Surprising discussion with Christian fundamentalists

Some of my friends, believe it or not, are completely to the right. Some are so far to the right that they're left. One thing we all have in common, however, is our enthusiasm for literature. On Friday, the evening started out with our favorite topic at hand, but eventually it moved into the one area where we've all been on edge with each other for the last four-plus years: politics. And on this area, the conversation was blown wide open with the surprising disenchantment of the fundamentalists with Bush, their religious leaders, and the state of the nation.

With Bush, the fundamentalists (who preferred to call themselves "social conservatives") said he is not conservative. He is bankrupting our nation in Iraq (these were former supporters of the invasion; I had no idea they changed their minds), further bankrupting our childrens' future with debt, has no idea how to manage a budget, and (important point among the naturalists/sportsmen here) is completely destroying the environment. One went so far to say that the burden of proof isn't on people like us at DU who believe global warming is happening; rather, the burden of proof should be on those like Bush who say it is NOT happening. Until then, we should act like the world is coming to an end. Oh, did I hear some of you snicker "Rapture?" They think that's utter bullshit polished by Tim LaHaye. Oh, yes. They are very discontented with the so-called leaders of the religious right.

In fact, they thought that LaHaye, Falwell, and Robertson should just shut the hell up. And as for Dobson, who is their standard-bearer? They are greatly disappointed that he went along with the Matt Drudge "The e-mails and IMs were just a prank among the pages" story. These are the same folks who were up in arms about Clinton getting some on the side, and they're just as disappointed that Dobson is brushing off a sex scandal for the sake of maintaining his flock's turnout at the polls for the Republicans. I mean, these are people who just paid to see him speak in Pittsburgh a few months ago.

Things were kicked up a notch further when perhaps the most religious person in the group said that gay marriage may or may not be a bad thing. My jaw dropped. He said that nobody really knows for sure how children being raised by two moms or two dads will turn out; he now knows such families, and he called the "gay agenda" a Republican boogeyman. "Research the children for 20 years, and if the results show the kids are as normal as children from hetero families, then we have to consider legalizing gay marriage. If the results are inconclusive, follow the test group for another 10. Let's find out the truth once and for all."

Wow.

While the conservatives weren't all in agreement with each other with the topics at hand, I had to ask if the discontent among the group is shared by other religious types they know. They all said social conservatives everywhere are talking about these matters, and while they are deeply disturbed by being marginalized by the Republicans, they don't know who else to support. They still have to wrap their minds around voting for Democrats. Why? They just can't see themselves breaking away from the Republicans because they fear losing all political influence. (Hey, they were honest.) At this point, I decided to go for the score.

"So let's talk about abortion," I began. "You're all against it, right?" to which one and all said yes. "Okay, now let's frame your message as pro-life. You care about life, true?" And again, they all agreed they are. "Okay, now look at things from this liberal Democrat's point of view. I think that our children should have the best health care. I think we should fully fund Head Start and feed our children the most nutritious lunches. All this is for the betterment of life as I see it. I also think we should better fund adoption agencies so unwanted children can find a loving home. How about you guys?" And the conservatives said yes, one and all. One even piped up and said, "We should also consider the other end of the spectrum and do a better job at funding elder care and do something better with Medicare and Social Security. Bush's spending is going to put those programs in the hole!"

I sat back and said, "Okay, we're all in agreement about being pro-life. If you can talk to your friends in your churches and other organizations that the Democrats are looking out for the children and seniors, think of the common ground we could all work on. We work together long enough, respecting each other's opinions, who knows how many lives of children you can save? Probably millions more. And while you won't see abortions ended so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, you'll be saving so many more children by providing a proper perspective on what pro-life is all about than you are now. What social conservatives have been doing no longer works. There can be a better way of saving lives, and that's by working with the Democrats."

And, to my surprise, I scored. And I think lightbulbs went on over all their heads.

Now, I don't know if this group is an isolated example or if there is real discontent out there en masse among the social conservatives that we can take advantage of, but the people I spent time with on Friday night come from the infamous Republican T in Pennsylvania. They are hard-core conservatives (but maybe not as hard-core as they once thought). And if there truly is discontent among these people, perhaps it's time we all have a talk with them and build a greater consensus.

the comfort zone - its great to find there are some points of agreement. I love it when people can get beyond the polarities.

