by Datechguy | August 26th, 2011
Yesterday I was at the Border Grille for lunch to talk ads with the owner when I ran into an old friend of mine who I haven’t seen in a few years. We talked about the show a bit and our mutual love of gaming when the subject of the election came up and I saw a phenom that I’ve seen a lot lately in the Republican Party.
My friend is an educated man in his 40′s. Both he and his father owned small business and are longtime republicans. We were going through the potential GOP nominees when he declared he was afraid of Rick Perry because of his fundamentalist belief in the Bible (specifically on evolution). He argued that if he doesn’t believe in Evolution what OTHER science does he not believe in?
I’ve already said something in my gut doesn’t care for Rick Perry but this caused me to do a double take; I answered:
“Unemployment is 9.1%, the economy is in the tank and you’re worried about a candidate’s position on how old the planet is?”
This whole “The GOP candidates are religious nuts” motif has been a big theme for the left and the media culminating in Bill Keller’s piece at the NYT yesterday.
Byron York pointed out that there is a method in this belief in madness via a pair of tweets pointing out:
Also on Keller: Time spent discussing religious tests, Trojan horses and ‘fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity’… …is time spent not discussing unemployment. With jobless rate at 9.1%, that’s a major Democratic goal.:
After all to a guy who has just finished his 99 weeks of unemployment and is on food stamps no issue is more vital than if the world is 6000 or 600,000,000,000 billion years old!
The distraction method is important to the Democrats trying to win, but there is something more visceral going on nationally that goes beyond mere party that is being missed. Lisa Graas (my guest on DaTechGuy on DaRadio this week) spotted a piece of the puzzle in this with interview with Rick Santorum in the Colorado Independent:
But at least today I think what you’d see is that Catholics are pretty much all over the board. I mean, when I was growing up as a kid, pretty much everybody I knew that was Catholic was Democrat. That’s not the case anymore.
The question is whether you’re church-going or not.
If you’re a church-going Catholic by and large you’re a Republican, just like if you’re a church-going Protestant by and large you’re a Republican. And if you’re not church-going by and large you’re not.
This goes back to something I wrote about years ago:
Since the 60′s two unifying forces, for good or ill, were removed from the country: the removal of Judeo/Christian values as the semi-official moral code of the public schools) and the death of the draft/aka Vietnam. (actually ending in the 70′s). These two changes had one thing in common, it took two generations for them to have the following effect:
It is now unlikely that a student going to school today, had a teacher or parent who 1. Served in the military or 2. Was taught that moral code in school. To a whole generation now being born these are things that belong to outsiders. This makes the military and religious people outsiders and strange to one group and vice versa. Since the military draws predominantly from those two groups it will become more isolated from the rest of the public as time goes by.
There are now two parallel cultures in the US: One the culture born out of the 60′s that is secular and narcissistic. To that culture the primary sin is to …define something as sin or forbidden. The other is the Judeo-Christian culture that the country has lived under since it’s founding.
The distinguishing characteristic of the secular culture, driven by their lack of belief both in God and in themselves, is fear: Fear of salt in food, fear of traumatizing children by making rules, fear of offending anybody, fear of judgement calls. Simply put fear of being held responsible for anything. That is why it loves government control. Every responsibility and decision that government takes on is one less that they have to make for themselves or can be blamed for.
And Rachel Maddow wonders why we don’t build great things?
This brings us to Rick Perry and my friend’s fear of him. When I look at Perry the remarkable thing about him is how unremarkable he is. Anytime in the last 100 years his background and beliefs would be decidedly uncontroversial. In large swaths of the country where the traditional culture exists he is just another pol (with a good record on jobs).
The problem is in that parallel secular culture where so many of the left live, these views are totally alien and moreover the entertainment & news media that informs them (drawn primarily from that secular culture) alternates between mocking religious Americans as ignorant fools or painting them as murderous inbred fanatics.
It’s reached the point where the left fears the United States return to an imaginary past that only exists in their minds, bearing no resemblance to that time that still exists in living memory.
