More Trump Stuff, Way More Trump Stuff, on my other blog
In writing, there is a phrase
called “kill your darlings.” (It has other variant names as well.) It refers to
a piece of writing that the author has created and admires, but just doesn’t
fit the book and needs to be removed because it is slowing the flow of the work
and detracts from the overall project. I am currently working on a project called
“Scams from the Great Beyond -The Presidential Edition,” a sequel to my two
other “Scams from the Great Beyond” books that focuses on how Donald Trump has
tricked, scammed, lied, and manipulated a large portion of the American public
and conned his way into the presidency. The first draft included a lengthy
section on how and why Evangelical Christians make up such an important part of
his base. While the concept is important, what I wrote was much too much long and
will be cut to improve the overall book and keep It better focused. This is the
original, very lengthy essay on the subject.
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AS TRUMP’S BASE
There is a strong
correlation between being “Born Again” and supporting Trump. Why? To most
people the idea that any group of people would see Trump as a force for
improving American morality is baffling and mind-boggling, yet it’s undeniable
that Evangelical Christians make up an important part of Trump’s base.
Evangelical
Christians are an interesting American minority, their sub-culture distinct
from other Americans. If one were to talk to them, they would probably say that
what makes them distinct is that they accept Christ as their personal savior.
I’d disagree, arguing that there are many non-evangelical Christians who also
accept Christ as their personal savior or, at least, role model and that’s just
as important. At that point, the fireworks, shouting, and recriminations would
begin, because they are convinced, they are very, very special. Now every
ethnic and minority group has both good and bad people and they are often not
bad people, and I don’t mean to imply that they are. But their thinking patterns show a special pattern that primes them to be susceptible to Donald Trump’s lies.
[1]
What
makes Evangelical Christians distinct is their insistence that every single
word in the Bible is to be taken as literally true. For the record, Christianity, like most of
the great religions of the world, consists of a wide spectrum of peoples and
interpretations and practices, most of which the American Evangelicals consider
to be wrong and misguided, wrong, and ultimately unimportant as they are wrong,
wrong as in “not right” and wrong as in “not correct,” and even though the
other large part of the spectrum outnumbers them and historically was on this
planet long before they were, which, to an Evangelical Christian, does not make
them right or their views even worth considering, because such views are wrong.
Did I mention they tend to believe they are right and others are wrong?
Some
among the Evangelical Christian sub-culture might argue that belief in a
literal Bible is historical tradition dating back to the days of Christ
himself. However, the evidence of this is lacking. For one thing, all four of the gospels were
written after the time Christ lived, as were the letters of Paul (not all of
which, according to some scholars, were even written by Paul.) At places they
contradict one another in several ways, most unimportant to the flow and theme
of the actual narrative, and, more curiously, some leave out things that today
we find extremely important such as the stories of the birth and death (and
resurrection of Christ) as well as the story of Judas. [2] And clearly the story of Christianity in its
over two thousand years is one of great diversity and change and adaptation.
This included changes to the content and books included in the Bible. One has
to ask, if the books of the Bible have varied throughout its history, when was
and when was it not the literal word of God? When a book is removed from the
Bible is it no longer the literal word of God? How does this happen? [3]
Christianity
has varied and is diverse. It has included the Nestorian Church, the Eastern
Churches, the Roman Catholic Church and countless other sects and heresies and
schisms and what-have-you, several of who were such a source of trouble and
problems to the 17th and 18th century British that they
were exiled to America. Never forget that the pilgrims were heretics and
troublemakers who began settling in the so-called New World as illegal aliens
with the permission of the people who lived there. It’s an important part of
our national heritage.[4]
Others
would say that the founding fathers of this great nation were Christians. Therefore, they say, America was a Christian
nation and should continue to be one. Well, some were, some weren’t. Some were
somewhere on the fringes of what was considered “acceptable Christianity” or
seriously questioning even way back in the eighteenth century. A couple even
referred to the Bible as a fable, putting them on the same wavelength as some
of the Methodist ministers I grew up around [5]
Getting
back to the present, if you begin, and end, your analysis of the world with the
idea that the Bible in its entirety is literal truth, then you’re going to
believe some things that make you different from your neighbors who don’t. And
some of these things, including the notion that America is, was, and always
will be an (Evangelical) “Christian” nation, the humans will naturally drift
towards accepting American style Evangelical Christianity as it is the one
truth faith, that the Biblical story of creation in the book of Genesis is
literally true, that Noah’s ark, and the diversity of human languages began
with a historical incident called the Tower of Babel, will inevitably bring your beliefs into
conflict with not just science, but also history, anthropology, most of your
neighbors if you live in any place with a sizable population (more on this
later, it is important), most of the media, and most of the educational
curriculum of any good school, college, or university.