When talking w/ my mom recently I went further re: abortion & pro-life-- I said that I could see abortion being illegal ... I mean to be honest I do feel that way for reasons I won't go into here ... but!!! we would have to have safe effective birth control which is culturally accepted and more options for pregnant women. I pointed out that ironically it is the mindset of guilt and fear of sex, and women and men not owning their sexuality, that inadvertently creates the need for abortions. I said we have 6 billion people now up from 3 billion 30 years ago and that even God would agree that's enough, Amazingly she saw my point!

also for having the strength to even talk to them in the first place... I don't know where you live but fundies in Alabama don't even understand or read the Bible, much less other "literature."

your book group, to change our world. Good going, Efilroft Sul, and may we all show as much wisdom and compassion as you have in this instance.

Thanks for giving us a good lesson.

Great job of finding common points of agreement with people who are usually at the very opposite end of where most liberals are. You did a wonderful job of this. And, I see this as a real way to convert those who were so blind to BushCo and have become clued in to the BS and to bring them to where the real values are. For far too long, they have ignored the liberal values because it seems they were taught to fear us and taught we are evil beings.

Congrats on a job well done! :applause:

republican party now, than there has been in quite a few years.....nice to hear about a few more.

Universal health care, Head Start and other social programs are going to cost money. Don't you remember how the Republicans won? They demonized everyone who might need those social services, and that, in turn, invalidated the Democrat's platform.

This group of conservatives was TIRED of seeing all of our tax money sent down the hole in Iraq! Billions upon billions are sent there; they know it. They know that money could be better spent here on the social programs I discussed upthread.

Case in point, and this emphasizes the word CONSERVE in conservative, they want to see an environmentally friendly approach to public transportation. They want more and better mass transit, a Euro style rail system, and a full-throttle approach to electric cars. Some were aware of the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and they were pointing the finger at Big Oil. Some got really turned on when I told them about Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com)!

But back to taxes. They know that the Republican tax cut is all bull and that everything has gone to the uberwealthy and corporations. My friends said Clinton did things right with regard to taxes (YES!) and that the surplus he generated was a fantastic thing for this country to have. For example, they said the surplus could've been used to shore up our infrastructure, do R&D on alternative energy, better fund social services, etc. In short, these are people who don't like being in debt, and they don't like seeing our nation in debt. The Clinton surplus was talked about with some sort of religious significance attached to it, as if it were some Thanksgiving bounty to be shared. The way I see it, they weren't spouting the Rush Limbaugh line "It's YOUR money!" talking about the surplus. Instead, they were saying, "It's ALL OF OUR money and let's use it wisely."

Can you believe it? Praise for the Clinton presidency from religious conservatives?

Do you think that goodwill will still hold if Republicans once again see the welfare issue as giving money to the "welfare queens?" Or do you think they've learned a thing or two about how their own prejudices were used against them?

With the particular group I was with on Friday evening, I don't think they'd ever look at people being on welfare as "welfare queens." That particular quote by Reagan resonated more with our parents in the 1980s when we were teenagers than it does now (I'm 39 years old). These social conservatives work a lot with charities (particularly their church's charities), they see who needs help, and they aren't the type to hurl economic insults. While I can't put words into their mouths, I think this particular group would say that help should be given to the least among us until they can get on their feet to properly help themselves. I suspect they probably approved of welfare reform in the 1990s, but don't have contempt for the program or all those who use it like Reaganites do.

As for learning how their prejudices were used against them, yes, I think they have grudgingly admitted that they were used by the Republicans and maybe even by their own leaders (as per their comments about Dobson upthread). I remember two years ago about how charged up some in the group were about gay marriage being on the ballot, and when Bush "won," how they all thought that FINALLY they were all going to get what they wanted. Well, it never materialized, and they're disillusioned, and they are doing a lot of soul-searching right now.

For what it's worth, there was a Promise Keeper in this group, and he's the one who wants the study on children in gay marriages, elder care, electric cars, better mass transit, and a budget surplus! Oh, yes, he's absolutely appalled about the entire torture matter, too.

