Mercedes Allen

The Fundie's Handbook

Filed By Mercedes Allen | October 12, 2009 2:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: Canada, conservatism, fundamentalists, teabaggers

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's the way I see it, and with the steamroller momentum of birtherism, teabagging, speechies, marriage protection and the like, one can't help but just want to take the easier road of rolling with it. Even my home Province of Alberta, Canada is swinging to the right like never before, cutting GRS funding, refusing to add protections for gender identity to human rights legislation, passing a provision to ensure that children can be evacuated before tolerance / evolution / Shakespeare / anti-bullying discussions can take place, and now handing a byelection over to a party that tells the Progressive Conservatives that they're not nearly far right enough. So I say, hey, roll with it, nobody likes the humiliation of losing. For those who'd like to join me, here's a few pointers.

Being a conservative (and by this I mean the far-right Fundamentalist variety, not those moderate lukewarmers who use the word), of course, is relatively easy and requires very little commitment in terms of time, energy and thought. A conservative can get by very simply with news made up of sound bytes and spur-of-the-moment emotion-driven billboards that show photos of babies with blurbs like "liberals want to kill these." It's much easier than examining the issues to try to understand the poverty, desperation and other factors that might drive a woman to have an abortion. Things read so much better in black and white.

Besides, all we have to do is say "death panels" to win -- it grabs attention, and it doesn't even have to be true, but the lefties will spend so much time trying to refute it that it will look true.

So I thought I'd make it easy and provide a little primer to assist the change in thought required to be a conservative.

Definitions:

"Moral." Only certain brands of belief systems have the right to determine what is moral and immoral. Said belief systems should also be noted not to include "affirming" faiths, whose god is totally embarrassing to our god.

"Perverse." Again, it takes a born-again believer's eyes to separate "normal" from "perverse." Perverse covers most sexual acts, particularly any that are not engaged in for the purpose of conceiving children. Consent is not a factor in determining the difference between the two. Adultery is not "perverse" if the minister asks for forgiveness afterward.

"Media bias." This only occurs when media leans toward the left, in the form of acknowledging civil rights issues, gay agendas, feminism, sex-positivity and other things that should not be recognized (see "Freedom of Speech"), without a strong voice to the contrary in condemnation -- even if the media does not endorse these things, the fact that it is dignifying them without criticism at all proves a bias. On the other hand, speaking out against this kind of immorality, condemning it or insulting it for humor's sake does not consititute a bias, because it simply reinforces what is moral and normal, as opposed to the immoral and perverse.

"Family," "The Children," and "One Man and One Woman." These need to be interpreted within a strict Judeo-Christian definition that assumes a number of things, for example that children are impressionable enough to be permanently swayed into behaviour that they would normally never be inclined toward, just by hearing about it or seeing a suggestion of it somewhere.

"Traditional Marriage™." This is an easy one. We get to leave this undefined. If anyone put some serious thought into it, they'd probably realize that we're not just talking about procreation (not all marriages end in children, nor is it necessary to be married to spawn), and not even about parenting (otherwise, we'd be more vocal about single parents and divorce). No, it's about traditional roles, women obeying their husbands and all that, things that wouldn't be very popular if we said them out loud, so we'll just keep this undefined, wink, wink.

"Radical," "Anarchist," "Liberal," "Leftist," "Left-wing," "Progressive," "Moderate," "Socialist" and "Communist." Interchangeable words for anyone who isn't conservative enough. Webster's Dictionary defines these terms as meaning "Real Americans hate these people." No other distinguishing is necessary.

"Fascist." See above (just overlook that little bit about being polar opposites).

"Diversity." This is an insidious catch-word used by liberal anarchists to try to justify promoting homosexual agendas, to push to have Black, Native, Latin and other groups given access to where they are not wanted, to promote the feminist agenda of encouraging women to develop careers than pursuing their God-ordained purpose of motherhood and to otherwise sabotage the ideal of a white Christian-dominated environment.

"Civil Rights Advocates." This must be clearly defined, because not all people who claim to be fighting for equality are civil rights advocates. Some are pushing the homosexual agenda. Conservatives define a difference. When it comes to conservatives' right to speech, it certainly qualifies as civil rights. And as of forty or fifty years ago when we were corrected on the matter and told that slavery wasn't acceptable even though the Bible okayed it, peoples' fight for racial equality stopped being civil disobedience and became civil rights too. And, sigh, we even accept the fight for womens' rights as a civil rights cause now, even though we have our run-ins with feminism. But when it's gay people, we don't call them civil rights advocates. They can be homosexual behavior advocates or whatever, but never call it "civil rights" -- that would imply that they're fighting for equality (see "Special Rights and Privileges").

