Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia.

The BBC Magazine on paranoiac fantasies: “Trump promises to make America Great Again - as if the US somehow was no longer the most powerful country in the world”

The title of this post is taken from a BBC magazine web article which can be read here. The article is of great interest to VNP because it adds further weight to the VNP theme which links fundamentalism, collective paranoia and right wing politics into an integrated socio-psychological complex. Although I’m not talking here about clinical paranoia, the term is singularly appropriate in this context because there is a close social analogy to clinical paranoia – in particular, the way the fearful imagination invents baroque conspiratorial narratives about malign wills working behind the scenes to persecute, corrupt, subvert and control.  

 Below is a quote from the article:

The phrase "paranoid style in American politics" was coined by the late historian Richard Hofstadter. He defined the Paranoid Style, "an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent."
In a country that at its best radiates an infectious optimism, it is interesting how often fear has stalked the American landscape.
Richard Parker, who lectures on religion in the early days of America at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government, traces paranoia in American public life back to the Salem Witch Trials in the late 17th Century and even before that, to the religious politics of the Mother Country.
It's easy to forget how closely tied the first colonies were to England, particularly in Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were dissenting Protestants who sided closely with Cromwell in the English Civil War. When the Commonwealth was overthrown and the Stuarts restored to the British throne, there was renewed struggle with Catholicism - and the religious suspicions surrounding the court of James II were magnified out of all proportion on the other side of the Atlantic.
Add in the daily struggles with nature, fighting with native Americans, and millennial religious practice that thought the end times were approaching and you have, Parker points out, "a community primed to be fearful".
And so in the town of Salem, people turned on their more free-thinking neighbours, and accused them of being witches. At this time, the idea of witchcraft was not something from fiction. People really did believe, in Parker's words, "dark spirits could inhabit souls and bodies. It was the basis for primitive psychology and physiology."

This is not just a US phenomenon, although it might be more prevalent there; I’ve seen similar fears among extremist Protestants in the UK. As the quote above suggests the US may have inherited its complex of easily aroused fear from the mother country: The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries set a paranoiac backdrop; the religious apocalyptic mind-set of those times is implicated as the origin of a recurring socio-psychological malaise. English government went through a time of trepidation about Roman Catholic conspiracies. In the seventeenth century this was compounded by national infighting as dissenting Protestants found themselves at odds with the English government, the state church and one another.  It was a time of mutual suspicion and fear. Many nonconforming Protestants decided to start a new life on the American continent free from the interference of government and all those other heretics. The American Revolution was founded on anti-taxation grievances as the English war-machine demanded taxes to finance its battles against a competing French empire. The parliamentary opposition to Royal taxation and absolute monarchy precipitated the English civil war and this opposition migrated, along with the colonists, to the middle classes of America.

The article lists examples of the historical recrudescence of paranoia in the US about the machinations of hidden malign parties. I’ll high light just one recent and well known case:

Following World War Two the fear shifted to the Soviet Union. Leaders of the far-right vied with each other to see who could turn up the most Communists. This led Robert Welch, the founder of the ultra-right John Birch Society, to claim that President Dwight D Eisenhower was "a tool of the communists".

That latter claim reminds me of some of the things which have been said about President Obama. Given VNP’s critique of religious extremism, VNP’s interest was particularly piqued when the BBC article quoted Harvard history professor Lisa McGirr as saying the following about the US tendency toward collective paranoia:

"I think it is linked to religiosity: evangelicalism and fundamentalism which have deep strands in American life,"

And needless to say Trump knows how to tug those strands:

Writing off Donald Trump was the default setting of most pundits and political professionals in the first months of the campaign. It isn't any more. Trump understood more than they did that a significant chunk of American society is fearful. He plays to those fears - whether they are rational or not. He doesn't speak in what he calls "politically correct" terms.

And finally:

In South Carolina, recently, I met a gentleman named Robert Sandifer. In his 70s, well-educated and well-off, he had retired to a lovely island just south of Charleston, one of the nicest cities in America.
"Trump has instilled hope in people," Sandifer told me.
"Hope? Sounds to me like desperation," I told him.
Sandifer politely disagreed. "If he does what he says he's gonna do, we would be less fearful." He added, for emphasis: "We fear the federal government very much."

From the intelligent design web site Uncommon Descent, through the Fundamentalist ministry of Answers in Genesis, to  religious crackpots like William Tapley, the American right wing is suffused with fear, a sense of impending doom and a deep hatred of the liberal views of  government funded academics.


 Relevant Links.

More on Trump

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Generalised Fundamentalism

Wrong way round; The question is: "Explain the Similarities". They are there if you look

A news item in the January Premier Christianity magazine asks the question  "Who are Islamic State and what do they want?".  The article remarks on Islamic State brutality and then says:

This shocking barbarism has led some to term the group a mindless death cult. But scholar and Anglican priest Mark Durie says this view is a 'triumph of religious illiteracy'.