Again, these people said other social conservatives are talking about a host of issues and rethinking matters. So let's not be afraid to talk to them and find common ground. We're not going to agree 100%, but if we agree enough, Karl Rove will lose the rest of his hair. One thing Bush never learned is that diplomacy is used for talking to your rivals and enemies, not your friends. Let's not make that mistake. Talk with the social conservatives who are willing to talk, and let's see what we can learn and do together.

The Republicans have been masters at dividing and conquering. It's time to end their shenanigans and find a way to come together.

They are a weird bunch. And not all the same. The trick to understanding a fundamentalist is to find out their meta-rules. The rules that make them who they are. The rules that govern their actual beliefs. Here are a few simple groups I have met in the fundamentalist crowds.

Old School:
Some of them follow the Bible first and foremost. Unless they actually try to understand the Bible, they can easily slide into another group of fundamentalists. Those of us (yes I am a fundamentalist) that independently try to understand the bible are interesting folk. You can't actually study the book without becoming tolerant and open minded. These folk are more often than not tainted by bits from the other groups, but they can be argued with, and can change their mind. The best example of this breed is Jimmy Carter.

Narcissists:
Some of them are authoritarian. They want a leader, they want followers. Extreme sexism and racism often come first, before the Word. Many of them believe that God loves them more than others because they hate the right people. These folk are the ill. Some are caring people, but others first, and the least of these will never sway them toward the actual light. Narcissists are drawn to and create this group. Authority can convince these folk. The Bible can be used to persuade them at times. Often authoritarians want to do good. Good just has to be convenient. They think that if you are disagreeing with them, you are disagreeing with God.

Fearful:
Some of them are desperate for a set of rules. These are the folk that are scared of themselves and their fellow man. Pity these tortured souls, the live in fear. They can easily be drawn into the narcissist group.

Holier than Thou:
Some of them are desperate to be the most holy. More often then not, they don't want to pay the price. So they go hard line so they can point at others without putting others first. These folk can become involved in good works.

Twisted:
Some of them are hiding from themselves. These are the folk that are scared that the right man will turn them gay. These are the folk that think that without religion everyone will become raving madmen. They bought their beliefs wholesale when they were young and now dare not question them. These are not folk that question their faith, these are not folk that dare examine their beliefs. They They easily become authoritarian fundamentalists.

Thieves:
Some of them are thieves. They enjoy the free money, adulation and pulpit. The sad part here is that most of these thieves still think they are holy.

Deceived:
These people have been persuaded that a lot of interesting social or political causes are their cause. They think that there is no prayer in school, or that the principal of the school should be praying over the microphone. They think that Christians are being persecuted. They do not realize that the real attack on Christianity is being waged by their leaders. They prioritize birth control as the number one sin, and entirely ignore the rest. They think that Jesus would be for shooting fathers who want a better life for their family, as they cross the border. They think two gays living together is a sin that would condemn our nation, but that torture is needed to protect our nation.

Wannabe Fundamentalists:
They think they are all about the fundamentalism, and have not read and are not reading the Bible. They think everyone else should be following all the rules, but that they can start later, or have a good excuse. They think that following Jesus is all about following rules. They think that you have to be born-again, baptized, and meet Jesus before God will love you. They think that if you don't ..., then God may not love you. They think that wealth is a sign of God's favor.

Kicked, recommended, and bookmarked.

Boy, you said it well

I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I am and will always be a Christian. But I am no longer a fundamentalist. I have learned that the fundamentalist Christianist movement is born of deception, and is a political movement hiding under a false mantle of Christianity.

But don't stop at understanding Christianist Fundamentalists. There is a book I first read in college, that opened my eyes to what motivates an individual to participate in mass movements. It's a very simple book, not very long, nor complicated. But it shares a wisdom with the reader that everyone should experience.

It is called "The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements", by Eric Hoffer. Mr Hoffer wrote this book in 1951 and enlightens us to a social critique of the motivations of anyone who participates in a Mass Movement. Be that movement political, national, or religious, Mr. Hoffer shows us that the psychological triggers that motivate and individual's participation in a mass movement, don't differ, regardless of his choice of movement. There are common threads that we can recognize in all that are drawn to mass movements.

