-importance coupled with extreme lack of self-esteem), lie, embellish the truth, manipulate and perceive themselves to be right no matter how much one tries to reason with them.

That's why I even posed that question in my OP, because when I deal with these fundy-types, red flags go up saying, "Woah, this feels familiar, like a personality disorder...be careful...don't get sucked in...stay objective..., etc."

I should qualify here, having worked in the mental health profession, and being an advocate for persons with disabilities, I am not, nor ever would, attempt to single out this issue of mental health as the "problem" or the "cause." Again, I used it as an example to discuss and pose the question of whether these are personality traits, learned or innate, etc. Having experienced my own personal mental health issues, and counseliing others with theirs, I mean no offense in using these examples in this dicussion. I hope none is taken.

[hfojvt]

29. well it is not generally a compliment to be called mentally ill

or borderline, especially when applied to a very large group.

Again I would say that perhaps the borderline personalities are more visible in any group because the same types of characteristics also make a person more successful in our society - borderline types rise to the top and become the visible spokespeople.

I find the whole human race pretty hard to reason with, particularly when they have a dog in the hunt. Taking unpopular opinions or asking people to back up their assertions here, I know I am not the only DUer who has seen alot of responses that boil down to "agree with me or face the full fury of my invective!!" or "your ignorant statement gives me permission to verbally bludgeon you in the name of progressivism!" We have no monopoly on reason that I can see.

In fact, we may be talking at cross purposes with fundies. As Bertrand Russell said, "unless you agree on the basics, no dialogue is possible". Therefore, each side will see the other as irrational because they disagree about some basic assumptions. The challenge, as I see it, is not to analyze or demonize the opposition, but to find areas of agreement and work together on that, or as someone else said, another way to frame the issues. Once you see them as potential allies, there is no longer a need to label or ruthlessly attack them. Like Kris Kringle, I am trying to disarm the Winter Warlock by giving him a toy, although there are some Burghermeisters that cannot be won over.

[Emit]

35. Well, it is a fact of life that there are people who are mentally ill

and borderline, whether the label is complimentary or not. But, that's not what I'm getting at.

I'm not 'diagnosing' or calling these strict fundamentalists mentally ill or even borderline, although their traits and behaviors are similar to a borderline personality. That's the point I made in the post above, in response to the previous poster. They remind me of the persons I have encountered who are borderline, with their black and white thinking, and seeing things as "all good" or "all bad" with no grey inbetween. It was specific to the poster's mention of their experience that bi-polar's seemed to be more on the left of issues.

Initially, however, in my OP, I said:

I am so curious as to whether these people come to believe this way due to innate characteristics, or whether it is a learned perspective. Is it a personality type, perhaps one that is more susceptible to being drawn into cult-like thinking? Is it a personality disorder that comes about from chemical imbalances? Or is it just sheer stupidity or bigotry?

My questions relate to the 'why' of their behavior (i.e., is it inborn, learned, chemical, etc.) If it's a learned behavior, it can be unlearned. If it's a personality trait or even disorder, that's a different story.


BTW, while many ruthless, yet successful people may have similar traits to a socio-path or a person with borderline personality disorder, they are probably not suffering from a true personality disorder. A person with a severe personality disorder is often impeded by their disability, to the point that they suffer with personal relationships and experience repeated job losses and missed educational activities, for example. But, you make a good point here. Many of these traits and behaviors are extreme versions of common human traits or behaviors. It's why many Abnormal Psychology text books put a disclaimer in their preface warning students not to worry if they find themselves identifying with some of the traits used to diagnose these mental illnesses.

[hfojvt]

37. unlearning is a difficult undertaking.

the thing that bothers me about the clinical perspective (even wondering why people have the defects you perceive) is that it seems to put the doctor is a position of superiority. The other person is not a neighbor or just a person with a different point of view, they are defective and in need of treatment. I am not certain that people can be reached with this attitude, nor if that is a decent way to relate to other people.

Sure, the mental illness claim is true of some people, whether complimentary or not, but you made the diagnosis, or hinted at it, about a very large group.

"I am so curious as to whether these people come to believe this way due to innate characteristics, or whether it is a learned perspective. Is it a personality type, perhaps one that is more susceptible to being drawn into cult-like thinking? Is it a personality disorder that comes about from chemical imbalances? Or is it just sheer stupidity or bigotry?"

I find those questions, with the suggestions of only negative answers, to be a sweeping diagnosis.

