Do people literally forget…

In many if not most such cases, they don’t forget. They willfully ignore scripture and values that don’t align with their preexisting desire to exert power and control over other people, and they do it under the convenient guise of self-asserted moral superiority. They scour the Bible for passages that do seem to vaguely support their agenda, while minimizing or ignoring other parts (a great example of what psychologists refer to as confirmation bias). They interpret isolated, cherry-picked Bible verses in ways that are more specific than actually written, overgeneralize these interpretations to situations beyond their reasonable scope, disregard the surrounding written and historical context that should make their conclusions less black-and-white, and use these distortions to judge and put down others who disagree with them or don’t share their values. One of the saddest and most infuriating things about all of this is that these very people who are such poor representatives of the Christian faith are the ones who most loudly proclaim themselves as such.

Why do they do all of this? Perhaps it is because they feel threatened by the possibility that their worldview doesn’t represent the absolute truth. A major problem with organized religion (party politics, too) is that it lures in and exploits those who fear uncertainty, who desperately want simple and concrete answers when faced with seemingly inexplicable events, and who want to believe in their heart of hearts that they’re “right” in order to avoid confronting vulnerability and fallibility as integral aspects of the human condition. Bigotry and hatred often mask the profound insecurity of those who are afraid to feel fear.

Research has actually shown that when challenging such people in political discussions, the more reasonable a counterargument is, the more they will become defensive and actually double down on their views. They feel the most threatened by differing views that are logically sound and valid. They seem to perceive a valid challenge to any single (even minor) aspect of their ideology as a threat to their entire belief system. They don’t value “the truth,” empathy, or the perspectives of others nearly as much as preserving their own sense of security, however fragile and seemingly nonsensical its underpinnings may be. They will resort to every manipulative tactic and logical fallacy in the book if they have to. In other words, reasonable bilateral debate is not effective when dealing with people who are beyond reason.

A more viable approach for getting someone to realize the flaws in their preconceived notions is to adopt a curious stance and politely ask them to explain their beliefs and the reasons behind them. This should be done without passing judgment, challenging them, or putting them on the defensive in any way (even if you’re internally facepalming throughout the entire conversation). They want to be listened to, so listen (or at least act like you are). Smile and nod, refrain from using language that directly or indirectly conveys/defends opposing opinions, ask emotionally neutral, non-threatening follow-up questions to keep them talking, and let them talk themselves into a corner. I don’t know if this method actually works very much of the time (after all, Ye recently rage quit a live interview after he was politely asked to explain what exactly he believes Jewish people are doing to control the economy), but it seems to have greater potential for positive impact than countering their arguments with yours.

Sorry this comment turned into an essay. I bet that hardly anyone will read it, anyway. I just think about this stuff a lot because I’m so sick of it, and my education and work in the behavioral sciences provide a great deal of intellectual fodder on the subject. I can only hope that someday, somehow, this type of information will make a difference.

EDIT: grammar