This little book will open your eyes. Buy it and read it. You can find it at the link below...

http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Movements-Perennial-Classics/dp/0060505915

Below are some links to information about Mr. Eric Hoffer....

http://www.erichoffer.net/

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

As an ex-Conservative, I recognize all of these types of fundies. Please add "Confederate Fundies" as a subset of "Deceived". These living anachronisms think that slavery would have gone away by itself but that the South didn't stand for slavery (contrary to the proclamations of its leaders, who thought that it was actually ordained by God). They also justify many lynchings as having been well-deserved and that "things started to go downhill when schools were integrated and 'God' was 'removed.'" Most importantly, they continue to support Chucklenuts since he professes to be a Christian and like him, many of them believe that the Lord healed their drunkeness but have not bothered with 12-step programs or other recovery therapies. These fools continue to wave the battle emblem of the Confederacy, ignoring the fact that this logo represents years of torment, torture and oppression. Like Coral Ridge Ministries' Head Muckety-Muck D. James Kennedy, they embrace the code language that embracing "liberal political correctness" is a sign of a society that's rejecting its core values. The trouble is, they refuse to admit that the core value was essentially, "If you don't love Jesus, you can go to hell." Demonstrative religion takes precedence over soul-searching, reconciliation or tolerance, which are all considered threats to our sacred traditions.

The main thing is not to be shrill when speaking with them and to respect their views as one has these kind of conversations. On the pro-life issue, I also point out how important it is to be pro-family, but to plan it better, which is where birth control comes in. Most reasonable evangelicals accept some form of birth control, if one explains how poor women and teenagers especially are at risk. I haven't gotten anywhere on the death penalty for those who support it, so perhaps some ideas can be generated here. To me, the death penalty is anti-life, but then I generally hear "eye for an eye", which to me is absurd, but I am not a Christian either.

David Kuo, who used to be the number #2 man in Bush's Office of Faith-based initiatives, said last night on 60 Minutes that Bush and his ilk made derrogatory comments about the fundamentalists in their office. Kuo said one of the biggest mistakes was tieing the faith based initiatives idea to campaigns by the RNC and that Mehlman relished the idea. But when it came for follow through, after the 2002 mid-terms, the $8B promised in 2000 was only the tune of $60M. When he went to visit places--churches, etc, that were receipents of the money or wanted it, there was no mention of the poor. That's when he decided, along with health reasons, to leave because he was misled.

I wish we had more discussions like this one that is pro-active. Thanks.

When I came to the realization that the death penalty is not a deterrence to murder. The murder rates are actually higher in death penalty states, than they are in states without the death penalty. If the death penalty doesn't act to prevent future acts of murder, then why execute criminals?

The answer is, that the death penalty is solely an act of retribution. This is the best way to appeal to Christians about the death penalty. And it is an act of retribution that is final and irreversible. With no regard for the inaccuracies of man and the fallibility of the legal system.

Ask them if they believe that Christ would vote to sentence a soul to death. Explain to them that an "eye for an eye" is Old Testament law and Christ freed us from those old laws. The best way to share Christ's message is to show mercy and forgiveness for those who harm us. A sentence of life in prison will provide an opportunity for a lost soul to come to Christ. A death sentence may very well send that person to hell.

Then ask them if the state should have the power to kill it's citizens. Ask them if they trust the state fully with that power. If the person you are speaking with is a thoughtful and sincere Christian, they will have a lot to consider when you are done.

But in this instance, I'm not certain the evangelicals will accept your premise. I do.

However, I have had such discussions with quite a few fundamentalists. While they might not immediately agree with my contentions, I am appealing to them on the basis of the central tenets of Christianity. I believe that many will ponder these ideas and perhaps over time turn away from their false beliefs and return to the true principles of Christ.

It is my duty to attempt to help these people who are confused and in darkness. Real Christians will listen to these points. False Christians only using religion for political gain will not listen. They will likely become angry and hateful. At least then you know who you are talking with.

I'm sure there are a number that cling to Old Testament teachings as their foundation in Law. If they genuinely hold these beliefs, sincerely and not politically based, then you must go further in the discussion. You must take them through the laws of Deuteronomy and ask them which others we must observe, which we shouldn't, and why? In short order you can show them that modern American political leaders have selectively chosen only a few Old Testament laws to uphold. And you can show them that actually it's not upholding Old Testament laws, but picking and choosing which laws to justify with false religiosity.

