A few weeks back I was on a blog that was reporting that in a poll fundamentalist Christians show less human foibles than atheists, so America would be far better off with conservative Christians in charge. Being the indomitable skeptic that I suppose I am, I questioned the veracity of the poll because it was a self-reporting sort. Who's to say that all the folks taking the poll answered honestly?
In fact, I submit that chances are really strong that the fundamentalists were less than candid. Why do I think this? Well, if you put forth a certain perspective of the world, the last thing most of us wish to do is paint ourselves as hypocrites! So, even if a stranger asks you a question, most people wouldn't want to expose that they believe one way, but behave quite to the contrary.
For example, let's say you've self-identified yourself as a devout pacifist. The interviewer asks if you've ever struck someone in anger. If you answer YES, then you're admitting that your beliefs obviously aren't that strong. Since many people obtain their feelings of self-worth through the labels that separate them from others, admitting that you're just as flawed as anyone else shreds that veil of separation.
Even if a person is filling out a questionnaire on paper anonymously, providing genuinely honest answers might mean having to admit to yourself that you're indeed a hypocrite. That is sometimes worse than admitting it to others!
Of course, during my comments on the aforementioned blog, someone pointed out that a conservative Christian would believe that lying is bad, so we must believe that such people answered each question honestly.
For me, this requires a great leap of faith. Since polls of this nature are purely voluntary, people who have something to hide -- from the outside world or themselves -- might simply refuse to participate. If you don't allow difficult questions to be asked, then you don't have to be frank. You can continue to delude yourself that your behavior is always in line with your beliefs.
In the end, I don't believe fundamentalists are any better nor any worse than other segments of the population. We all make mistakes. We all make miscalculations. We all take more than we need and give less than we should. And we all fail to live up to our high and mighty opinions of ourselves.
In fact, I submit that chances are really strong that the fundamentalists were less than candid. Why do I think this? Well, if you put forth a certain perspective of the world, the last thing most of us wish to do is paint ourselves as hypocrites! So, even if a stranger asks you a question, most people wouldn't want to expose that they believe one way, but behave quite to the contrary.
For example, let's say you've self-identified yourself as a devout pacifist. The interviewer asks if you've ever struck someone in anger. If you answer YES, then you're admitting that your beliefs obviously aren't that strong. Since many people obtain their feelings of self-worth through the labels that separate them from others, admitting that you're just as flawed as anyone else shreds that veil of separation.
Even if a person is filling out a questionnaire on paper anonymously, providing genuinely honest answers might mean having to admit to yourself that you're indeed a hypocrite. That is sometimes worse than admitting it to others!
Of course, during my comments on the aforementioned blog, someone pointed out that a conservative Christian would believe that lying is bad, so we must believe that such people answered each question honestly.
For me, this requires a great leap of faith. Since polls of this nature are purely voluntary, people who have something to hide -- from the outside world or themselves -- might simply refuse to participate. If you don't allow difficult questions to be asked, then you don't have to be frank. You can continue to delude yourself that your behavior is always in line with your beliefs.
In the end, I don't believe fundamentalists are any better nor any worse than other segments of the population. We all make mistakes. We all make miscalculations. We all take more than we need and give less than we should. And we all fail to live up to our high and mighty opinions of ourselves.
"...many people obtain their feelings of self-worth through the labels that separate them from others"
ReplyDeleteSo true.
And we're all hypocrites, inasmuch as our actions fail to live up to our stated beliefs 100% of the time. And as far as I know, that's every human being on the planet.
Hi, I like your words here. They make me remember that one thing we all have to deal with.....being human.
ReplyDeletePolls such as these are almost always designed to produce the answers that one wants to get. Depending on how I design and deliver the question I can elicit specific responses.
ReplyDeleteI would be careful in your use of generalizations "all", however I know what you are saying. We are imperfect in our perfection. We are growing, we often do strive towards ideals and this is no different no matter what label we may choose to adhere myself to.
I definitely have to agree with Mark here about polls producing the results desired. Forest, I don't think that the lack of maintaining 100% is hypocrisy, so much as human fallibility. In that case, I think intent is the defining factor.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I tend to be leery of fundamentalists (of any sort), because, like most fervent believers, they tend to think it's okay to impose their beliefs on everyone else. It seems that the more fervent the beliefs, the more they think it's okay... and that goes for just about any strong beliefs, not just religous. (A non-religion example would be the imposition of Prohibition, or the actions of the KKK.)
Great comments all! Each of you has made good points that better threshes out the initial seed I sought to plant.
ReplyDelete"...and that goes for just about any strong beliefs, not just religous. (A non-religion example would be the imposition of Prohibition, or the actions of the KKK.)"
ReplyDeleteScott, I would posit that a large part (if not all) of the motivation for prohibition was religious in nature, and the KKK is at least a quasi-religious organization, motivated also by a warped religious sensibility.
So I have yet to see an example "non-religious" views and actions that spawn the same sort of hypocrisy and wish to impose one's own way upon others that one finds with religion.... I'm not saying it can'r happen, I'm just not coming up with an example of it in my thinking about this. The list of examples of religion doing these is, of course, virtually endless....
Forest, here's a non-religious one for you: the cults of personality that formed around Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. The strong belief was in their personal "greatness" (whatever that is), or the superiority of their message. Granted, the expression of those cults had many things in common with religions (hence the name), but they weren't religions.
ReplyDeleteOops, almost forgot: the KKK only used religion as a cover, that wasn't their primary motivation. Christianity was a convenient way to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
ReplyDelete"Christianity was a convenient way to justify what they wanted to do anyway."
ReplyDeleteUm well yes, exactly. The goal of most religion is either justifying oneself, or using your religion to justify your actions towards others. Along with, of course, the goal of controlling other people's actions through telling them what God tells them to do...
Actually following the path of those the religion is supposedly based upon is a rare option that a lot more people really ought to try sometime....
Ok Scott, I'll accept that one, though even then as you say, the expression of it had much in common with religion.
ReplyDeleteThank you for engaging the conversation. :)
Peace
Donna:"The goal of most religion is either justifying oneself, or using your religion to justify your actions towards others. Along with, of course, the goal of controlling other people's actions through telling them what God tells them to do..."
ReplyDeleteNo, I think the goal of most religion is to comfort people, and the majority of those who seek no leadership role at least think they are following the altruistic tenets. Can't remember where I read it in the last week or so (TRT?), but it's only inside comic books that people intend to be evil. IRL, even Hitler saw himself as a good guy.
FW, I've enjoyed this conversation, too. :)
"...even Hitler saw himself as a good guy
ReplyDeleteDelusions are inexhaustable, aren't they?
;)
Almost every person or side believes that they are standing up for righteous justice. This is one of the reasons I don't like the common use of the word "terrorist".
ReplyDeleteIn truth, a terrorist is someone on the other side. Both you and they may be committing the same kinds of acts, but you will see yours as wholly justified and not theirs. Of course, they see it exactly the same way except that their acts are justified, but not yours.
The word "terrorist" often gets misused, it is true, but so does almost every other label.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who murders innocents in the name of politics IS a terrorist.
Words may be the virus that finally buries our species. Or rather: the misuse of words.