To them prior to Abington School District v. Schempp, the US lived in a Christian Theocracy where Jews and Gays are slaughtered and all culture was repressed. They are able to look at Pat Robinson and see Bin Laden while at the same time can look at Major Malik Nadal Hassan and see nothing. They look at the era before the sixties and see only segregation and repression while still calling the architects of that era “The Greatest Generation” without blinking an eye. It’s that cultural change that I noted before Obama’s inauguration:
Until 2008 a pastor like Rick Warren would never have been considered a controversial choice to be at any inaugural event. His inclusion wouldn’t have caused an eye to bat once.
Until 2008 a Bishop like Gene Robinson would have been impossible to include in any inaugural event without a massive uproar that would have been politically untenable.
So why all the panic about a Rick Perry now? Consider:
For just about 40 years the levers of our pop and media culture have been firmly in the hands of that secular culture. It was at its peak of power in the 90′s and seemed poised to fundamentally and permanently change the nation when it was hit by two giants jolts:
1. The internet which began the rise of alternate media and the demise of their monopoly on communication
2. 9/11 where reality caused the country to turn to the military, an institution overwhelmingly populated by members of the traditional culture that they feared and distrusted.
For a moment it looked like the nomination of Obama, a person deeply steeped in their own culture, might bring the nirvana they always dreamed of, but instead of the final nail in the coffin of traditional culture, his fecklessness, inability to lead and his multiple failures everywhere but, ironically, in war, threatens to turn the country right back in the direction they thought was totally purged.
Even worse it seems to confirm their culture’s inferiority complex. To a culture that decided to use everything from drugs, to politics to the earth itself to fill the empty space that religion once held the achievement of those who came before towers over them. I suspect they dub their grandparents the “Greatest Generation” because it excuses them from even attempting to achieve what their Grandparents & Great Grandparents did in much harder times. It’s why a person like Sarah Palin disgusts them so. She and people like her are a constant reminder of what they could have been but rejected.
And that’s where the fiscal conservatives come in.
Fiscal conservatives tend to deal with real world business problems. Actual figures tend to ground them in reality. They can see the president’s fiscal policies for what they are and want change, but their immersion in the secular culture gives surrounds them with the cloud of the same fear and loathing of the religious that the far left holds.
Democrats understand this and are playing it for all it’s worth. Can their grounding in reality overcome the irrational fears that the left has with people whose religious beliefs, would for most of the country’s existence be unremarkable and mainstream? That’s the $64,000 question.
We will find out in Tampa next year.
Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn and if you want another good look at the culture wars, check out Peg post at What-if called Free to be Me:
I thought that the point of the feminist revolution is that then, we would be “free to be me” – whoever that “me” happened to be. For myself, “me” is working as a Realtor, competing in tournament bridge, taking zillions of photographs, and spending time nurturing my relationships with friends and family. I ended up not being fortunate enough to have children. But, had I done so, I might easily have chosen the ranks of the “just housewife and mom” as some others have. I do not find a scintilla of shame in being a wonderful mommy and wife. Indeed; if there were more devoted mommies and wives out there, perhaps so much of the world wouldn’t be in such a shambles. Perhaps – and perhaps not. The point, however, is that we all ought to have the choice.
Read the whole thing
Update 3: If you are interested in my take on God and Science it’s here and on evolution it’s here.
Update 4: Stacy McCain treats me very kind in his own Magnum Opus
Update 5: Captain Ed asks the question I’ve answered above.
There is no conflict between the Bible and science if you remember that the guys who wrote the bible were cave men and never went to college.
God created the Big Bang. (“let there be light”). After the earth (and other planets, asteroids, etc) was formed He created men by creating evolution. Each planet, asteropid, etc in the universe gets its own version of “man”.
Finally God created education so we could figure out how He did it all. He created the Devil so we could live in interesting times.
It’s amazing to me how many people refuse to consider a candidate for fear or dislike of their belief in or position on an issue, that if elected the candidate’s can have little impact on. After all Rick Perry can’t abolish evolution. Rick Santorum and congress could eliminate federal funding for abortion but banning it outright would require a constitutional amendment, presidents have no authority over those.
Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy, Iran should get the bomb for instance, make him unacceptable to me as presidential timber but based on his fiscal and monetary policy views I’d vote for him in a house race with no hesitation. His views on foreign and security policy can do little damage there.
My wife and I were talking about religion just the other day. We were talking about Sokka Gakkai, which is a Japanese-based Buddhist cult as well as the Moonies. We were discussing about starting a new religion and what it would take to do so. You know, religion has many tax advantages in this country and many of them do own business enterprises.