Then go back to retribution. Is it Christian? At the least, your discussion will plant the seeds of doubt, doubt that will help that individual find the truth.

As with so many things about the Old Testament laws, it seems like a majority of Christians don't understand the culture or history in which they were written.

Before the whole "eye for an eye" law was given, it was more like "your LIFE for my eye!" All that the OT law did was reign in punishments that were way out of line for the offense. It was actually a progressive law in that it brought justice and protected people from being executed for a relatively minor offense.

For your fundamentalist friends, I would give them this information, and add to it that as Christians, we believe that the death of Jesus Christ was the ULTIMATE expression of God's justice. Making a murderer die for their sin is useless from a spiritual sense because it offers that person no redemption or justice. It is pure revenge on our parts. That's not the spirit of Christ at work in our lives.

(Note for people outside the evangelical community: I intentionally used a lot of "Christian" language in what I just wrote. It may not make total sense to you, but it will to your evangelical friends.) :)

current definitions of "Conservative" and "Liberal" are skewed. Thoughtful, intelligent people respond to good ideas, regardless of which label they choose (or have chosen for them).

What's so frustrating is that the natural alliance that should be forming between all thoughtful, concerned people in American is killed off daily by the partisan hatred currently ruling our land. While we on the left have certainly participated, we didn't really have any choice: We have to defend ourselves, or continue to be demonized by the phony Conservative Neocons and their highly effective "Noise Machine". This is, of course, their agenda: to keep us at each others throats while they steal our money and kill our world for their own profit.

Very frustrating. Yet your post gives great hope. Thanks.

Let's hope they don't find a new Messiah before the elections.

enlightening and useful conversation.

But the real question remains: who will they vote for on November 7th?

One says if he votes for Santorum, he'll do it holding his nose. One says he will vote for Casey because he's pro-life and in sync with him and the Democrats on economic issues. The rest of them don't know for sure, but they all voted without hesitation for Bush in 2004. They all admitted that their vote is not to be taken for granted, and that they are re-evaluating a lot in their lives at this point.

My guess is that the remaining will either stay home or still vote for Santorum (face it, I'm the only Democrat who talks to them about politics), but they all agreed on something very interesting: The Democrats have to go after their votes; and they are receptive to being approached -- and that's not something I think any of us on DU expected to hear. What I learned on Friday night is that liberals might have more things in common with social and religious conservatives if we can get them to listen to the better angels of their nature. The Republicans have made a lot of Christians act like anything but holy by appealing to their fear and loathing. In the case of the group I was with, and the people they know at church and elsewhere, the votes of social conservatives are not a given; things are in play. The Democrats have to figure out how to approach these people and show them why their values are better matched by us. Focus on the common ground, and the differences between us won't be great enough to keep us apart. There's rich territory for all of us to mine in 2006 and beyond.

When my friends left at midnight, I was left asking myself the question, "Who knew?!"

I guess.

The problem in 04 (completely aside from any fraud, stolen votes, etc) is that some 53 million voters went in and marked the ballot for Bush. And I think one of the problems Democrats face is that despite all of what's happened since Bush took office, far too many on the right are completely convinced that it's the Democrats who are the immoral ones, who can't be trusted to manage the economy or keep us safe or protect marriage or whatever it is they care most about. There need to be many more conversations between us and them as you've been holding, so that they do understand they we are not immoral wastrels who want to do whatever it is they fear we'll do.

Meanwhile, I'm very, very nervous about all the optimistic predictions that we'll gain big next month.

this about gay marriage and raising children. I was raised from the age of 10 by my mother and her girlfriend. They have been together for 18 years and have supported every single thing I have done in my life. I'm 29 years old, getting ready to start writing my dissertation and am married. I look like a freakshow, but that never bothered my mother. She knew that she raised a good young lady who was smart and had a lot going for her. My sister has a successful marriage and an adorable son. What matters is not the sex of the parent, its the way the parents bring up the kids.