Which
means if you are an evangelical Christian and go out much or like to explore
new things, sooner or later, you are going to come into things that contradict
or challenge your deeply held beliefs, beliefs that are often the foundation of
your existence. And while, I’ve been a bit disrespectful in the last few pages,
let’s make it clear. Christianity, with its emphasis on being able to start a
new life and found a new identity and transform oneself, is sometimes exactly
what some people need to get their lives where they want them to be.
Christianity does allow one to begin life with a clean slate.[6]
Some, without their beliefs, might fall apart or slip back into dangerous
addictions or other problem behaviors.
On
the other hand, Evangelical Christians hold beliefs that are in conflict with
the bulk of society and sometimes in conflict with hard evidence and social
science findings.
So,
how does one behave when your deeply held beliefs are exposed to evidence that
could threaten them?
Two
ways
1.
Reduce contact
2.
Undergo Cognitive dissonance
These are key
points so I will repeat them again. When people are exposed to ideas that
threaten their deeply held beliefs, they tend to do two things:
1. Reduce
contact
2. Undergo
Cognitive dissonance
It’s very
important to remember this. So important, in fact, that we are going to repeat
it again, BUT THIS TIME IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS.
WHEN PEOPLE ARE CONFRONTED WITH
SOMETHING THAT CHALLENGES THEIR DEEPLY HELD EMOTIONAL BELIEFS, THEY TEND TO DO
TWO THINGS:
1.
REDUCE CONTACT
2.
UNDERGO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Real quickly,
“reducing contact” means you try not to go near or speak to or hear the ideas
of those people any more than you have to. I think that’s pretty clear and
straight forward.
“Undergoing
cognitive dissonance” is a bit more complicated and requires explanation.
First, “cognitive” refers to “cognition” or “thought.” “Dissonance” means
“tension, lack of harmony, or conflict among the elements or parts of
something.” Therefore, the term “cognitive dissonance” refers to when a
person’s thoughts contradict each other, and they start to become aware of
this. When this happens, people tend to react in specific ways (technically,
reducing contact with the source of a conflicting idea is one of these) and
we’ll come back to those throughout this work. For the moment, just be aware
that people whose minds are exposed to ideas that contradict their deeply held
beliefs react in certain ways when they start to believe or consider those
ideas. Again, more about this and these behaviors will be said throughout this
work. [7]
For the moment,
just understand that Evangelical Christians do these things constantly. Avoid
contact? They tend to live in their own personal little world but, as the joke
goes, “it’s okay, because they know everyone else who lives there.”
I first became
aware of this in the 1980s. (Yeah, I was alive back in the 1980s. I was cool
then, and I knew all the bands, pretty much every single one, even on the
college radio. Pretty cool, huh?)
Remember how we
said that believing that every single word in the Bible was intended as literal
truth requires some heavy-duty mental gymnastics? Starting with the proposition
that if one does not believe every single word in the Bible is literal truth, you
cannot really be loyal to God and be a good person? [8]
Let’s look at some
examples of how a belief in Biblical literacy might lead to conflict with the
larger world.
Using a literal
Biblical framework, the world is about 6,000 years old. People have calculated
it based on the genealogies and data about the ages of the various people
mentioned, and they’ve gotten pretty consistent answers, give or take a few
decades at most. Yet Darwinian evolution
would take billions of years to produce the diverse kinds of life that exist on
our planet? And the fossil record supports that? And the geological record
supports this age as well? And a great deal of astronomy also supports the idea
that the world is over four and a half billion years old?
What’s one to do?
Well, it seems to me that logical thing to do would be to just sort of figure
whoever wrote the book of Genesis lived long before these things were
discovered and were doing the best job he or she could to share about something
they thought was important, and leave it at that. As an author, I know darn
well writers make mistakes sometimes or, for one reason or another, express
opinions on things they know nothing about.
Biblical scholars
have been discussing this for years. In fact, some have pointed out that
ignoring the scientific evidence against a six thousand year old Earth, the
Bible itself seems to offer two different Creation stories, both in the same
book of the Bible. If you look at Genesis, starting with Chapters 1 and reading
up until Chapter 2, Verse 4 (Genesis 2:4), you get a creation story where a big
spirit like God creates the universe in seven days. On the second day, he
creates a dome to make a space among the water (the early Israelites believed
the universe was composed largely of water, which would explain springs leaking
up and rain falling from the sky, as well as their fear of massive floods.) and
creates the land, having water touch the sky.
On the third day, he puts plants on Earth. On the sixth day, God created
the animals of land and sea, and THEN . . .AFTER . . . God has finished, he
creates mankind, several of them, it seems, both male and female. On the
seventh day, he stops work, declares the job done and takes a rest.
But if you read
from Chapter 2, Verse 5, and read with an open mind, the story seems to start
over again. The Universe has been created it seems, but there’s nothing in it.