The IRS has specifications on how religion is defined. I don’t know about you guys, but my interest in religion is about how to start a new one. I see no point in joining any existing religion because the benefits of any religion flow to the founders and those at the top of the organization.
I know that Scientology, which has been tremendously successful financially, was founded by a SF writer who was not particularly charismatic. Of course, it helps to be charismatic in order to build a successful religion.
Given the popularity of religion in this country and the tax benefits thereof, I’m surprised that there are not more start-up religions in this country. Japan and South Korea are full of new religion start ups and some of them, like Sokka Gakkai, are quite successful.
Re-, er, Progressive cluelessness really rears its head, when the assumptions start flying … that believers will support a President, or potential President, who shares some of their beliefs with the same mindless deference as that given to Jim Jones and David Koresh.
This is a common fallacy of those who think they know how we evangelicals think … but have never darkened the doorway of more than one or two churches to really find out.
Let me point out to you why this is not true, for either Mr. Perry (or Ms. Palin, or Ms. Bachmann, for that matter) or his supporters.
A major tenet of most evangelicals is the doctrine of “the priesthood of the believer”. This doctrine holds that the ultimate human responsibility for accurately interpreting Scripture and following God’s leading — in short, determining right and wrong, as God leads — lies with the individual believer — not the pastor, not the seminarians, not the national association leaders … and certainly must not be delegated to a secular President.
The most committed evangelicals, especially, hold this doctrine with fierce determination — to the point that their churches have sometimes split when it is properly applied. In fact, do a phone-book search for Baptist churches in your typical Midwestern or Southern city — not only will you find many churches, but many different affiliations (Southern, North American, American, Free Will, Missionary, Baptist Bible Fellowship, Regular … and more). This is the result of that doctrine … while all these churches proclaim Christ as a personal Lord and Savior, they have significant operational and doctrinal differences that could not be reconciled with their spiritual “neighbors”.
(The doctrine above is also why, unlike the “High Church” environments that the MSM is most familiar with, churches in many evangelical denominations are autonomous — the ultimate decision-making authority rests within the local congregation, not a national or global authority. Leadership is highly distributed and diversified among evangelicals, as a result.)
Now, that does not mean that we can’t get along … even in the face of inter-denominational differences in doctrine. We are far, far more tolerant than the MSM gives us credit for!
I can attest to the tolerance of a well-known poster boy for theocracy in the eyes of the Progressives … John Ashcroft. I grew up in Springfield, MO — John Ashcroft’s home (in fact, my mother debated him once — in junior high; she lost). During my college years, John Ashcroft (then a local official) would occasionally come to our Baptist church to do something he still does well — sing gospel music. Often he would perform as one half a duet — the other half being another local official, Max Bacon.
John, as you know, was and is a Republican …. Max was a Democrat. John, as you know, was and is affiliated with the Assemblies of God … Max was affiliated with the Baptist Bible Fellowship. These two groups had (and still have) significant doctrinal differences.
The “priesthood of the believer” is what separates our “fundamentalism” from the virulent fundamentalism of radical Islam. It is a potent countermeasure against blind faith in a leader. It is our greatest defense against the imposition of theocracy. Yet, Progressives keep yammering about how leaders who believe want to impose just that!
If someone like Rick Perry ever tried to institute theocracy, their own support base would rip them to shreds … for they have done that to others for less.
Understand this (and I think I speak for millions of evangelicals here) — THE ONLY WAY I WOULD ACCEPT THEOCRACY IS IF GOD HIMSELF PERSONALLY AND PHYSICALLY SHOWED UP TO LEAD IT — AND AS FOR ME, I’D STILL CHECK HIS ID FIRST!!
Believe me, we know that theocracy soon degnerates to a flawed impersonation of God by its human leaders — and know that well enough to never entrust anyone with that kind of power. In fact, this knowledge breeds a healthy, respectful skeptcism concerning those who are entrusted with less-absolute forms of leadership — like, say, the Presidency of a checked-and-balanced government.
And this knowledge, in those who are entrusted with power, breeds a humility that, for lesser men, can be overwhelming … but acts as a balance against irrationality for men who know that good intentions must be followed through with action. That is what I see in Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann … and is what I saw in George W. Bush — not the haughty arrogance of a Koresh or a Jones, but the confidence of a person who knows both their limitations and the responsibilities they are being entrusted with … and has the resolve to fufill those responsibilities with all they’ve got.