:shrug:

I don't have the cites handy right now, but my recollection is that children being raised in families with two same-sex parents do no differently than children living in a traditional mom/dad family. From what I know of the determinants of child development, this makes sense, in that children are more effected by factors such as the quality of parent-child interaction than simplified categories like 2 moms or 2 dads vs. mom/dad.

those friends that you spoke with, specifically the person who talked about studies related to children raised by gay parents. I'm a very liberal Evangelical Christian. The typical response to the gay marriage/gay child rearing issue is much more black and white than the one your friend provided. It's usually along the lines of "the Bible says its wrong, so its wrong". I'm quite surprised and somewhat skeptical that a conservative christian would respond in the way that your friend did.

The person who made the statement about studying the children raised by GBLT parents is the Promise Keeper. He is literally a son of a preacher man, mid 30s, and a totally devout Christian. In recent years, he and I have sparred over how much Bush knew before 9/11, prayer in school, public postings of the Ten Commandments, stem cell research, and the validity of going into Iraq. For every stance I had from the left point of view, he stood on the right and would not budge. And despite all of our MAJOR differences about this administration, I've still thought of him as one of the finest people around. If anyone on here got to know him, most of you would say the same thing.

So as I said before, imagine what sound my jaw made when it hit the hardwood floor when he made most of these statements. All along, I've considered him to be one of the most right-wing people I've known -- not nuke-'em-'til-they-glow right, but a strict social conservative. My freshman roommate from college, a most rabid NRA Reaganite, is voting for some Democrats this year for the first time. Ever since his brother-in-law had his tour extended twice in Iraq, he's been breaking away from the Borg mentality.

In the last five years, I've had nearly every one of my college friends disown me over my liberal views. The Promise Keeper and the rabid Reaganite have, however, kept lines of communication open with me. We've kept a running dialogue. And while it hasn't been easy, we all kind of look at it as a modern-day debate like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The worst I've ever been called was "delusional," and that was retracted when Condi Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission.

Things are changing out there.

You did such an outstanding job in your presentation of the Democratic thoughts and what we stand for. Your approach was outstanding!

I spoke w/ a young mother and she was anti-choice. She said she knew women who had had 2, 3 and even 4 abortions. She thought that was just awful.

I asked her if she thought she should be able to tell everyone how to live their lives. Is that what her Bible told her to do....judge others and force them to abide by YOUR dictates?

She thought about it...I think.

With the canvassing I have been doing, I must say that when I come upon a repugnant...they are so much LESS emboldened than when I canvassed in '04 for Kerry/Edwards.

One Republican I canvassed in '04 sputtered a platitude about Bush and slammed the door in my face. Last week he simply said, I'm sorry I can't talk to you. I said, "Yes, I know you support President Bush, but..." He interrupted and said, "No, you don't understand. I'm too embarrassed to talk to you." and then slowly closed the door.

seem to have anger right under the surface....and I think it's anger at themselves for allowing themselves to be deceived and manipulated.

My grandfather felt this way when Nixon resigned....he realized he had been deceived.

Once they get past the few talking points the Rethugs offer, "abortion bad, gays bad", it dawns on them the Rethugs have little to offer and really don't address the values they claim to.

For this great thread. It mirrors some of the experiences I've had with conservative Christian friends and family. There is a tendency by some here to dismiss the whole lot of them, but we can't forget that a lot of "fundies" are sincere individuals with whom Democrats share many values.

The more that message gets out, especially on a person-to-person basis, the better the entire country will be.

Thank you to everyone--it's been an inspiring read.

And for posting it. It is SO encouraging to me. I have many friends and family members who are like your friends, but most of them here are not willing to have such open discussions about politics.

However, from the few conversations I have had, I think this type of questioning and discomfort and soul searching is becoming more and more common.

And having gone through that process myself over the past 10 years or so (I was raised in a very conservative Christian family), I know it can be quite painful to face up to where you've been wrong, and the fact that leaders you trusted have been dishonest and promoted their own agenda.

It's also scary to make the change to Democrat, too. Even when I agreed with much that I was hearing from Democrats, it took me awhile to get to the point where I could acknowledge it. And even a couple years ago, posting on DU was an act of courage for me! (You all are scary people, you know? But you do grow on a person after awhile.) :)

So I'm really, really glad that you had this conversation with your friends. I am quite sure you are making a huge difference in their lives, and making it easier for them to make the change in their thinking.