Free church, now that is scary.

@Allamanda
It does appear that way to the casual observer, but upon closer inspection turns out not to be the case, at least as practiced by the individual, and probably doctrinally in some cases such as certain Buddhist sects, etc.

I agree with Matias, that the culprit is conservatism rather than religion. How one tells the difference is whether the practitioner takes the scripture literally or understands it as allegory.

What conservatives are predisposed to is fundamentalism, not religion. If religion and fundamentalism were the same thing we would not see the phrase ‘fundamentalist religion.’ It would be like saying ‘wet water.’

Ali knows this herself, she is just using the word religion here as shorthand.
“Hirsi Ali maintains that "Islam is part religion, and part a political-military doctrine, the part that is a political doctrine contains a world view, a system of laws and a moral code that is totally incompatible with our constitution, our laws, and our way of life." Having previously argued that Islam was beyond reform, in her 2015 book Heretic, she called for a reformation of Islam by defeating the Islamists and supporting reformist Muslims.”
[en.wikipedia.org]

She supports reformist Muslims. What are reformist Muslims you ask?

“The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the >> original << (emphasis mine) interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Quran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad...”
[en.wikipedia.org]

Religious reformers of all denominations understand that the human tendency toward conservatism draws people and institutions alike toward a corruption of original religious insight, and are forever campaigning for a return to the original, liberal principles of love, forgiveness, charity, acceptance, community, etc.

@Allamanda
Yes, semantic complications are an unfortunate drag on all conversations of depth, but can usually be overcome by taking the time to further discuss intentions. My point is not to try to define conservatism in solely religious terms, but to convey the idea that it is a human tendency to pervert not only religion, but every field of human interaction, toward our natural animal instincts of selfishness, xenophobia, sexism, etc., and it is the original intention of religion (at minimum the largest religion on earth, and most major world religions, if not all religions) to counter these impulses with discipline and training.

I’m not sure specifically what you are referring to when you say “...wasn't the case in any form of mainstream Christianity until some point in very recent times (within our lifetimes).” so I will wait for clarification before responding to that, but as for apologetics, my motivation is not fueled by a desire to be gracious, but a desire to be historically accurate and contemporarily practical.

If I can be shown evidence to the contrary I will happily change my stance, but I am currently convinced that original Christianity, for example, (that is to say the teachings of the ‘character’ named Jesus in the Biblical stories) was intended as a corrective for, rather than an entrenchment of, xenophobic, sexist instincts.

I do realize this is a minority opinion among non-believers, as well as among believers for that matter, but going with the crowd was never my intention. I’m just trying to discern fact from popular opinion.

@Allamanda
Well, yes, that’s what I’m saying, that this literalist, fundamentalist interpretation is not the original intent of “religion” and therefore is not how we should define religion, but call it what it is: fundamentalism.

@Allamanda
You can never separate humans from error in actuality, but you can separate any two abstractions that have different qualities, in our thinking and in our speech.

But just because you can’t separate humans from their errors in religion, or government, or business, does not then mean it would be wise or practical to continuously force ourselves to look for words to replace religion, government, and business.

These three fields will always be with us, and they will always need constant reform, but to call them by a different name every day only adds to the confusion. What’s worse is, that to do so allows the misbehavers to control the narrative.

Fundamentalists do not own religion, and they do not own culture, and they do not have the moral authority to force the entire society to change how it speaks about time-honored institutions. If they don’t like that, they can look for a new word to call what they do. Well-informed people have no obligation to surrender their historical culture to transient interlopers.

@Allamanda
Those two descriptions fairly well do describe you and me, but I’m not sure it applies generally to this particular issue. I’m every bit as much at odds with my fellow USians on this topic. I would be hard pressed (indeed I have found zero in person) to find a living American atheist or believer who sees it this way. I can only find them in history books or in the writings of academics.

@Allamanda
Yes, that’s a very real risk, but as I say, I’m not the only one; just the only one I know personally. And shouldn’t we judge an idea on its merits instead of how many oeople hold it?

@Allamanda
I’m glad to hear that!
Let me add that I am not emotionally invested in this position; if I find out tomorrow that I’m wrong, I’ll only be glad that I learned better, but that is how it appears to me today.

As for cultural differences in the meanings of words...
I realize words like conservative and liberal have many different meanings, not only by way of international variation, but across time and even within a single culture.
I enjoy hearing other perspectives. I’m here to learn.

@Allamanda
I’m not certain if I understand your point or not. I do realize the word conservative doesn’t have any direct definitional connection to the word fundamentalist, just like it doesn’t imply three piece suit, but still I’m of the impression I’m more likely to find a conservative in a three piece suit than in bell bottomed jeans and a tank top.

@Allamanda
Well you certainly could be and I'm sure there are a few, but which way do you think the statistical averages lean?

@Allamanda
The link between the two is rule-based moral processing.

"Moral judgments are highly influenced by religious and political ideologies. Here we propose that, in addition to shaping opinions on domain-specific issues, religious and political ideologies also entail distinct approaches to moral reasoning. Specifically, we argue that both Christian fundamentalism and political conservatism are associated with rule-based moral processing. This style of moral processing involves solving moral problems through quick and unequivocal application of previously established moral codes. We test these hypotheses by examining responses to abstract moral dilemmas that pit rule-based moral processing against more flexible consequentialist moral processing outside the political and religious arenas. Across five dilemmas, Christian fundamentalism and political conservatism were associated with the use of rule-based moral processing. Notably, both ideologies continued to predict the use of rule-based moral processing when the other was held constant, suggesting that, while correlated, each makes a unique contribution to the use of rule-based processing in solving moral dilemmas. These findings reflect and expand previous insights into the cognitive traits of political conservatives and religious fundamentalists while offering new avenues for exploring how these traits influence contested moral issues."

"The Religious Fundamentalism (RF) Scale showed high reliability (.91). Participants’ mean scores on the 9-point RF scale were 6.04 (SD2.07). Participants’ mean conservatism scores were 5.81 (SD2.48 ) on a 10-point Likert scale. Consistent with past research, there was a significant positive correlation between political conservatism and religious fundamentalism (r.63,p.001)."

[apa.org]

@Allamanda
Yes they're separate things... that hang out together. If I need to revise my statement "the culprit is conservatism rather than religion" to "the culprit is fundamentalism rather than religion" (which was my original statement anyway) in order to be more precise, I have no problem with that, but I still think, loosely speaking, that conservatism is more terrified by free speech, free thought and free women than "religion" per se is. Conservatism in essence is just resistance to change, and free-speech, -thought, and -women represent change.

@Allamanda But being 'spiritual' isn't too far from being 'religious'...I also would pose the same question: Why are women more 'spiritual' than their male counterparts? Is there an explanation on the cultural level? It is something I'm curious about as a non-spiritual woman. It is a common expectation that women are more likely to pray, worship, attend religious services, etc etc.

If my own mother serves as an example, she often referred to herself as a "Handmaiden of the Lord" and in this strange state of self imposed slavery she often considered and expressed herself as being morally superior to other women, less favoured by god, or less holy in their servitude to her imaginary slave master.
This strange form of self delusion and self aggrandisement by self abasement gave her great comfort and a smugg snobbery that was utterly pathetic to watch.
I believe the same form of "Holier than thou" delusion is the reason many women cling to religion, especially those who have bought in to the male superiority myth, feeling that somehow being a slave to god moves them up the pecking order by giving them some one to Laud it over and to despise as being less worthy than themselves.