God sets out to fix that creating man, and just one man alone, and THEN the
animals and plants.
Which is an
interesting contradiction and in both my Bibles, (yes, I own two) that’s just
in the first two or three pages. It also means that if we take the Biblical
story of Creation as a scientific theory to be tested, we have a problem before
we start in that we need to clarify what it is that we are saying. And, no, I’m
not the first to point this out.[9] And
don’t expect to go running to your Evangelical Christian friends and shock them
into abandoning their world view by pointing this out. You might confuse them,
stress them, cause them to run to their pastor or a book or the internet to
find a clumsy explanation that seems rather arbitrary, one they are like to
come running back to you with and then expect you to accept it. [10]
Just understand that while Evangelical Christians tend to portray things as a
black / white, yes / no, good / bad dichotomy of “You believe the Bible and
support God or you don’t do either” when the actual fact is that position is
both arbitrary, unnecessary, and either requires a degree of lack of
understanding of the facts or a bit of interpretation,
selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of things some
of what seems quite arbitrary to people who are not part of their sub-culture.
That seems kind of
important, so let me put it in big letters. Big letters are cool.
INTERPRETATION, SELECTION, APPEALS TO
AUTHORITY, AND RECASTING OR REFRAMING OF THINGS are an important part of being
an Evangelical Christian in modern American society.
As we will see,
this Evangelical Christian tendency towards “interpretation,
selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of things” is an important part of being able
to firmly support Trump.
And, just so I say
it, should one wonder, I first was told of the presence of two differing
Biblical stories of Creation in Genesis at age twelve while at church camp. The
Methodist minister who taught me this explained that the first one, where God
is a vast and powerful spirit, is the newer one as it shows a more evolved and
sophisticated image of God than the Garden of Eden story where God appears in
human form and even speaks of “let us make man in OUR image,” a hint at early
Israelite polytheism. He’s the same minister who told me that the early Israelites
also had a story where their number God, Jahweh (aka years later as “Jehovah”
yeah, that guy) killed a giant sea monster called Leviathan that was
interfering with his plan to separate the waters and create heaven and Earth.
Shame they left that one out. Fucking editors, never know what is really good
and should just let writers do their jobs without interference.
But how do Evangelicals deal with this?
Simple. They just pick a version, or mash the two together, and teach the results
in science class. If you can’t do this at a public school, then you can do it
most private schools or perhaps a Sunday school. So let’s spend a moment talking about “private
schools,” specifically right wing private “Christian schools.”
Hmmm? Private
Schools? Hmmm? Remember what we said about reducing contact with people and
sources of news and views that conflict with one’s deeply held beliefs? As in “excluding non-believers”?
Hmmm?
Fits right in,
huh? --after all, at a private school
you can control the curriculum and select the student population, rejecting or
making those you don’t want to feel unwelcome, and if you have a “Christian
School,” you cannot just avoid the presence of ideas that conflict with yours,
but also the presence of people who conflict with your ideas, including the
millions of uppity people who disagree with the things you hold dear, including
your attempt on monopolizing the word “Christian.” [11]
It is my belief,
one I will argue here, that the “Christian” (Evangelical Christian) style of
thought and private school education primes and prepares people for accepting
Trump or someone like him.
Now, if you are
going to set up a school, you will need a curriculum. Which is difficult enough
to create if one is teaching a mainstream subject. I know, I’ve done it more
than once, usually for English as a second language or basic academic writing
classes. But it’s especially difficult if you are going to teach “alternate
theories” that contradict mainstream science yet do it in the science class.
You can’t just say that you made it up to fit your pre-existing beliefs. This
is, after all, modern times and even if many people, particularly Evangelical
Christians, don’t quite understand what science is and is not EXACTLY, they do,
at least, have a vague idea of what it should look like. “Science” should come
from THEORIES and be promoted by EXPERTS.
Which, as stated, leads to problems if one is seeking to promote
THEORIES that are not really THEORIES, but instead rationalizations to get you
back to a pre-conceived conclusion. (Remember what we said about
“interpretation, selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of
things”? Remember how these things are obstacles to real science? No matter,
you’ll see a lot of that when Evangelical Christians try to teach science,
global cultures, or ancient history.)