As Views, News and Pews is in the religion industry it has a professional interest in trying not to be religiously illiterate. To this end VNP has used up many web column inches on the subject of religious eccentricity and crankiness, albeit mostly of the Christian fundamentalist kind. But that Daesh (aka IS) are also often referred to as Fundamentalists may carry a strong hint; for perhaps general aspects of VNP's experience with Christian Fundamentalism readily port to other brands of fundamentalism. To be frank it has long since occurred to VNP that Daesh's behavior starts to make sense if one has in one's head a generalised model of fundamentalism. So let's see.....

Premier Christianity quotes journalist Graeme Wood:

Much of what the group (Daesh) does looks nonsensical except in the light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventeenth century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about apocalypse. 

SNAP! Straightaway that's very recognizable. Christian fundamentalist's anti-science, anti-modern antics look at first sight to be nonsensical. But never underestimate the Christian fundamentalist's utterly sincerely held certainty and uncompromising conviction and commitment to winding back the clock to the fancied practices of first century Christianity or to pre-nineteenth century science and beyond; in its most extreme manifestation this can take the form of geocentrism and flat earth conspiracy theorism. The common ground of all fundamentalists is that they have huge self-belief because they are quite convinced they have a very direct line to God either through traditional readings of scripture or gnostic revelation, sometimes both.  Although Christian fundamentalists are not usually as proactive as Daesh in wanting to bring about apocalypse many of them mark time as they watch for the violent and terrible end times with the joy of vindication and anticipation. 

Premier Christianity also quotes Mark Durie on Daesh:

ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is moral act, in accordance, for example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur'an, which states: "Fight and kill idolaters wherever you find them".

Once again VNP feels no sense of surprise here whatever: Whilst New Testament Christians are hard put to it to find divine sanction for killing the unfaithful one can nevertheless see reflected in Daesh the same unwillingness to re-interpret a verse that is open to interpretation - after all, it's arguable that neither Western atheists or Christians are technically idolatrous. But of course nuanced reinterpretation is not part of the fundamentalist mental complex. They are utterly convinced they know God's mind from scripture (and/or gnostic revelation). For them ambiguities that allow reinterpretation are considered as heretical compromise. Let me be frank: I have met Christian fundamentalists who, if the NT contained verses like Sura 9:5 providing an arguable case for killing infidels, would do just that.

Christian fundamentalists don't kill but under the threat of being branded an excommunicated heretic they are prone to some very weird practices and beliefs. In the same issue of Premier Christianity we can read an article sympathetic to a church in American that specializes in bizarre behaviors that have a lineal descent from the ministries of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne and John Arnott e.g, collapsing into trances, fits of "uncontrollable laughter, convulsed by shrieks and groans" - and there I quote Premier Christianity. On top of this there are claims of "angel feathers" falling from the ceiling and gold dust appearing on people's skins during services. Claims of golden teeth fillings is another one that has appeared from time to time The writer of the article justifies these ludicrous goings on by telling us that although this church "messes with my theology." and is puzzled by it.....

 .... that sounds rather like the kind of things that Jesus would be doing doesn't it?

That's not a very robust argument in favor of this particular Christian sub-culture! Just about every Christian subculture between here and Salt Lake city want to mess with our theology and will claim that our sense of offense at their irrational antics is a sign that God is challenging us! This is the fideist gambit whereby it is claimed that God effectively deceives the rational person into disbelief. Further examples of this gambit can be seen here and here. It is a gambit which is frequently used by churches with gnostic leanings.

Christian sects are past masters in the art of messing with theology and insinuating and beguiling their belief systems into the life of the believer, usually backed up by spiritual intimidation: They invariably have a very strong leadership (usually patriarchs) who make claim to divine authority (e.g prophets and apostles). The communities they preside over have ways of conveying that to go against their status quo of praxis is to set you self against God, In fact we have a fine example of a subtle spiritually intimidating innuendo above (albeit unintended):  "Sounds rather like the kind of things that Jesus would be doing doesn't it?" . Translation: You're against Christ and therefore in danger of being a heretic!

Premier Christianity says the following of Daesh's patriarch-in-chief Abu Bakr al Baghdadi:

Baghdadi believes Muslims have sinned over the past 1000 years by abandoning their duty to establish a caliphate. In reestablishing this ancient system of governance, ISIS view themselves as following in the footsteps of the original caliph - the prophet Mohammed.

This is also a very recognizable pattern found in Christian fundamentalism; namely, a nostalgia for the past that seeks restoration and recovery of what is believed to have been lost by a heretic and/or apostate church. Because most Christian sects and cults are a relatively recent or historically patchy phenomenon they invent narratives to explain why they are the one true recovered and restored church and why other churches are at best compromised and at worse apostate. This entails writing off for the burning huge swaths of the faithful as do Daesh. 

