Here is a reader's response to one of my fundy-bashing blogs, and it makes an appeal for tolerance and respect that is well thought out, well-intentioned, and totally wrong. "You guys are very cogent with your social critique, but you miss that evangelical Christianity is a response to the social trends that you understand so well. Apocalyptic christianity tends to be highly correlated with social change and declining societies: its upsurge is proof that there is something deeply wrong with our society, and to sit around throwing bricks at their windows is not terribly constructive. Until you can offer a positive vision for social change, ecstatic religions will continue appeal. If you mock people with your smug superiority -- and you secretly hate them because they do not acknowledge your claims to superiority -- the likelihood of being able to build a community becomes smaller with every insult. If we're going to solve these problems, we will solve them by working together and building a vision of social community that is even more compelling than the vision they have built."
Cause and effect, hard things to separate (and their separation one of the many differences between science and 'common sense'), and this is yet another example of getting it wrong.
Education should be an appreciation of diversity and development of completely open minds, not the reverse. Real education is a vaccination against fundamentalism of all kinds.
Real education begins in the home with open minded, well-informed and tolerant parents; develops through schooling in a strong and well funded public education system; continues through adult life via a vigorous and objective media and well supported arts.
Education should be about creating a new generation of well informed enlightened citizens to take their place in a civilised society, not about creating a new crop of ignorant young fanatics ready to damage society. And it should give all children an equal opportunity, not allow a few to be given a huge advantage because of family wealth, and many to be retarded by parental bigotry.
Are poor people inevitably fundamentalist? Of course not. Are people who have been allowed no education through life because of parents, religion-dominated schools, and the main stream media, inevitably fundamentalist when exposed to the virus? Dang tootin.
Do fundies increase in number and strength when exposed, by neoconservatives, to a constant barrage of demonisation of outsiders (and insiders) who are different, and fear of attack, and unquestioning nationalism? Sure. Do neoconservative governments know this and use it? You betcha.
Do fundy leaders encourage no-nothingism and a hatred of science and a belief in strong leaders who have all the answers? Sure as god made little green apples.
Does a hatred and rejection of science make it easy for neoconservative governments, run by ideology, not reason, to carry out their agenda? Bet your bottom dollar on that one.
And if economic conditions began to improve for the poor as well as the rich, do you really think that fundy leaders and parents and the neocons who feed on them would all stop this brainwashing behavior and allow their children to receive a real education? Duh, no.
And finally, if I and other progressives were to stop attacking fundamentalism and begin playing nice with the closed-mind fanatics do you think that they in turn would begin opening their minds and moving to the left, or would they portray the lessening of attacks as a sign, as they would tell their deluded followers, that their god had triumphed over the godless liberals and we had been struck dumb? Um, tricky one to decide.
And is this growing fundamentalism in western countries the result of, or going to lead to, "declining societies"? I dunno, what do you think?