ABC's 20/20 on the Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement...

My future mom in law mentioned this in her comment on my previous blog post and it made me curious...so I went and found it...if you are interested in watching it....here it is...

Having watched this in its entirety I would like to make a couple of comments based on my personal experience.

1) I have heard of cases of child abuse in IFB churches but I would have to say that it is no more or no less than any other religious denomination (Catholics ring a bell?). Having said that I do not think that it is necessarily fair to paint all IFB with the broad brush just like I think there are well intentioned Catholics that do not condone or practice sexual misconduct I believe there are good people in the IFB movement. Having said that I believe that any environment that is built on absolute control results in an abuse of absolute control and there is little question that that abuse can extend and often does extend to sexual abuse as well as emotional, verbal and mental abuse.

2) I grew up in this environment and outside of the above comment about not all of them being guilty of sexual abuse or misconduct I would have to agree that the rest of it is pretty accurate. The demeaning and humbling of women, the public confessions of sins, the church "discipline", the insistence on corporal discipline, the absolute authority of the church and the pastor being the Man of God who is to be respected and obeyed.

As I watched it I remembered standing outside the Brightlight Baptist Church in Concord, NC and the pastor's wife telling me quite bluntly that my daughter's death was God's punishment on me for being in a movie theater. When my two month baby died I was in NC trying to start a church. That Saturday morning that she passed away I decided to take the morning off and rest and went to catch a movie, something that is very much taboo (as noted in my previous blog) but I have always been a bit of a non conformist. Hence the accusation from the pastor's wife.

I have my own personal beliefs, obviously being an atheist, about religion as a whole and I feel that all religion is built around control of some sort. I will admit freely though that not all things are not equal and some, such as the IFB, take it to a whole new level. The venom spouted by some of these pastors and preachers is scary and it is good to see that someone is speaking out on the abuse of control.

For those that might be interested on reading more you can look at these websites:

http://www.baptistdeception.com/

http://www.tinaandersonfoundation.org/

Welcome to the Cult...

I was raised Independent Baptist.  Independent Baptists are a special breed of Baptists.  As a matter of fact, they KNOW they are a special breed of Baptists.  They refer to themselves as Fundamentals.  As a matter of fact, one of the favorite books you will find they uphold is a little red book called trail of blood.  In this book they actually trace their lineage back to John, the Original Baptist.  I was raised with the understanding that while other sects. cults and religions may have representatives in Heaven, they will be there but saved with fear "pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."  In other words, they barely got there.


I was raised in this holier than though system.  A system that is built around rules, control and fear.  A system that forces you into a mold, forces you into a mindset that you must accept without question, by faith.  Now by no means do I put all Christians in the same boat.  I understand that not all religions are the same.  If this doesn't apply to you then don't take offense.  If it does...then if the shoe fits...wear it.


What brings all this up you might ask?  Well my oldest two children live with my ex.  When she and I separated she moved back to Michigan where her family is from and there she filed for divorce and pretty much won everything she wanted as far as child custody and child support.  As a result I get my children about two and half months every year.  The influence I have on my kids, unfortunately, is limited, so I try to make the most of what limited time I have.

My ex is still in church.  Suffice it to say that the church has provided a guise of respectability and an unfortunate umbrella of anonymity and a silent and indifferent approval to her past and present indiscretions.  In short she talks the talk and plays the game properly and she does as she will and usually does not get caught.  When she does get caught she moves someplace else to a new cover.  It has worked for her unfortunately.

The church she is in is extreme right.  They were so right wing that when they wanted to form a Tea Party chapter in their church and the Tea Party people said they did not want to be affiliated with a specific church, the church formed their own, right of the Tea Party, group.  At least that is the story I have been told.  In this church they have a Christian School, something that is very big among radicals.  They have either Christian Schools or do home schooling.  The purpose is obvious: No outside influences.  They call it "raising a child in the way he should go" but ultimately it is exactly what it sounds like...brainwashing.  I know.  I was raised in a home school environment.   Heck, Christian schools were too liberal for my parents.

So the point of all this is that my children went out with their aunt who in her good will and doting way took the kids to watch a few movies.  Now these movies were all PG or less...to be specific..Gnomeo and Juliet, Rango and Hop.  ALl clean and goo fun.   However, the school found out and gave both of them ten demerits  (basically negative points).  My son already had five points (that he deserved) for not doing his homework and lying about it.  The five points with the additional ten for going to the movies resulted in fifteen points and an automatic suspension for him.  I have several problems with this:

1) How does a couple of children going to a movie affect the school and the education of said children. In short...not at all.  This is about control.  Pure and simple.  This is part of what I hate about church and about about religion in general; the incessant need to control every aspect of a persons life, even in areas they have no place.  As a matter of fact, it ill affects their education since my son is missing a day for watching a movie with an animated bunny in it!  Really????  How does that help him?

2) The standard is hypocritical.  Simply put if they had watched these same movies in the living room of their home it would have been ok.  But since they went to a movie theater it was evil and worthy of disciplinary action.  Really???  How hypocritical is that?  How totally and completely illogical is that?

