It neither proves nor disproves because it reveals an important flaw—perhaps, strategy?—in the argument. https://twitter.com/jackmjenkins/status/1350830099298455553
The problem with assuming conspiracy theories have become a substitute for religion is that it assumes both can’t be held by the same person simultaneously, and that communities—say, religious groups or media ecosystems—can’t reinforce both at the same time.
This is an ideologically expedient argument to make because it assumes and reinforces the idea religions are closed cultural systems, free from any outside influences or changes over time, esp those that could damage or corrupt it.
If conspiracy theories are a substitute for religion—either one or the other—then white Christians don’t need to reckon with how their fellow Christians adopted and promoted conspiracy theories *as* Christians.
For example, what else “offers devotees a way of inserting themselves into a cosmic battle”? Christianity! And not the “deviant” or “dopey” kinds (his words & categories, not mine). Good/evil, cosmic battles are pretty mainstream and popular, esp in evangelical circles
Am I saying all of Christianity caused this violence? No. What I AM trying to say is that believing in conspiracy theories is not as far fetched as Sasse asserts, & his assertion separates different “believers” in a way that avoids (self)reflection about their connections.
Some insurrectionists claimed this was their 1776 moment. One parallel is that it was also popular for Christian colonists to incorporate magic and occult practices in their faith. See Jon Butler’s “Magic & Occult” chapter in Awash in a Sea of Faith https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674056015
You can follow @burnidge.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.