So, how do you
justify a science curriculum that defies the principles of science in many
ways? Easy. You find ALTERNATIVE EXPERTS who offer and promote ALTERNATIVE
THEORIES that lead to ALTERNATE CONCLUSIONS. Now, of course, you don’t need to
call them “alternate experts.” A better term would be “Creationist scientists”
or “Biblically sound scientists.” The term “scientists,” just plain, ordinary,
every-day scientists will often work fine because most people, whether they
understand science or not, are impressed by “scientists” and know that they tend to know lots of really
cool and interesting stuff. If you can’t get away with using “scientist,” try
“experts.” “Experts” is a vague, catch-all term, and one that pretty much
everyone with a bit of world experience knows is widely abused.[12]
So, to recap, to
reduce cognitive dissonance, you create a “Christian school” (ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOL) that uses “Biblically sound theories” ( ALTERNATIVE THEORIES) to teach
“Creation science” (ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE)
Now the challenge
of all this is you need to make sure that your “experts” are respected by your
target audience. This is easier than sounds because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. YOU
ARE OFFERING THEM A WAY TO REAFFIRM THEIR PRE-EXISTING, DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS -In
other words, YOU ARE HELPING THEM REDUCE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
In his book “House
of Cards -Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth,” Robin Dawes, a professor
of psychology offers an important critique of how the entire concept of “seeking
experts” can be misused and become misguided, particularly if no expert exist
and there is no possibility of developing expertise in the actual area in
question, as is often the case when the basic thing that you are trying to
prove is ridiculous. [13]
Still, there are
ways to help in such situations. Credentials help. If you don’t have any, or at
least any that you are proud of, it’s easy enough to get some. Despite it now
being easier than ever before, few people check credentials carefully,
especially when they fit their pre-conceived views and desire to believe. And if they do check, impressive sounding credentials
are easy to obtain. I’ve got a legal right to use the title “Reverend” should I
wish, thanks to the Universal Life Church, although for the record, I never do.
Elsewhere on this blog, you can read of Tammy Yard-McCracken and her use of the
title “doctor” obtained from a non-accredited university and not useful for licensure
in the field of psychotherapy. [14]
I wrote a whole blog post about her and other “experts” with flimsy or
discredited or easily discredited credentials as well.[15]
More than once, I’ve offered if she can show me that she has an accredited
doctorate relevant for licensure in psychotherapy in a relevant forum, I’ll
remove these references to her on the blog. Therefore, I’ll make the offer
again.
Many members of the Evangelical Christian sub-culture are taught to respect credentials and authorities. I have no idea why, as I personally believe Jesus was an anarchist rabble-rouser, but I think it’s clear they don’t want or value my opinion much anyway.
Many members of the Evangelical Christian sub-culture are taught to respect credentials and authorities. I have no idea why, as I personally believe Jesus was an anarchist rabble-rouser, but I think it’s clear they don’t want or value my opinion much anyway.
But
if you wish to increase the status of your ideas and positions in the ideas of
others, there is the classic format, THE DEBATE.
Creationists
love the format of the debate. I mean, think about it. Even if they lose, when
compared with the latest version of modern evolutionary theory, the idea that
the world is six thousand years old and God created everything in a week
through his awesome powers comes in SECOND PLACE, which is a lot higher on the
list of possibilities as to how life on Earth originated than any REAL
scientist is going to put it, for sure.
Not
to mention that it gives the impression that two widely different positions
that cannot possibly be reconciled, should be treated equally and weighed
carefully against each other. This is something else that few real scientists
would do when considering Biblical Creationism as an alternative to science
and, no pun intended, evolving evolutionary theory.
The
style and format of a debate use a completely different method of determining
the winner and loser as well as achieving the goal of determining who wins and
loses. Arguing, confusing one’s opponent, making the opponent look bad and
appear poorly informed, while trying to shift the discussion to areas where the
opponent shows increasing weakness are all methods of winning a debate. None of
these are part of the scientific method and none of these ultimately determine
the truth or falseness, the utility or lack thereof, of a scientific theory.
Finally,
it should be mentioned that a debate is a “zero-sum game.” It has definite
winners and definite losers. It is not an attempt to share ideas, reconcile
them, and improve understanding, but instead an attempt for one side to show
superiority over the other. Donald Trump sees the world in such terms, and a
debate with a definite winner and loser is a forum that he relates to well.
Now, I could write
a great deal here of the pros, cons, and methodology of the Creationism debate
and how cheats and swindlers, and they thrive in the Evangelical Christian
community, use them to make money, influence and cheat people, and gain a
following, but the odd fact is that I’ve done it before. Remember how this book
is a sequel to others? Go find More
Scams from the Great Beyond -How to Make Even More Money Off of Creationism,
Evolution, Environmentalism, Fringe Politics, Weird Science, the Occult, and
Other Strange Beliefs and there’s a full chapter, 21 pages or so, on this
very subject. The original was published by Paladin Press in 2002 but a few
years ago I re-released it as a print on demand title. Buy it please. It’s easy
enough to find, and if this subject and the way I write about it interests you,
there’s a lot more there.
But
wait, is that the only contradiction that Evangelical Christians find between
their (allegedly) literal interpretation of the Bible and the way the rest of
us see the world? Oh, absolutely not. Just skipping around at random.