[Emit]

38. Then, ignoring the clinical perspective that seems to have

come into conflict with your moral high ground, and perhaps even offended you, and getting down to the basis of my OP, do you have any fair and insightful suggestions on how best to reach certain people who have been persuaded by the fundamentalist Christian, Bible-based authoritarian view of religiosity that threatens our rather secular, free-thinking society and could potentially limit personal freedoms?

Just curious.

[hfojvt]

40. the framing is probably the best route

without the whole "their brains are wired differently". There is a shrill minority which will never be reached. We should not try to match their shrillness with our own, but we definitely need our own sources of information, our own sites like DU, our own newspapers, our own AAR, some way to get our own message past the RW noise machine. My own bias is to stick with, and widely promote, bread and butter working class issues, but those are also MY pet issues. I think they have a broad, non-divisive appeal.

We need more newsmaker help too. If Gore comes to Iowa to campaign against the Republicans, we get a media sound bite for that. Gore won Iowa in 2000 (with my help I am sure) he also won my Congressional district there, but so did the Republican incumbent. Gore should have worked harder to use his campaign to help the Democratic Congressional candidate. Prime-time TV sound bites are worth more, IMO, than yard signs and phone banking. A visit, even from Ted Kennedy, is more inspiring than a mass mailing.

Some of that is tactics. I have not heard anything yet from the state organization that Dean was supposed to be starting in Kansas (and other states) even though I am a precinct committee person in my county. So I wonder what they are doing, if they have some way to put us to work.

My moral high ground. :P

[Emit]

41. Politically, I'm staying involved

I went to one of these Kick Off meetings about a week ago in my town, and it was a great start, very encouraging.

Two of the most interesting things that my district group discussed were:
1) reaching out to various religious groups and members in order to strengthen our message, define ourselves and try to bridge the gaps. This idea was brought up by a minister in our group; and

2) Finding ways to meet with persons of opposing views to persuade them and to encourage a healthy conversation--like finding common ground maybe. This idea was suggested by a very intellectual liberal surgical Nurse who lives in a predominantly Republican neighborhood, and works with a bunch of rightwing surgeons (her words, as I recall), who sees little value in meeting with the like-minded individuals (preaching to the choir thing), and who prefers to find ways to discuss political differences with the opposing groups. I guess she has found that a lot of Bush supporters on her block just really aren't paying attention to the big picture, and she's found success in her persuasive techniques. I'll be attending her party in December. I can't wait!

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I still think that, eventually, it will require trying to understand the 'why' of the matter and taking it one step further than just having Democratic soirees with like-minded folks. I like the ideas mentioned above, and the fact that others, too, see that until we reach out and learn to understand, communicate and resolve differences with those who oppose us, maybe we really are just preaching to the choir. It will, no doubt, involve a grassroots effort.

Thanks again. Good luck with getting going with your Kick Off meetings and hope they are as productive as mine was.

[4_TN_TITANS]

18. I agree - wired differently...

Just like getting Liberals together is the equivalent of trying to 'herd cats', these people are the herd animals of human society. Terrified to leave the herd (aka church), afraid to test the limits of thinking for themselves, easily manipulated with fear, etc.

Think of a herd of cattle charging ahead and loyaly following the ones in front over a cliff to their death and you get some insight into the common fundie. But with humans, the ones who appear to lead over the cliff have parachutes. The cattle rustlers - those who selfishly take advantage of the herd, as strength in numbers becomes an exploitable weakness.

[mtnester]

24. Lemmee give you somthing to deal with fundie freepers . . .

You CANNOT win, so you will need this

[Emit]

39. LOL, thanks, I'll need that over the holidays

when my born-again relatives come to visit.

[mcscajun]

31. "Atheistic Lifestyle"???

:wtf:

There's a "lifestyle" I'm not keeping up with? WHO Was supposed to send me the memo? Why wasn't I informed?! I demand Answers! Answers, I say!!!

:rofl:

[atommom]

32. Isn't it interesting, the obsession with sexual perversion?

I don't know any liberal, not one, that would waste time worrying about sexual activities between consenting adults. The arguments they use reveal more about their own dysfunctions than anything else.

"As soon as you get rid of the Bible every person will do that which is right in their own sight, and that will always be sexual perversion..."

[Toots]

33. I have only two words for them or anybody else in this entire nation

Question Authority it is not only your American Right but should be your American Obligation. If our leaders actions or motives are never questioned we would be in a horrible existence...