I know that it is a total generalisation and that a lot of the posters here are not religous, but I do want to know why there seems to be quite a lot of fanatical christians in the U.S? I read somewhere that church attendance rates in the U.K were so low that Vanessa Feltz’ chat show (appallingly bad program, cancelled due to poor viewing figures) had more people watching it than people going to church. Yet in the U.S there seems IMHO to be no shortage of religous fanatics, i’m talking creationist and people who believe that the bible is the exact word of god type fundamentalists. I have yet to meet anyone in the U.K who’s belief in God is as extreme as that. They may well exist but they must be thin on the ground. Are there really that many religous fanatics in the U.S or is it a baseless stereotype that i’ve picked up from the media?
Per capita wise, I don’t believe the US is anywhere near being a leader in the world in terms of “passionate religious fervour”.
However, the media empires of this world are largely US owned corporations, and as such, they get a lot of coverage and airtime and the perception of “gee there’s a lot of 'em” is amplified somewhat I’d wager.
270 Million people and say 1% are nuts gives you 2.7 million fundamentalist believers.
:::looks embarrassed:::
Gee, we sprayed for 'em just last month …
I think the reason you hear about it in the US is that the fundies scream the loudest. IIRC they aren’t the majority of Christians (much less Americans), it’s just they whine and bitch the loudest to have science pretty much destroyed by dogmatic beliefs.
Here’s an excellent link with a breakdown of US religious beliefs. My guess of 1 % may be low, say 5. Gives you a lot of people, but still not a large % of the total.
I think it may have something to do with the lack of a state church. In Iceland the priests are paid by the state and their wages are not proportional to attendance or how much they are able to syphon away. Ceremonies are bland, easy and mostly directed at old ppl. Priests teach kids basic “love thy neighbour” ethics. Attendance is poor and fundamentalist christians are few and far between.
In the US the church has always dependant on its own cash cows. Thus the race for souls has directed the church towards fundamentalism. If the church goers are ambivalent in their beliefs they are less likely to part with their money.
My theory.
Thats what I find slightly unnerving, the donation/salvation mentality that seems (again only going on what I see in the media) to be prevelant in certain areas of the U.S. I mean how many of these people have been exposed as corrupt? The general view of religion in the U.K is of the bespectacled, cardigan wearing vicar attending tea and cake mornings with sweet elderley ladies. From what I can gather from the media the U.S has a much higher proportion of weapons arsenal owning, bible thumping fundamentalist nutters. I had heard a theory (not mine) that the reason for the much higher amount of extreme religous views stems from the fact that a lot of the people who left Europe for the U.S did so because they were persecuted for their extreme beliefs. Anyone know if there is any truth in this? No doubt there are countries with more religous people but all the stories I seem to hear of David Koresh style compounds and extremist religous cults mainly seem to come from the U.S. I remember a Bill Hicks sketch wear he says that after a show he is confronted by some christians who get aggresive with him for making fun of creationism. This is the kind of person i’m talking about - aggresive christians, I cant ever imagine a Church of England member kicking some ass to protect the good name of the lord!
Oh, there are fundies in the UK alright. Have you never heard of the Free Presbyterians?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy *
**I think it may have something to do with the lack of a state church. QUOTE]
I don’t think as much as a state church as more of a lack of any establishment.
North America has always been a free haven for the religious (including crackpots) that couldn’t find recognition in their homeland. Certainly for the religious, America has been the land of the free. Enough room to start your own little community. Little opposition from the established chuches or change through social interaction.
A number of these communities were still rather isolated when the social revolutions swept Europe, in the 60’s and 70’s.
It isn’t that long ago religion still had a firm grip in Europe.
UK religiosity (England in particular) is extremely low, so there may be a similar ratio of mad-eyed bible bashers to general Christians, but Christianity is proportionately lower.
I seem to see the difference being that corporations in the US seem to be a bit scared of fundies, and often kowtow to their whims rather than laughing at them.