What about dinosaurs? Dinosaurs are cool,
really cool. For one thing, they are big and noisy. They stomp on things and
eat a lot. Kids love them. But doesn’t the evidence indicate that dinosaurs
died out 66 million years ago and haven’t been seen since except for all those
pesky fossils and dinosaur bones and dinosaur eggs and such? (Oh, those pesky
fossils, such a nuisance for God fearing people. Why did God scatter them
everywhere, one must wonder?) Surely, to be a “good Christian,” which in this
context means an Evangelical Christian, one would be expected to abandon belief
in dinosaurs, right?
Of
course not. No need. Just use “interpretation, selection, appeals to
authority, and recasting or reframing of things” and consult with a few
“alternative information sources.” You
know, usual pattern.
There
are many of these “alternative information sources” that offer a “Christian”
(meaning “Evangelical Christian”) explanation for dinosaurs. The standard
“alternative explanation” seems to be that they did exist and like all animals
were created by God six thousand years ago, same time as everything else. While
some say the Biblical flood, the one described in the story of Noah’s Ark,
killed the dinosaurs, others argue that many survived the flood, having been
taken on the ark with the other animals, and after the flood most or all of
them continued to survive but in diminishing numbers. This, of course, explains
stories of dragons from around the world. [16]
It’s quite interesting stuff, even a lot of fun if you’re in the right mood and
don’t take it too seriously, but, as science or history, and what’s said is
that these books and other “alternative information sources” are often
carefully labelled as science or history, these ideas fail completely.
Which
brings us to the Great Flood itself and the story of Noah’s Ark. A classic
story shared by several of the middle eastern cultures of ancient times, it’s a
fine story and makes a great basis for many wonderful children’s toys if
nothing else. I mean, I don’t want to be a hater here. A good story is a good
story and we all know the “family survives the end of the world and then
rebuilds after the holocaust” is a classic genre, one of which Noah and his Ark
set the pattern and laid the ground for later examples of the genre. I mean,
how many seasons, exactly have there been of Walking Dead at this point?
But as science or
history, well, several big problems there.
Where did all that water come from? Where did it go after the flood
ended? How did Noah, a man who lived in the middle east and had limited time
and travel capability, collect all those living specimens of all those animals
and get them on the ark? We could go on
and on with this, passing through truly wonderful questions like “Were those
dinosaurs on the ark?” and continuing on into minutiae like “if Noah had Koala
bears from Australia on the ark, and if one believes in the literal truth of
the Bible then you must, and since, of course, all truly good and righteous and
devout people, by definition, believe in the literal truth of the Bible, then
one must believe Noah’s ark to be a true event and one that must have included Australian
animals as the Bible is quite clear that it included all animals of the world,
and Australia, while quite far from us, is, indeed, part of the world, then we
have the question of how did Noah feed the Koalas? Koala bears, it seems, are
unusual animals because they eat mostly eucalyptus leaves. They often eat a
pound (about half a kilo) of eucalyptus leaves a day. Eucalyptus leaves grow
primarily in Australia, with a few growing in nearby Indonesia or Papua New
Guinea. How did a man in ancient times in the middle east acquire such a large
quantity of these leaves from trees that grow only on the other side of the
world?
Now some of you
might be thinking, “gee, that sounds like a ridiculous question. Surely no one
can answer it. Therefore, Pete, you must be joking. How can anyone possibly
offer an answer to such a question?”
Ha, ha, if so, you
are a silly reader with too much faith in human rationality. Not only has it
been answered, but it’s been answered in detail. It’s all written in clear
black and white in the fine book, “Noah’s Ark -A Feasibility Study,” by John
Woodmorappe (1996, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon California.) on
pages 114-116. [17]
Again the key is
to use “interpretation, selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or
reframing of things” and consult with a few “alternative information sources.”
You know, usual pattern. Same old, same old. Mental gymnastics to get you to
where you need to be to make yourself feel good.
Of course, there
are others. Go through the Bible or any secondary source on Bible stories, find
one that is tough to take literally, and, if you search a bit, you can find someone,
somewhere who has put a great deal of time and effort into rationalizing any
logical, historical, or scientific problems, and offers their own explanation
of why the story should be taken literally and believed without question
because to question or not believe is to deny the literal truth of the Bible,
in the eyes of these people, something bad people do, and few wish to be bad
people.
And how do they do
it? Simple, with the use of use “interpretation,
selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of things” and
consult with a few “alternative information sources.” Yup. Like I said,
it’s a pattern. You’ll see it a lot in this chapter.
But that’s the
past and how they perceive it. What
happens when this group is faced with problems in the present?
The tendency to isolate themselves, avoid sources of things
that conflict with their deeply held, emotional beliefs and to use
“interpretation, selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of
things” and consult with a few “alternative information sources” lead to
problems.