However, the Left not only fails to understand this regarding our support of leaders … the Left itself seeks to impose its own “theocracy”.
Their Pharasaical insistence on a “wall of separation” betwen church and state is in fact, for many of them, an attempt to eradicate “superstition” from the public square … replacing it exclusively with a “rationalism” that is more “faith-based” (in the ability of mankind to COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY perceive the universe; i.e. blind faith in their own omniscience) than anything Rick Perry believes (or “almost” anything Pat Robertson does, for that matter).
Couple that with their continued reliance on government as the primary force for social change, and the threat of a secular “theocracy” is much more significant than that of the Christian variety.
If you hadn’t noticed, Jerry, only atheists are fit to rule over us. God-fearing people are just to ignorant to be able to distribute positive justice as it was meant to be: totally capricious.
1. Conservatives believe in Original Sin; libertarians believe in the Noble Savage. Liberals are afraid to believe, commitment might be required.
2. Conservatives are social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives espouse conservatism, but are amenable to persuasion, provide there is ‘good’ in it. They have principles, but don’t wish to be ‘sticks-in-the-mud’ or inflexible.
Cheers
The problem of religion is that it assumes that the default state of individuals is that of unfreedom. That freedom and individual autonomy have to be justified. I don’t accept this. I consider freedom and autonomy to be the default condition and that the burden of argument lies entirely on those who seek to limit such.
Can you seriously look at the world and say freedom and individual autonomy are the default condition of mankind? Actually, freedom and individual autonomy are pretty unusual and always have been. We’re lucky enough to live in a culture that protects them, but don’t get complacent.
Datechguy has a point about Perry. I don’t care about the guy’s religious beliefs as long as he is a fiscal conservative. However, I will say this about religion. I view religion no differently than socialism or communism. All of these are authoritarian, collectivist ideologies (Yes, religion and ideology are synonyms and there is no logical basis to argue against this) that have NO legitimacy in society based on individualism. None of them respect individual autonomy and self-ownership.
Conceptually, religion and socialism/communism are identical. Both postulate a hierarchical pyramid where individuals “owe” some sort of fealty to the authoritarian entity at the top. The only difference between the two is what the authoritarian entity is and that is a minor, insignificant difference as far as I’m concerned.
As an individualist who believes in free markets and limited government, I reject the authoritarianism that is inherent to both religion as socialism. I merely seek to be left alone to live my own life in peace.
Morality is simply how to treat other people. That’s it, period. There is no other concept of morality. Likewise, “sin” is defined as the intentional causing of harm to others. Any other definition of “sin” is meaningless drivel.
You’re trying too hard TechGuy.
In 2011, the majority of Americans will not accept “Thou shalt not” from anybody.
Not from an incandescent bulb banning government
Not from ANY religion or ideology.
We don’t want Obama’s socialism, but we don’t want a fundamentalist Protestant whose litmus test for public service is accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior.
We want above all to just be lest alone.
That’s why I’m suspicious of the largest, most potentially destructive hurricane in history that’s meandering its way up the Eastern seaboard. All networks have all hurricane all the time, including pronouncements from the ONE. No time to talk about employment, energy, or any other severe problems facing the country. No worries, the O will fix everything after vacation.
Your article has an assumption that all fiscal conservatives are religious social conservatives, but they are not. Your leftist/conservative devide is really a 4 way devide, with leftists, conservatives, libertarians, and statists (big gov on both social and fiscal policy). Most libertarians are strong fiscal conservatives, but are either social moderates or social liberals and are not that religious. Many of the independent voters that drove the repub 2010 landslide were these libertarian voters. They were also major Tea Party supporters, and if you notice, official Tea Party platforms are mostly neutral on socon issues, the Tea Party is mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism.
Now on Perry’s stance on evolution. I dont like it, and agree it is anti science. Global warming is different, since I think the scientific community there has been contaminated by leftism, and I dont trust their “concensus”. I also dont like Perry’s other socon views. But I can live with Perry’s socon views on 2 conditions:
1. He supports federalism and keeps his socon views confined to the state level, not the fed level, other than appointing people to the court who are both fiscal and social conservatives, and possibly by purging both fiscal and cultural leftists from gov regulatory agencies.