3) The children (particularly my son) felt relieved because they recieved "grace" in the disciplinary action.  Apparently the "crime" called for ten points PER movie...in other words 30 points and that would have resulted in be expelled....can you imagine?  Expelled from school for going to a movie theater?  But the fact that such control has been placed on the thought process of my son that he feels relieved he only got ten points and a one day suspension instead of getting expelled concerns me.  He should be outraged that such control is being assumed by people that have no right to.

4) The first thing my son said to me is that he had signed an agreement to the guidelines and therefore had to follow them.  Simply put...that is bullshit.  My son is twelve years old.  He does not have any choice in the matter.  You either sign it or you don't go to school.  You either sign it or you are considered a rebel in need of pastoral counseling, or worse, need to be put in a "boy's home" (basically a brainwashing boot camp for rebels).  You sign it or become a disappointment to your parents, your pastor and your peers.  That is not a commitment, that is not a vow, that is not a word of honor...that is coercion and mental and emotional blackmail.

5) I spoke to their aunt and you know what?  The kid's mom (my ex) gave her approval and permission.  But the kids are the ones to get punished?  Really?  Where are the adults in this scenario?  How do you coerce a vow out of children, minors, and then punish them when the adults that in charge give their permission and approval?  What kind of message does that send?  That not even your parents have more control over you then they do, then their religious cult and facist regime.  The message is clear, your parents only have as much control over you as they allow and when there is a conflict it is their authority that rules supreme.

I will tell you how this ends, for I have lived this story before in my own life.  My daughter is already challenging them.  This is something that comes up in her report card every quarter.  She challenges, she questions...and they call it an attitude problem.  She is not completely unaffected by this episode, she is just not affected as they want her to be.  Simply put, she doesn't care, she thinks it is ridiculous and she has no qualms in repeating the "offense".  They are, in effect, pushing her away, which is, of course, just fine by me.  I only hope my son reaches his teenage years and follows his sister's example and begins questioning and challenging.  With any luck my children will begin a  journey of questioning of their own.  And ironically, considering how my ex and her cult have done their best to limit my influence on the children, it will be the church itself that pushes them away and starts them on their journey of inquisitive minds.

Do you still think that Christians can govern unbiased?

This story came out of Alabama and frankly truly upset me.  I face a lot of people that say I unjustly stand against "born again" Christians and the religious right.  I get accused of just grouping people together.  Whenever I make a comment about "Christians" in general I am often called to the floor for it.  Funny thing is that I rarely see anybody stand up to people that make those of us that are secular in our religious views feel like we are second class citizens.  When a Christian group puts up a sign decrying Islam few people say anything, most just nod their head in silent agreement or stand mute in silent permissiveness. And those that say something get muted local coverage while those that oppose the sign placed by atheists get national coverage on national networks for a week's worth of time.  Are there people that oppose the sign below?  Absolutely.  Are there Christians that oppose the sign below?  Of course there are.  But they get muted local coverage while haters like Newt Gingrich get massive coverage nationwide.  It is not equal in any way shape or form.

(sign on I-26 in SC)

However, let an atheist group put up a sign that questions the premise of the Nativity fairy tale and all hell breaks loose across the networks and atheists are reminded in no uncertain terms that they are to mind their place and realize that freedom of speech only applies to you if you are part of the Christian persuasion.  Muslims, atheists and those of other faiths, beliefs or outlooks are not covered in that clause.

(billboard sign in NYC during Christmas)

I have upset some people by saying that I would not and could not vote for people like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin (beyond her obvious and usually unusual insanity and idiocy) simply because as members of the religious right they would put their faith and their Christian beliefs over the well being and will of the people.  The religious right is firmly set in bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, ethnic and religious prejudices.  It defines them.  Yes there are exceptions.  Yes there are Christians I respect and hold in high esteem.  But they are Christians that the majority of OTHER Christians would reject as liberals.

I live with a woman that is a professing and practicing Christian, but understands that religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is a personal matter that does not affect, for better or for worse, the worth of the person.  My future mother in law and brother in law are the same way and I respect all of them for it.  We discuss, we disagree and we still discuss and respect each other.  But overall they are the exception rather than the rule.  

Coming out of Alabama is the story that brought on this blog this morning.  New governor Robert Bentley in a statement on his inauguration day  made it clear who he considers family, whom he holds in respect and who is not on his list and what they need to do to be on that list.  He stands, again, as proof of what I have said all along, the more intense, dedicated and committed to church, faith, religion and the Bible a person is the less qualified they are to govern.  I am not saying that Christians cannot govern, that would be as simple minded and prejudiced as the Christian right  I simply believe that the more dedicated a person becomes to their faith the more they will have to choose if they want to lead or be missionaries.  In this country you cannot be both.  Simple as that.  Your faith is YOUR faith and YOURS alone.  

