Minimum Group Theory and the Christian Quandary
If it’s not one thing, it’s another
Posted Jul 15, 07:12 am in human nature, politics, religion
In a previous post I remarked about the minimum group paradigm, which suggests that people instinctively divide themselves into us and thems in social situations.
Many people in the US are devout Christians (at least in name) and vote accordingly. Many of the same people think that Christian scripture should form the basis of law and public policy, despite the fact that the Constitution allows for and encourages freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. The founding fathers themselves were not all of the same religion, but it does not change the fact that a significant portion of Americans are distrustful and hostile towards non-Christian faiths. Sometimes, you’ll hear religiously-minded people say that all our problems would just go away if everyone was Christian, if we have prayer in school, and if we reinforce the teachings of Christianity in government and society. In other words, if we advocate a religious state.
Of course, the same people who argue this don’t realize the power of the minimum group paradigm, and how it will sabotage their dreams even in the unlikely chance that they get what they want.
Sure, right now it’s about Jesus vs. Allah, but once the Christians banish Allah from their sacred shores and secure themselves in a righteous Christian nation, people— having now no “other” to scapegoat— are going turn on their own. They will, for example, get upset about how evil Anglicans— who worship Jesus— are infiltrating our school boards, or how those bad, bad Mormons— who also worship Jesus— belong to a brainwashing cult, not like us Southern Baptists— who, surprise— worship Jesus. Or Methodists, or Lutherans, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or whatever sub-subset you can think of. And once the Southern Baptists or Lutherans kick out all the other guys, they’ll find some sub-sub-subset of Southern Baptists or Lutherans to fight against. This will never end until there’s just one guy in the whole country. And then he’ll want to bring in other ‘like-minded’ individuals, and the process will begin all over again.
If you ever needed any proof of this in practice, just think back to the Pilgrims. Most of us probably have happy thoughts when we think of the Pilgrims, what with the way they forged their own way after being harassed out of their own country, and the way they befriended the American Indians, and started Thanksgiving. Oh, and those adorable hats and bonnets!
The part that people forget is that despite the fact that the Pilgrims were forced out of England due to religious intolerance, they turned around and did the exact same thing to the American Indians, in a spectacular show of cognitive dissonance. The Pilgrims were the “them” in England, but in America, they were the “us,” and they had a “them” in the American Indians that they needed to take care of. And boy, did they.
If you need any more proof, just look out into the arid deserts of the Middle East, where Muslim Shi’a and Sunnis struggle over supremacy and who are the true believers. Sure, they’re all Muslims, but unbeknownst to most Christians in this country (most of whom aren’t even aware of this division), these two groups can’t stand each other. And where did this rivalry start? Let’s ask Wikipedia:
Sunnis, the largest group of Muslims, believe that the first four caliphs were the rightful successors to Muhammad; since God did not specify any particular leaders to succeed him, those leaders had to be elected.
The Shi’a , who constitute the second-largest branch of Islam, believe in the political and religious leadership of infallible Imams from the progeny of Ali ibn Abi Talib. They believe that he, as the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was his rightful successor, and they call him the first Imam (leader), rejecting the legitimacy of the previous Muslim caliphs.
And if that isn’t obscure enough, it only goes downhill from there, spiraling into a mess of arcane and esoteric arguments that few understand or want to understand. But of course, why should a lack of understanding of the apparent conflict stop anyone from engaging in it, and mentally and physically blowing the opposing side to bits?
There’s no reason believe that this constant us and them subtext of humanity will ever change, and it is unthinkably naive to base policy on the idea that it ever will.
A Joke Related to the Aforementioned Topic
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.
“Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Are you religious?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
“Christian.”
“Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.”
“Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”
He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”
I said: “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.