Finally Premier Christianity's  news items makes what I consider to be a really serious sociological faux pas.  They give space to Jeremiah J Johnston author of Jesus and the Jihadis: Confronting the Rage of ISIS:

Speaking on Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable? programme Mr. Johnson said Westerners don't realise how theologically driven Islamic State is. The Church has been quiet for years, not wanting to offend Muslims in general,

Anyone who has observed Christian fundamentalism ought to be quite capable of spotting the patterns and putting 2 and 2 together and realising just how theologically driven Islamic State is! But the following statement from Johnson which is bound to offend (moderate) Muslims (which it seems he is prepared to do) is as bad as it gets:

If you want to see a case study of exactly how Mohammed desired Islam to be implemented, look at the Islamic state...Mohammed would not only join the Islamic state, he would lead it.

Nice one! What's this guy want us to do? Enrage and alienate otherwise moderate Muslims? We need to bring Muslim moderates on board, not tell them that their exemplar wants them behave like Daesh! In fact According to the Christianity article:

Inayat Bunglawala, founder and chair of Muslims4UK such statements sound 'utterly outrageous' for 'normal sane Muslims'

Too right! Johnson's statement is a bit like someone saying that Jesus would join the Christian Young Earthers, geocentrists,  flat earthers or the Westboro baptist church! I suspect that Johnson has at least subliminal fundamentalist tendencies himself and so he just can't abide with the fuzzy world of interpretative ambiguity which provides space for review and reinterpretation - for fundies the latter always smacks of at best relativistic compromise and at worse blaspheming heresy. Johnson, like Daesh, is very comfortable with clear cut fault lines of division and difference, thus helping to reinforce and stoke up tensions between Muslims and Christians. Idiot!

Fundamentalist religion of all brands comes over as an all too human complex of weaknesses, foibles, idiosyncrasies, self-deceits and conceits: Viz: the desire for absolute epistemic security, black vs white oppositions and dualities, God's literal Wordism, nostalgic restoration of the one true church, overbearing patriarchal leaders with unchallenged authority, gnostic and fideist enlightenment etc. etc. - VNP has seen all these very human religious sectarian excesses the world over whether they be of Islamic or Christian gloss. Under fundamentalism Christianity loses its uniqueness. It is also a denial that humans are epistemically challenged and beset by uncertainties. The Christian walks by faith and trust. All that I have seen teaches my to trust the Creator for all that I haven't seen. (Emerson)

As a finale below I publish a YouTube I picked up from P Z Myers blog. It's a classic example of fundamentalist logic; Namely, that one has the duty to enforce one's religion on others on the basis that one is utterly convinced it is true, as convinced as one is of 2+2 = 4! No wonder these people eschew the controlled row of democracy in favour of war, fear and famine; you only need two sets of blockheaded protagonists like this who are as equally convinced about different religions and you've got a world class scrap on your hands; everlasting warfare in fact; ruined cities, refugee crisis, starvation etc - remind you or anywhere? - probably quite a few places in fact. PZ Myers remarks that this Islamic fundamentalist is indistinguishable from Ken Ham, and at the generalized level he is completely right!



Democracy and argument should be removed by force according this fundie. 

Thursday, January 07, 2016

The Evolution of Cult Conspiracy Theorism

Bill Nye is a genuine guy
In a post entitled "Why don't More Scientists Believe in Creation?" and dated 5 January Ken Ham quotes one of his tame researchers as follows (My emphasis):

I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it. Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians. We know from Romans 1 that non-Christians have a spiritual bias and deliberately suppress the truth. So the Scripture tells us that, yes, the vast majority of them have a compelling spiritual reason to ignore what we’re saying. And so, practically, the way it works itself out, is they never bother to consider it.

Firstly, meaning of terms: To fundamentalists like Ham and his ilk "Creation" equates to their brand of "Creationism". For these fundamentalists even evangelicals like William Dembski and Hank Hanegraaf are heretics who have succumbed to the deliberate deception of mainstream science. 

Although I wouldn't classify Ham and his following as out-and-out cultists and conspiracy theorists the above quote shows that Ken Ham has already in place important psychological components which are present in the cultic mindset; in particular, the paranoiac suspicion that those who disagree with him do so with a guilty conscience and are deliberately covering up. It wouldn't take much to evolve Ham into a fully blown cultist and conspiracy theorist.

Of course, the ego of Ken Ham and co would find it very difficult to accept the real reason why they are ignored; namely, that they are extremists whose extremism has perverted their understanding of science. Professional scientists have better things to do than waste time rebutting every error of fundamentalist "science".  

BTW: Romans 1 isn't about atheism; it's about idolatry, the misrepresentation of God. Whatever else they were the Romans weren't atheists.