There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
I am not sure about the basic ptoblem being that past evils fade. Some of the examples are still current issues (most of them are in some area or another). This makes me think there would be some other problem than just that "we forgot" when you can look at a map and say "I am not moving here due to the =issue= that is still going on. Sean Zipperer 06:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Classifying Christian Fundamentalism itself as reactionary?
We do it indirectly, but I was wondering if we should just call it out directly. Fundamentalist Christianity is known as a reactionary movement. They hated Biblical criticism first and mainline protestant acceptance of it but instead of using pre-existing theology fundies have rather young horribly concocted theological views and invoke pseudo-history. Biblical literalism/inerrancy is pretty modern despite what fundies claim, and for good reason it is even more easily debunked and intellectually bankrupt than theology in general-that says something. The pseudo-history thing actually seems to increase within the extremist level of fundamentalism-independent fundamental baptists being worst of all-they claim to go back to John the Baptist when they broke off from Southern Baptists a century or so ago and Southern Baptists themselves didn't exist til 1845. Arachne1988 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)