Greywolf wrote:

But when it comes to evidence, be it through
archeological discovery, genetics or the de-bunking of religious artifacts,
the same "scientists" all of a sudden become "ignorant," or out-of-step with
reality. Why is that? Are the scientists guilty of some kind of mass
conspiracy to deliberately destroy people's "faith"?

The short answer is "yes." Listen, kiddo, I grew up a fundy, so I know
how this works. You have to be good at double-think. Yes, scientists
have developed great things, like antibiotics and computers. However,
their ultimate goal as a group is to promote atheism and godlessness.
When they are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad,
they are horrid.

Onc e you wrap your head around that dichotomy, I'll show you several
others. Education: yup. You're supposed to get one, and get good
grades. You just aren't supposed to actually *know* anything,
especially anything scientific (and having supportin g data, ye gods!)
that your pastor doesn't agree with, or (Heaven forefend) that
disagrees in *any* *way* with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

And the government? Here's how you work that problem: The American
government is good, right eous and holy when it is fighting Godless
Commies in some foreign land, but *that* *same* *government* is also
run by Godless Atheists-Humanists right here at home, who are out to
destroy America by destroying Christianity, which they're doing by no t
allowing fundies to run roughshod over other people's
religious-theological beliefs and practices, or lack thereof.

See how that works? Once you learn to think this way, you, too can
become a fundie! Doesn't it just give you warm fuzzies al l over?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I hafta go take some pain reliever. That
double-think does it to me every time.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

You just aren't supposed to actually *know* anything, especially
anything scientific (and having supporting data, ye gods!) that
your pastor doesn't agree with, or (Heaven forefend) that
disagrees in *any* *way* with a literal interpretation of the
Bible.

Steve Schaffner wrote:

"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> writes:

For example: It was only quite recently that the typical fundie
switched
to being "right wing" from previously being "left wing." Up till quite
recently, such things as govt programs to "help" various groups were
areas that just about every church could get behind. A vote for
"social"
anything could count on the fundies.

No, that's not right. What became the fundamentalist movement grew
increasingly conservative politically during the decades around 1900,
with the transition solidified immediately after World War I.

Even in the skewed American definition of "left wing", at no time in their
history have fundamentalists or evangelicals been broadly, or even
significantly, left wing.

Steve Schaffner wrote:

"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> writes:

For example: It was only quite recently that the typical fundie
switched
to being "right wing" from previously being "left wing." Up till quite
recently, such th ings as govt programs to "help" various groups were
areas that just about every church could get behind. A vote for
"social"
anything could count on the fundies.

No, that's not right. What became the fundamentalist movement grew
incre asingly conservative politically during the decades around 1900,
with the transition solidified immediately after World War I.

I haven't looked recently but it seems to me that "the
Fundamentals," the articles that were the foundation
of the Fundamentalist movement, were published
during the war. Assuming this, I think the transition
might have come about a little later.