For
instance, in the 1980s, James Randi, magician, author, and exposer of frauds,
set his targets on some of the so-called faith healers who operated within the
Evangelical Christian sub-culture in the United States. [18] He then covered the subject quite well in his
book, “The Faith Healers,” (1989, Prometheus Books, Buffalo New York. Foreword
by Carl Sagan). I wrote about it as well in chapter 9, pages 159-182, of my
book, “More Scams from the Great Beyond,” although I’ll be the first to tell
you that much of what I wrote is cribbed, with proper accreditation and
respect, from that book.
Some
of what Randi exposed was simply amazing, and the way he exposed it was also
amazing. (I mean, that is his nickname, “amazing,” after all, isn’t it?) For
instance, he discovered the way that one of his targets, a so-called faith
healer named Peter Popoff seemed to be performing miracles. Popoff would hold
large revival meetings where many would come, gather, and then donate money to
his ministry. These donations were only part of the income, Popoff received
from his supporters, as he also had a mailing list which he would use to
solicit donations from targeted donors. During these gatherings, people would
be selected to come onto the state and “be healed.” Randi quickly noticed that
as the people came on stage, Popoff seemed to know a great deal about them. It
appeared that he was receiving messages about the people from God. He would
call out their names, facts about them, and the reason why they had come to the
revival and what exactly it was that he wished to be healed of as they stood
before him. To the audience, this appeared to be a miracle. After all, how
could Popoff have known any of this? Surely, God must be telling him? (Again,
we see that reflexive pattern. “If it cannot be explained by us, then it must
be a miracle from God, and need no further explanation.” I don’t wish to
comment too much, except to say this is not good science, as it causes one to stop
thinking just when things are getting interesting.)
Randi
became determined to understand what was really happening. How was Popoff able
to gather so much information so quickly on the people in the audience as they
approached the stage? It took some investigating, but he determined that what
was going on was that people would fill out cards with personal information as
they entered his gatherings. These cards would contain a great deal of
immediately relevant information about who they were, why they were there, and
what they hoped to accomplish by attending the prayer and faith healing
gathering. These cards were collected by
the workers who ran the gathering and turned over to Popoff’s wife. She was able to communicate the knowledge on
these cards to her husband using a radio transmitter. He, in turn, had an
earphone in his ear so he could here her messages and then be able to use the
information to excite the crowd and the participants with the impression that a
miracle was taking place.
Once
Randi and his team found the frequency used to broadcast the information using
a radio scanner, they recorded these communications while filming the
interactions between the husband and the audience. The results were amazing.
And not only were they amazing, but they were aired on the Johnny Carson Show,
one of the highest rated late night shows in the country where literally
millions of people saw them.
And what they saw
wasn’t very pretty. Not only was Peter Popoff taking advantage of sick people’s
trust in him, not only was he stealing their money, not only was he exploiting
their illnesses and health problems in ways that could cause permanent harm or
death, but while this was all going on, his wife was not just helping him, but
mocking his victims by hidden radio. And Randi his team showed it on national
television to an audience of millions.
And what was the
effect? Did Peter Popoff’s ministry close the next day? The reaction was
surprisingly subdued and slow. At first, there appeared to be no effect on the
ministry at all. And while membership did decline, it only did so over a long
period of time.
The issue it seems
was that there were very few social connections between the millions of people
who made up the Johnny Carson Show audience and the people who attended the
Peter Popoff ministries also watched the Johnny Carson Show, despite it being
one of the highest rated shows in America at the time. [19]
Remember what was said in an earlier chapter on the nature of fame in the early
twenty first century? How everything has gotten segmented and sub-divided and
groups self isolating from one another? Remember how I said Donald Trump seems
to instinctively understand this better than anyone else out there? Well, I
hope you remember it, and if you don’t, it might not be a bad idea to go back
and review it again. And when you do, remember the Evangelical Christian
sub-cultures were way ahead of the curve, pioneers it seems, in this area.
They’ve been isolating themselves and restricting their information sources for
years before anyone else did.
And, again, this
tendency to isolate themselves, avoid sources of things that conflict with
their deeply held, emotional beliefs and to use “interpretation,
selection, appeals to authority, and recasting or reframing of things” and
consult with a few “alternative information sources” has had its effects.
Many of them negative.
In the 1980s,
especially, there was in some areas, great but undeserved fear of Satanic
Cults. There were police seminars on the subject of Satanic crime and training
programs for therapists on Satanic ritual abuse (abuse of children by Satanic
cults.) The problem is that these things often did not exist, especially not in
the scope or form described. Of course, every once in a while, some mentally deranged
person does something unwholesome, even terrible of criminal, but this is one
person, perhaps two, not an organized cult or sect that has lasted for
centuries, hidden until now. And there were and are organizations, generally
attention seeking organizations that sometimes produce books or documentaries,
that claim to worship or revere Satan but these are not engaged in organized
criminal behavior. Quite frankly, the sorts of groups that were being taught
about, simply did not exist in any way, shape or form close that being
described. Again, I wrote about it in “More Scams from the Great Beyond.”