2. His first priority is fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism.
The reason I insist on these 2 conditions, and sincerely hope that Perry clarifies his public positions to back them, is the memory of what happened during Bush 2, when they were demonstrating their “conservative” credentials with useless garbage like Terry Schiavo, anti gay measures, anti abortion talk, and the drug war, while their “compassionate conservatism” was selling us down the river with RHINO fiscal policy, like no child left behind (supported by Ted Kennady), the perscription drug bill (another huge entitlement), and earmarks. If the repubs win in 2012 (as I sincerly hope, since Obama is clearly a disaster), and decide to go down that Bush 2 road again, they should not be surprised if libertarian and Tea Party voters desert them again, like we did in 2006 & 2008, and the dems get back in. Either that, or they start a 3rd party.
We all know now that the dems are a complete disaster on fiscal conservatism, but if the repubs are no better, then what good are they. If the repubs should win in 2012, as I hope, they must realize they are on probation. They can be socons if they wish, but only if they put our fiscal house in order first, and make some real progress in controlling the growth of gov and protecting constitutional liberties.
Yeah, but McCarthy was right.
So basically your friend is a bigot? He’s judged Perry for being Texan, Evangelical, and talking funny and doesn’t care what kind of job he can do. He probably doesn’t know what Perry believes as opposed to what the press claims. (I live here and voted for him and I don’t. Couldn’t care less as long as he does a good job.) How is that different from judging on skin color?
I would take exception to the description of my friend as a Bigot, he’s just wrong about this and is currently buying into fears that are being sold.
The fear is reasonable, since the last 2 presidents we got from TX, LBJ and Bush 2, were pretty crummy. And Bush 2 had the same folksy swagger and the same strong evangelical and socon views. He managed to almost destroy the repub party, and gave us Obama. If Perry wishes to win, he will have to convince people, especially the secular libertarians who drove the Tea Party and the 2010 landslide, that he is not another Bush 2.
The thing that gives me encouragement that Perry is not another Bush 2 is he also sounds very strong on fiscal conservatism, federalism, small gov, and constitutionalism, while Bush 2 did not. If he continues in that direction, and doesn’t keep constantly harping on his evangical garbage, he might win. The 2010 landslide was driven by the fiscally conservative Tea Party, not evangilicals. The evangilicals gave us Bush 2. Enough said.
The Cult of the State, to which so many modern “liberals” belong, is as much a religion as evangelical Christianity. Anyone who, at this stage of history, still believes that the State is our best friend, and the more power and money we give to it the better off we’ll all be, is in no position to throw stones at someone else’s beliefs.
There is nothing that says “creation” and evolution are mutually exclusive. It is not an intellectual error to accept both. There are too many intellectual midgets who want to claim anyone who accepts “creation” automatically rejects evolution. Just because I reject the theory that lightening in the primordial ooze was responsible for the beginning of life does not mean I reject evolution as the method of building higher orders of life.
It depends on what kind of “creation” you are talking about. If you are talking about young earth creation “science”, where Genesis is literally true, the universe is less than 10k yrs old and created in 6 calendar days, and the entire earth was flooded during Noah, that is pseudoscientific BS.
If you are merely saying the the big bang might have been started bilions of years ago by a creator, and that same creator helped evolution along, as the intelligent design theory says, you are on more solid ground. Although even there, intelligent design is wrong to say that a creator is required, since any remaining gaps in evolution theory could well be closed by future scientific discoveries, but it is reasonable to say that a creator is still possible. Therefore I would also agree that the atheists are equally wrong in saying that evolution proves that there is no creator.
Not believing in evolution is like not believing that computers work except by magic, that’s what would bother me about Rick Perry. If he’s unable to come to grips with what is the closest we can come to “settled” science, then what else is he not going to understand about this country, about the use (and misuse) of military force, about the economy?
We already have a president incapable of critical thinking. Do we really want another?
(This said, I don’t know what Perry’s views are on evolution, so I’m not going to dismiss him. But since you asked ….)
Believing in evolution is no different than believing in creation. No human was there to record the process, so it’s all theory. Without a time machine, both theories are empirically impossible to prove. All who stamp evolution as “settled science” are exercising a faith in their belief just as much as the creationists.
