The difference between evangelists and fundamentalists

I know many outside the “faith” community are insensitive and fail to differentiate evangelists and fundamentalists, lumping them together as some sort of boogie men. Well, let me set the record straight, they are different. We faithless people are insensitive, and must learn the subtleties of the respective movements. Evangelists are people who wish to widen the breadth at which their cult enstrangles* humanity. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are those who wish to deepen the depth at which their cult enstrangles humanity.

On the subject of evangelism, this is a bit of Jesus-humor that is lost in the translation (kinda, like the riot, “Peter, you are my rock” HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!) You see, evangelist comes from the ancient Greek for “bringer of good news”, which is funny because they mostly warn about how hell is a real place that’s reserved for not doing what the good news-bringer tells you to do, which usually involves leaving your family and your culture and accidentally drowning yourself.

___________

*enstrangle is a perfectly crumulent word

Natural Affirmative Action

Once upon a time, a natural sort of affirmative action existed, one that has become extinct, unfortunately. When the wealthy got comfortable, their bodies became weak through disuse, overnutrition, undernutrition and cocaine. The lower-class became strong through their hard work, and this would occasionally allow them to ooze above the upper crust.

Diseases such as beri-beri, anemia and pellagra were caused by consumption of fancy polished grains (white rice, white bread, etc), which were once available only to the wealthy. The industrial revolution slowly brought the privilege of these problems to the masses (now, the FDA requires fortification of refined grains, so these epidemics have become rare). In addition to undernutrition, many of the wealthy suffered from overnutrition – becoming fat and sluggish through overindulgence. The proletariat remained lean and mean.

Cocaine (and many other recreational drugs) used to be available only to the rich. It’s use as a recreational drug (in powder form) goes back to the 1860s. It was common for nobility to grow long fingernails on their pinky fingers to snort the stuff. So, as soon as the wealthy stopped having malnutrition, they had cocaine.

But as of the 1980s, a chemical and marketing product mix known as crack came about, and now for once cocaine gained the ability to ruin poor peoples’ lives too. Oh yeah, and through farm subsidies and new technology, food is really cheap, meaning the poor are just as vulnerable as the rich of obesity. Thank you, McDonald’s!

So, are there, or will there be in the future, any natural forms of affirmative action? That is, are there phenomenon that naturally equalize situations where class might otherwise be a noose people are born in? Avoid the obvious answers (complacency). Discuss…