(Chapter 11, Pages 193-214)
So where did these
ideas come from? How did they spread?
Again, often
through the Evangelical Christian community and their information networks.
I’ve written about it elsewhere, [20] but
when I was growing up, I’d always believed that Satanic cults that did terrible
things were a real thing. I mean, I’d never had any reason to question it or
look into the issue. However, it wasn’t until I began associating with
Evangelical Christians, that I met people who actually spoke of them as
something that people actually encountered and had an immediate need to be
aware of. Why did they say this? Simple,
they believe it. How had they come to believe it? Simple, people they trusted
who had no reason to lie had told them of these things. Again, it was
misinformation spreading through the Evangelical Christian sub-culture and
their information networks.
And, again, the
pattern included “alternative sources of information” and “alternative
experts.” For example, while he wasn’t alone in the field, one of the most
colorful of these “alternative experts” was Mike Warnke. Warnke was, of all
things, a “Born-Again Christian stand up comedian” who told people of how they
too could overcome sin and a dark past by accepting Christ as their personal
lord and savior. And he should know, he would explain, because he had been a
Satanic high priest in a Satanic cult.
It was a compelling story but it was also a lie and entirely fabricated.
The whole thing was exposed by
--remember we said we were dealing with a sub-culture that tended to
isolate themselves?—Evangelical Christian investigative journalists. You can read
all about it in their book, “Selling Satan -the Tragic History of Mike Warnke.”
( Mike Hertenstein and Jon Trott, 1993, Cornerstone Communications, Chicago
IL) [21]
And
today, the pattern not only continues but in many ways it seems to have
actually increased, spreading from not just information that contradicts the
religious beliefs of Evangelical Christians and their sub-culture, but in some
cases, particularly some of the more conservative or right-wing of them, that
contradict their political beliefs. (which, in fairness, they might argue stem
from their religious beliefs and therefore evidence that contradicts with one’s
political beliefs also contradicts one’s religious beliefs, although, I’ve got
to say this does imply that both would seem to be wrong if there’s lots of
evidence that contradicts them. To most people, it would seem better to simply
grow and modify one’s beliefs to something closer to reality.)
For
instance, when it comes to the issue of “Global warming” or “climate change”
and the role of humans and carbon emissions on this issue, not only do members
of the Evangelical Christian sub-culture show belief patterns that are
different from the mainstream population,[22]
but some Evangelical Christians in
private “Christian” schools teach it very differently.
According
to one source:
Pastor
Robert Jeffress, a member of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board, appeared on
Fox News to discuss the movement.
“Somebody needs
to read poor Greta Genesis, Chapter 9 and tell her the next time she worries
about global warming, just look at a rainbow. That's God's promise that the
polar ice caps aren't going to melt and flood the world again,” he said in
response to the Sept. 20 protests. [23]
And
when they teach this in private “Christian” schools, they follow the same pattern.
They use “interpretation, selection, appeals to
authority, and recasting or reframing of things” and consult with a few
“alternative information sources,” mix it together to get the desired
end-goal, and then called it “science.”
Of
course, it’s not science, and it’s dangerous, and, right now, the best thing
you can do because of it, is study, and vote, and encourage others to do the
same.
Not
only has this sub-culture shown a great willingness to accept the statements of
Donald Trump, no matter who outrageous, misinformed, or self-contradictory, but
Trump has shown an odd willingness to use their sources as well.
Much
of the anti-mask, anti-social distancing misinformation material that is
undermining our nation’s pandemic response is being passed around through these
networks. Again, “interpretation, selection, appeals to authority, and
recasting or reframing of things” and consult with a few “alternative
information sources”; the pattern continues, and people are dying because of
it.
Finally, my books . . .
Yeah, I've written books. Please check them out and see if they interest you.
[1] Although
I’ve found some can be unbelievably sneaky and shiftless in a work environment.
You can usually spot them quickly as they are prone to quickly citing Matthew
22:21, “ And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [1] Which in
a workplace setting if said by a co-worker often means, “I’ll act like a
Christian on Sunday morning in church, and like a sociopath anywhere else,
including here.” Be careful if you see an Evangelical Christian say this,and,
if they do, keep them at a distance. Jesus practiced a lifestyle and did not
just go to church on Sunday. In fact, I’m not even sure if Jesus went to church
at all, come to think of it. He was probably too busy hanging out with ex-whores,
lepers, and the poor, and trying to help people.