"Special Rights and Privileges." This applies to laws that would classify violence against homosexual and/or transgender people because they are homosexual and/or transsexual as "hate crimes," thus requiring them to be given more consideration than would happen in cases where the accused can claim to have understandably acted in the heat of passion and therefore should not be punished in the same way as someone who committed a similar crime against a human being. It also applies to laws that would enable same-sex partners to have the same rights and privileges as other married couples, such as the right to be present in their hospital room when they are dying, to inherit their partner's belongings, to receive their partner's health coverage and any other benefit normally provided to a Real Spouse.

"Special rights" also includes granting housing and employment privileges typically available to normalpeople, and the right of transsexuals to use a public restroom. Tangentially, it also includes the rights of people to not be fired from their job because their clothing, hair or any other part of their gender expression differs from what is expected from a man or what is expected from a woman. "Special rights" does not include exemptions provided to religious institutions (and sometimes also given to religious businesses and businesspeople) from adhering to said laws -- these exemptions are just considered proper. It also doesn't include special exemptions from taxes or code of ethics laws that govern exchange of services or political involvement. This will be examined later under "Freedom of Speech" and "Seperation of Church and State," below.

"Seperation of Church and State." Seperation of Church and State exists to protect the church from taxes, unfair legislation and the special rights of others. It is not meant to protect the state from the church. It is widely understood that a political leader absolutely must be a born-again Christian of strong moral background and that their history of sexual fidelity and strong heteronormative convictions are a true measure of their fitness to run a country. It continues to be important to run a nation based on the current interpretation of a controversial and centuries-old book, despite the fact that previous interpretations have justified slavery, the subjugation of women, millenia of war against Muslims that began before the Crusades and continues today, the mass slaughter during the Inquisition of pagans whose belief was interpreted as "witchcraft" (along with other non-believers, scientists and just plain people whose property you could gain by spreading witchcraft lies about them), the continued population explosion beyond what the Earth is capable of supporting, an economic system that rightly sees God's chosen 1% of the population control 80% of the world's wealth, and the continued unbridled exploitation of the Earth's resources, which proceeds safe in the knowledge that either God will fix it or that the rapture will happen to give us the Get Out of Jail Free card before it all comes apart.

"Freedom of Speech." This should only apply to those endeavors considered Moral. We wouldn't want actual freedom of speech -- that might lead to obscene music lyrics, gay teachers speaking out in schools, hindu idols at the zoo, text from the Quran spoken in the Legislature, and all sorts of hateful things. Pornography, cursing, anti-religious hate speech, agendas that would advance the cause of homosexual and trangender activists, sex-trade communications, dialogues that question the subjugation and extermination of the Native peoples during our society's early occupation of their land, and any other controversial form of expression all need to be acknowledged as obscene and curtailed at the bud.

However, "Freedom of speech" is an effective rallying cry to be used when calling for the total abolition of Human Rights Commissions. "Freedom of speech" exists to protect moralists who rightfully sound off on the evils of their enemies and discuss the actions that should be taken to suppress liberals, feminists and homosexualists. The best measure of infringements on "freedom of speech" is to ask the question, "would this ban anything that would be spoken from a church pulpit?" (See "Seperation of Church and State.")

And there we have it. Silly commies, you've probably been thinking, "now why haven't I thought of this before?" Conservatism is easy. Stay tuned for more in my forthcoming book, "Turncoatism for Fun and Profit," and don't forget to donate to my Foundation for Life, Asserted Truth, Earnestness, Altruism, Righteousness, Tradition and Healing.

(Crossposted to DentedBlueMercedes)

(And I should probably add that the above is purely for sarcasm purposes only, for those who didn't get that or have taken something too literally)


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Mercedes,
Guess you're not a 'Real Canadian' in these conservaidiot's eyes either.

Mercedes;

Somewhere I read mentioned that the problem with combating the memes you listed above is similar to the cryptology problem of the One-Wasy Hash.

Current encryption schemes, especially public key/private key, use mathematical functions that are computationally simple one way, but are unimaginably complex to run in reverse. So, your list of memes. I'll point to one for example.

The innocent child meme is also The Blank Slate meme. It goes thus: Children are born without any morality. They are amoral. They are empty vessels. It is our duty as good parents to fill these innocent vessels with only the very best morals, and protect them from being adulterated by impure, immoral thoughts. For once even a drop of immorality seeps into that cup, the entire contents are tainted, and the child is 'spoiled'(™).

Children are in reality nothing of the sort. We all are born with subsystems that produce behaviour, to a greater or lesser extent, that we consider to be 'moral'. Science has studied, cataloged and drawn these conclusions based on the data.

But that hard scientific data and those compelling conclusions are rejected out of hand by the people who believe the Blank Slate™ theorem. And destroying the Blank Slate™ theorem is incredibly difficult, because of it's Truthiness™ factor.

Everything you have listed is at variance with what science has found. And, because of the stickiness of the memes and the one-way hash problem with refuting them, they will be around for ever... (sorry to be such a bummer--)