This was so well written, even though I love in Idaho and so am chilled reading every word. Ammon Buddy ran for governor, and during his campaign, led an armed protest at the children’s hospital 2.5 miles away from my current residence. So little of the reporting I see truly reflects the reality of the religious extremism that is wielded in this particular way, so I am appreciative to see it here and in this book. Thanks for sharing.
I think there's an interesting conundrum in the "they really believe what they say they believe" when it comes to the, let's call them "spiritually radicalized".
On the one hand, yes, it is important to understand that they have an agenda they purposefully pursue, that they are not, as you say, embarrassed liberals, and that they are fully on board with these measures they are trying to impose on everyone including themselves. It is important to know this in order to oppose them and not naively hope for a change of heart once "they realize what they have done", because they fully know what they are doing.
On the other hand, I feel there's another sense in which they don't believe what they say they believe. These are not Nazis, these are not social darwinists, these are not cynical Ayn Rand types openly committed to a hierarchical, zero sum view of the world. That worldview is clearly there, for instance in the narrative of the chosen few who survive the collapse, but it is ridden with indirection. (And I bring up these counter examples because I'm not trying to make an argument about their views being wrong, but about them being jarringly inconsistent.)
They are still, in their own self perception, the "good" guys, and not in the Randian sense of "being a self serving asshole is actually good", but a version of good that is kind and loving. Their worldview is full of gross contradictions like that. Like how Jesus' message is all about loving your neighbor, but it is made into what separates them from their lessers, or how many of them consider themselves patriots yet their fetishize the collapse of their country and would rather work to survive it than to prevent it.
Of course no world view is free of contradiction, but the degree to which some of these radical spiritual narratives are inconsistent is on a whole other level, and I feel there is another key component to understanding these world views that has to do with understanding the ways in which they don't actually believe what they believe.
I may be splitting hairs and sorry for rambling on your comment section, but I've been chewing on this a lot lately in my brain, so I needed to spit it out and order my thoughs. Thanks for reading to whomever made it this far.
This was so well written, even though I love in Idaho and so am chilled reading every word. Ammon Buddy ran for governor, and during his campaign, led an armed protest at the children’s hospital 2.5 miles away from my current residence. So little of the reporting I see truly reflects the reality of the religious extremism that is wielded in this particular way, so I am appreciative to see it here and in this book. Thanks for sharing.
I think there's an interesting conundrum in the "they really believe what they say they believe" when it comes to the, let's call them "spiritually radicalized".
On the one hand, yes, it is important to understand that they have an agenda they purposefully pursue, that they are not, as you say, embarrassed liberals, and that they are fully on board with these measures they are trying to impose on everyone including themselves. It is important to know this in order to oppose them and not naively hope for a change of heart once "they realize what they have done", because they fully know what they are doing.
On the other hand, I feel there's another sense in which they don't believe what they say they believe. These are not Nazis, these are not social darwinists, these are not cynical Ayn Rand types openly committed to a hierarchical, zero sum view of the world. That worldview is clearly there, for instance in the narrative of the chosen few who survive the collapse, but it is ridden with indirection. (And I bring up these counter examples because I'm not trying to make an argument about their views being wrong, but about them being jarringly inconsistent.)
They are still, in their own self perception, the "good" guys, and not in the Randian sense of "being a self serving asshole is actually good", but a version of good that is kind and loving. Their worldview is full of gross contradictions like that. Like how Jesus' message is all about loving your neighbor, but it is made into what separates them from their lessers, or how many of them consider themselves patriots yet their fetishize the collapse of their country and would rather work to survive it than to prevent it.
Of course no world view is free of contradiction, but the degree to which some of these radical spiritual narratives are inconsistent is on a whole other level, and I feel there is another key component to understanding these world views that has to do with understanding the ways in which they don't actually believe what they believe.
I may be splitting hairs and sorry for rambling on your comment section, but I've been chewing on this a lot lately in my brain, so I needed to spit it out and order my thoughs. Thanks for reading to whomever made it this far.