The only proper scientific approach is to study geologic evidence devoid of any presuppositions about the age of the earth – a task that is as impossible in our schools as it is in our churches.
I think Perry’s views on evolution need to be clarified. If he beleives in young earth creationism, he is indeed a scientific illiterate. If he merely beleives in intelligent design, and that evolution does not disprove that their could be a creator, his views are reasonable.
And I agree with Perry on global warming. The “scientific concensus” there has been so contaminated by leftistism that I no longer trust it. Mind you, the way out there is not to junk all the science, but to purge it of the leftist contamination, and let some real objective scientists take charge.
If you really think evolution is “settled science” then talk to a microbiologist. If they aren’t just laughing at you, you’ll at least get an eye roll. Sorry, evolution, at least as described by Darwin, just doesn’t work. And I don’t even go to church.
Bill, that’s a rather stupid example. Perry did not say he believed in magic and he has not governed as if he did so why would you think he does. This worship of ‘science’ as the replacement of religion for many people brings us to the theory that, proposed by Shawn Domagal-Goldman of NASA’s Planetary Science Division who believes that space aliens will wipe us out to prevent us from destroying the extraterrestrial environment.
Do you believe that space aliens will destroy humanity to prevent us from polluting the universe? If you believe in science, you should consider it as a serious possibility.
When images of Manhattan under water are replaced by space aliens wiping us out for our environmental sins, you can finally begin to understand the mindset the people who worship science and consider people who manage a vibrant and growing economy as people who believe computers operate by magic.
For some strange reason, people who believed in the Bible managed to found the greatest nation on earth and the people who make fun of them provide popular entertainment on cable TV and are at the top of one of the two major parties in this country. These latter are genuinely deranged to the extent that they don’t even realize that their pronouncements are as laughable as someone who claims to be Jesus. I’m not going to suggest we force them to undergo psychiatric evaluation, but we should treat them the same way we cross the street to avoid the crank on the street corner ranting about the end of the world. They’re probably harmless if you ignore them. Unfortunately they seem to have convinced a good many people.
“Not believing in evolution is like not believing that computers work except by magic”
Not really; how a computer works can be observed. Evolution can’t be, at least in a human time frame. That’s not to say it’s wrong, just that the two aren’t analogous.
Your other issues are irrelevant. Perry most likely understands science and economics at least as well as any other candidate, and better than those with law degrees. He’s also a military veteran who has at least some understanding of military force. Personally, I don’t care what a candidate’s religious views are, as long as he (or she) has demonstrated that they won’t try to impose them on an unwilling population.
I’m going to bookmark this blog. You could not have defined it better. Well said. I hope those on the right and left who have been feeling very smug and self-righteous that they are somehow better than their neighbors, who instill Jewish and/or Christian moral values in their children, will begin to get a clue that they have been duped.
I would love to know what becky thinks is wrong with Jewish or Christian morals?
Those morals seem completely misunderstood by the Left (they fear them as if they were evidence of hell itself), and yet their own self-professed moral values arise almost completely from…Jewish and Christian moral values: care for another as thyself, avoid greed, feel guilty if you do not treat others with respect, don’t steal, lie or murder. (You will note that Islam, the religion of submission, fails to uphold these moral virtues.)
More willful ignorance and bigotry by the hypocritical left. SNAFU.
The best part of Keller’s piece is the correction. He didn’t know that Santorum is Catholic. So much for the wisdom of the NYT.
Sigh.
One of the most annoying habits of the Other Side is that of psychoanalyzing us wingnuts based on flimsy evidence. I don’t think we should do the same thing.
I don’t think it’s psychoanalyzing at all, look at the decisions the left’s culture has made and tell me that it’s not about avoiding risks, decisions and blame.
What Bill Keller wrote in the New York Times reminded me of the McCarthy era, plain and simple. Liberals shriek about that (with good reason, IMHO). How can they possibly not recognize that they are doing exactly the same thing with this?!?!
“One the culture born out of the 60′s that is secular and narcissistic. To that culture the primary sin is to …define something as sin or forbidden.”
Not true — they view economic advancement as a sin. They view technology as a sin. The most fanatical among them view the existence of humanity as a sin.
Actually, they are fine with economic achievement and technology, so long as they are in control and deny it to others.