Heard of them yes, seen them yelling about fire and brimstone on cable to raise funds no.
I’m sure they would if they could. Have a look at one of their
websites sometime.
One reason we get more is that we spawned 'em to begin with.
Then there are other historical phenomena. The nineteenth and early 20th centuries spawned several religious “revival” movements in the English speaking world. In Britain, any individual group was liable to be living cheek-by-jowl with other, competing groups. In the U.S., one movement or another could sweep through a region and pick up a large number of converts while any competing movements might miss that corner of the country. So, as the initial fervor of the movements settled back into mainstream habits, they left large sections of the country with like-minded congregations. The flip side of this was that any revival movement wanted to attract the most people it could. Since the preachers were probably following the rail lines, they needed ways to attract people from farther out away from the lines and certain amount of showmanship entered the revivals.
Of course, as large as the U.S. is, it cost a fair amount of money to mount a serious revival effort to cover the country, so an appeal for funds developed as part of the tradition. And, of course, once that money started coming in, it changed the perception of what could be achieved through the revivals. Obviously, there were those who saw the money as an end it itself (the real Aimee Semple McPherson or the fictional Elmer Gantry), but there were others who saw the money as a way to establish colleges or fund further missionary work.
In the U.S., very early in its career, radio was siezed upon as an important way to spread the word. We now have an 80 year tradition of people using and fine-tuning radio, then TV broadcasts. Of course, the use of TV, even more than radio, is not cheap, so the call for donations, developed under the itenerant revivalists, became even more professional (with the same odd mix of people looking for ways to fund the Lord’s work and people looking to fund their own retirement).
The TV shows in particular have been tailored and refined to meet the expectations of the audience as it is found in the U.S. (I have no idea how the 700 Club would be received by a British audience, but I suspect that it would not have the popularity that it has in the U.S.) Further, cable TV opened up a whole new avenue for these folks, where they could either build their own network or build a network from a consortium of smaller groups and narrowly broadcast to a predetermined audience without having to compete with the shows on the public airways. (As big as some of them are, they are still much smaller than Jeopardy! or General Hospital, so with a private network, they appear larger than they are.)
In the vein of a slight hijack…
I hope for the day when the term “fundie” is as frowned upon on this board as “fattie”.
I believe in the saving grace of Jesus and the inerrancy of scripture. I love science, I do not own any guns and the 700 Club and it’s ilk are an embarrassment to Christians everywhere in my opinion.
tomndeb, excellent post. Well thought out.
Dont’ forget the long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism in America. Thomas Jefferson was arguably the last true intellectual to directly influence American politics – then we got people like Jackson and his ilk.
As a person who dislikes fundamentalism, I do not use ‘fundie’ with rancor, mainly it’s an easy term to use, mildly belittling at best. Funnymentalist is more what I’d use if I want to rile 'em up. Even it is not a term I associate with a lot of rancor. It’s like “cat licker” for Cathlolics, more a joke than anything else.
To me, fundamentalist is a term that has plenty of opprobrium all on its own.
You’re going to have to make up your mind, Evil Captor. If you don’t have any rancor, why are you being even mildly belittling?
I assume you would accept the same line of reasoning from someone who called black men “boy”. Only mildly belittling, much shorter and easier to use than “African American”, and there are lots of other terms you could use if you really wanted to be insulting.
More a joke than anything else, right?
Regards,
Shodan
Fundy is simply short for funadmentalist.
Fund-a-loonie is the insulting form.
I think the lack of state church has kept the churches in America closer to the people. Since the churches in America are totally dependent on their adherents they could not afford to become out of touch with the people as churches in Europe did because of the huge bureaucracies in the state churches of Europe. The large bureaucracies of the European churches led to corruption, ossification and marginilization. This led many people to secular religions such as socialism.
Also in America there is a great variety of churches, so that if one become corrupt or was not meeting the needs of its adherents they could quickly find another church.