With as much respect as I can muster for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and others like them...this is NOT just a Christian nation.  We are a nation of different faiths, different views and different ideologies and while the rest of us may be going to hell (according to your faith) we are not there yet so you will just have to realize the reality of the fact and learn that it is liberty and justice for all...not just Christians, not just your brothers and sisters....but rather ALL.

Atheist Fundamentalism...

So Mandy pointed me in the direction of an article about this term, one I had never heard before.  Atheist Fundamentalism.  To put it in simplest terms it is a terminology used by theists and apologists that tries to equate atheism with their own passionate and unquestioned adherence to the belief in any of the superstitions and dogmas held by their organized religions and denominations.  As I write this post I write carefully, first avoiding the very generalities and assumptions made by true fundamentalists and second providing a clear view of my stand on this subject, aware that I will have to defend it to some of those that will read it.

First consider the term fundamentalist.  The dictionary defines fundamentalism as, "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles."  It further defines fundamentalism as, "a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming."

This latter definition, in my opinion, is unfair since there are other forms of "fundamentalism", not just Protestants.  Muslims for instance have a radical group that refers to itself as fundamentalists.  What you can, however, logically extract from the combined definitions is that a fundamentalist is a person that holds to a set of beliefs and ideas dogmatically and emphatically with passion and totally disregarding any views, facts, arguments or logic that would disagree with that 'fundamentalist" view.

We as atheists, the ones that actually pay attention to what makes an individual an atheist, refuse to accept this  name, title or description.  I would present a couple of reasons for your consideration.

(1) Fundamentalists refuse to accept any evidence that does not agree with their views.  Now the key here is "evidence".   Simply presenting an argument does not make it right.  When I consider what I hold as my "belief" for lack of a better word, I realize that it is a refutation of superstition not a promotion of a new ideal.  I admit to not having the answers to the secrets of life but I do know that there is no evidence or facts that prove the existence of God.

If facts were presented that were verifiable and did not include in any way the word or concept of "faith" and did not require the acceptance of coincidence, and anything that could easily be explained as coincidence that proved empirically the existence of a divine being I would accept the new data and facts and adjust accordingly.

What I refuse to accept is the reverse logic presented by organized religion.  The reverse logic that attempts to reverse the roles of cause and effect.  The kind of reverse logic that says, because this happened, then god must exist.   For example, the reverse logic that states because there is an organized and unbelievably amazing world of nature around us...there HAS to be a God that created it; the kind of logic that states that because as humans we have "moral laws" then there must be a God to dictate those "moral laws".  This kind of reverse logic skips the necessity of proving the cause and simply uses the effect as proof.  These are not facts, this is non empirical and this is not proven evidence.

(2) Atheism is not an organized system of belief and because of this a person that actually understands what atheism is cannot use the term fundamentalist to refer to them self.  Now as Dawkins says, too many people confuse passion with fundamentalism.  Make no mistake, I firmly believe what I say I believe.  I am even passionate about it but as there is not organized system of beliefs for Atheists to adhere to I cannot be referred to as a "fundamentalist", the mere idea is laughable. I have been accused of arrogance because I do not believe in God, it is not arrogance to demand proof of something so important, so life consuming and  something that demands the right to control and influence my life and it is not arrogance to insist on facts and evidence and to refuse to accept feelings, faith, beliefs and a myriad of other subjective, fluid and immaterial arguments.  I simply adhere to the general idea that if it cannot be proven with hard and tangible facts then it is mere theory, mere conjecture and not something I am willing to tie my entire existence to.

Not all people that claim to be atheists actually ARE atheists.  There are many people that are more angry with organized religion, its vicious bigotry and hypocrisy and therefore reject the existence of god in anger to the people that claim to follow him.  Just like all people that claim to be Christian are not true followers of Christ so not everybody that claims to be an atheist actually is.  I for one am a firm believer that faith and organized religion serve a purpose and to remove it completely from the fabric of society would be disastrous and an invitation to chaos and anarchy.  While there is no doubt that countless atrocities can be attributed to religious "fundamentalists" I firmly believe that the atrocities that would be committed by human kind that has no restraints would be much worse.  The difference between me and atheists that argue for the elimination of religion is that I have zero confidence in the supposed good nature of mankind.

This term "atheist fundamentalism" is, in my opinion, a weak attempt by fundamentalists to bring atheists to their level.  It is, in my opinion, another example of how fundamentalists want to control and establish the terms of any conversation.  First they demand an acceptance of their bible as the final authority knowing that if they can manage this fallacy then the rest of their argument falls into place.  Remove the authority of the Bible and they do not have an argument to stand on simply because the Bible is its own only defense.

Having failed to establish this base rule for argument they must then make their opponent equivalent to themselves in order to simply dismiss facts, evidence, logic or any argument that may disagree with their views.  Now less I be accused of using generalizations and terms that pull all Christians in, thus offending those who take exception to the statement, I am referring to fundamentalists.  If you are a fundamentalist, then I guess the shoe fits.  If not then I guess I am not talking about you.