[2]
Of course, if you really wish to check
this you can simply get a Bible and actually read the four gospels of Mathew,
Mark, Luke, and John. They’re not that long and an important part of the
literary heritage of Western Civilization, if nothing else, but if you prefer
second hand sources, many exist. For instance,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
[3]
I’m sure someone somewhere has already written on this. I really am. On the
other hand, I have not heard it. Some Evangelical Christians I have met argue
that the King James Bible is the only true version inspired by God, but my
understanding is that this belief offers its own logical problems and requires,
as they say, a leap of faith. ‘Nuff said. Most Bible scholars, Evangelical or
otherwise, do have an interest in the original languages and word choice of the
books of the Bible.
[4]
Save your angry letters. I am of Mayflower descent, so I can say this. Did you
see the film, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” and think ‘Only a Greek person could
mock the Greeks this way.” Yeah, it’s like that.
[5]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214#:~:text=Founders%20who%20fall%20into%20the%20category%20of%20Christian%20Deists%20include,than%20either%20Adams%20or%20Washington.
[6] Years
ago, I had a friend who was a member of a thoughtful and progressive Christian
sect. In college, he dated a woman who was a “Born Again,” Evangelical Christian.
He enjoyed their relationship, but he often complained of meeting her friends. Many
had a tendency to soon after meeting him launch into “before I met Christ, I
was a sinner, but now am reformed, and I’m going to tell you how low I was and
how happy I put those days behind me” stories. Usually these involved drugs, prostitution
(both providing and procuring), and worse. His normal reaction was “But we’ve
just met? Isn’t this a bit personal to share so soon?”
[7]
One of many sources on this is “Cults -Faith, Healing, and Coercion,” by Marc
Gallanter. ( 1999, 1989. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.)
[8] I
actually gave this one some thought once upon a time. If God wrote the Bible
and then insists people believe it, why did he not only fill this creation of
his with contradictions but scatter things around the planet that make people
doubt it’s literal truth? Either God did not intend the bible to be taken
literally, or maybe, perhaps, he never wrote it all, and the Bible is in fact a
historical and evolving document where people wrote about their beliefs about
God, at time contradicting or even arguing against one another, or maybe, just
maybe, God’s a mean and nasty fuck who likes to toy with people’s minds? Think
about it. Take your pick. I know which one I believe.
[9] “The
two contradictory creation accounts.” From The Skeptics Annotated Bible.
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
[10]
See
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other? From Answers in Genesist.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other? From Answers in Genesist.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/
[11]
Okay, definite aside. Someone’s going to want to know my religious beliefs and
practices. As I’ve made clear, I was raised in an extremely liberal branch of
the Methodist Church. At age 18, when, like most 18 year olds, I had strong,
clear beliefs on everything and knew all that needed to be known about the
nature of all important things, I went through a phase where I was a young,
loud, obstinate atheist. Later as I aged, mellowed, and found the world more
and more confusing, I shifted my beliefs. These days I would probably be most
accurately described as an agnostic who sees a value in attending religious
services. For several reasons, including stereotypes and my actual lack of
official linkage with the group, I will not mention which version of
Christianity I attend services at, save to mention that it is that same one
that Presidents Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. If you want to know which one
that is, please do your own research. Thanks.
[12] For
a good essay on the problems with “seeking experts” see
[13]
Dawes, Robyn. “House of Cards -Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth.” (
1994, The Free Press, New York)
[16] Author Adrienne Mayor has written several
books in which she argues that the origins of many stories of large monstrous
creatures in ancient times, lie not with encounters with actual, living
monstrous books, but instead with humans finding the fossilized remains of
large prehistorical creatures such as mammoths, mastodons, and dinosaurs, among
others. L. Sprague De Camp also offered
similar explanations for some of the monsters of ancient myth and legend in his
work, “The Lands Beyond.” Both authors are
well worth reading.
[17] Ideas
offered are that Noah grew Eucalyptus on the ark, or that prior to the flood
the Koalas ate a more varied diet, or that they were simply fed something else as
apparently has been done at zoos according to this book, although it admits
such a diet usually results in a dead Koala, or perhaps God personally selected
Koala who he knew could tolerate a more varied diet and guided them to Noah or
vice versa, and then, after the flood, the Koalas began or returned to the
strict diet.
[18]
James Randi was once a hero of mine. But as we get older and learn more,
sometimes perceptions change. Within the skeptic community and communication
networks, unsavory rumors about his private life were common, and at times, it
seemed Randi’s number one priority was to promote Randi. Yet he undeniably did
a great deal to expose fraud and paranormal fraud in particular. If one is
interested in Randi and his life and career, I highly recommend watching the documentary
“An Honest Liar,” which came out in 2016 and presents a balanced picture of all
of these things.
[19]
Again, you can read all about this in Randi’s book, “The Faith Healers,”
Chapter 9, ‘Peter Popoff and his Wonderful Machine,” pages 139-181. It’s also covered in part in the documentary,
“An Honest Liar.”
Comments
Post a Comment