Christian values

[Guest]

Because Christians are leaving the church, leaving organized religion.

I skipped church today. Again.

Last time I attended I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I had virtually no chance of salvation due to my - moderate - views. None.

I was told that unless I was defeated, broken-hearted, and crawling on my knees to God, I would not be welcome.

This was a guest minister as our church is still searching for a replacement pastor. He's not one of the candidates and this normally is not a holy roller type of establishment.

But no wonder people are leaving organized religion. No wonder there is a mistrust of these things. No wonder. What do they expect?

The moderate people are getting away from it all, leaving the die-hard, rabid followers behind and in control. In power.

Non-fascist Christians aren't defending it, perhaps, because they no longer feel they can be practicing Christians. How can you defend what confounds you? How can you argue for that which excludes you?

 

[Pure]

note to shang

BS However, what the amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Shang, i dealt with the last phrase, later in the post.

But it's a valid issue, if the government could spread the money out to all mainstream xians and jews, and argue that no one religion is "established."

It's also valid to point out that 'established' is not quite the same as 'directly subsidized.' The courts however would take the latter to indicate the former. Could you 'establish' without directly paying:
Well one atheist argument is that 'tax breaks' already operate as support: so the official judeo xian 'religion' could just be given tax free status, land, etc.

 

[cantdog]

Well, you could be right. But i haven't had to sweat Christians much, until lately. I miss that. It goes against my grain to be leery of them.

Even something like Shang's example

or if I make a program that gives financial support to any church that supplies food to the indigent and fills out the appropriate paperwork,

now makes me shudder a little. I have lost trust in the whole kit and boiling of them. And I may have come to that point a bit late in the game.

On the plus side, I was pleased to see Desmond Tutu arguing that the Anglican church worldwide needs to release its obsessive focus on sexuality and look at issues like poverty and justice as well. I think that the same can be said for nearly all Christian faiths, and I've been glad to hear more voices in America saying the same thing.

Shang again. The thing is, these people treat it like a millennia-long debate. You'd think they had all the time there is. I know, there's little joy to be had in one brand of Christianity attacking another on the ground that they have perverted the Message. But they do it at least once in two nights on any Christian Broadcasting Network program, from the other side. They do not hesitate to tell their flock that moderates have lost the Way. A bland opinion that the focus ought to change is not cutting it.

And to be sure, there's little joy to be had in denigrating these Fundies from an atheist standpoint. But I guess I shall have to haul up the slacks and start in. I feel more and more that I and my society are in the path of a juggernaut. It's been my conviction that non-fascist Christians are standing in that same path, but they sure don't act like it. Do they imagine they will be exempt? If so, then all the more reason for me and other atheist freedom-mongers to oppose you fellows, too. Because to be unconcerned about what happens to me is to throw me to the sharks, and I can't take that kindly.

 

[Weird Harold]

...I know, there's little joy to be had in one brand of Christianity attacking another on the ground that they have perverted the Message. But they do it at least once in two nights on any Christian Broadcasting Network program, from the other side. They do not hesitate to tell their flock that moderates have lost the Way. A bland opinion that the focus ought to change is not cutting it.

Sadly, any voice denouncing the immoderates as having "lost the way" or "perverting the message" would be seen as just another immoderate denouncing anyone who doesn't put their money in the right offering plate. ETA: Or they'll be seen as 'godless atheists' threatening the whole of Christianity and someone to stand with the fundies to resist.

Hellfire and Brimstone are just inherently more passionate and high volume than Peace and Love, so the latter doesn't get heard and the necessary "volume" to be heard is contrary to the message.

 

[cantdog]

Yep, the real Message as I read it is certainly not about shouting on the hilltops. It really is a millennia-long struggle, in the end.

So that my beef with Christians will surely fall flat. The best are full of doubt, and the worst immoderate and utterly, flatly certain-- the ones that aren't just hypocrites without any real belief in the first place.

Your point that it'll be viewed cynically as being about the offering plate? Who has poisoned the discourse to the extent that this sort of reaction comes so easily? Christ was a wise man with a message worth hearing. It's sad to see what's become of that, here.


In the meantime, though, fundies are organizing and want revolution in America. Can we not ask ordinary Christians to stand up and help resist them?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I submit that either way, Those of us who stand to lose, to be imprisoned, go to the gibbet, whatever, whether (a) or (b)-- those of us who oppose this thing have to go ahead on the assumption that Christianity is essentially a malign glue holding together a fascist movement. If not, why do Christians allow it to be used for that?

For the same reason scientific Darwinists "allowed" Hitler to co-opt the idea of evolution and apply it to human "races" and slaughter millions. They couldn't, at the time, stop him.

That doesn't mean that they didn't try, or that he represented them, or that Darwin's ideas were fundamentally flawed. All it meant was that at the time, the best they could do to stop him wasn't capable of it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Non-fascist Christians aren't defending it, perhaps, because they no longer feel they can be practicing Christians. How can you defend what confounds you? How can you argue for that which excludes you?

I understand that point of view. I've certainly been tempted to it, and might have done it if I hadn't had better fortune, personally, in finding sensible persons within my church. Still, even if I hadn't, I think I would stay and fight. My church is composed of everyone in it, not just the most vocal or extreme elements, and what I'd really like to see is more people taking that stance and challenging the others.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's also valid to point out that 'established' is not quite the same as 'directly subsidized.' The courts however would take the latter to indicate the former. Could you 'establish' without directly paying:
Well one atheist argument is that 'tax breaks' already operate as support: so the official judeo xian 'religion' could just be given tax free status, land, etc.

The courts have not always taken this view, and to say that funding is required to establish a thing is not the same as saying the funding alone is equal to establishing it.

However, given my own distaste for the term you chose to apply to my faith, I think I'll step out there.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Because to be unconcerned about what happens to me is to throw me to the sharks, and I can't take that kindly.

I resent the suggestion that I am "unconcerned" because I differ with your opinion on how to best solve a problem, or because my manner of expression on the topic is "bland" and apparently insufficiently loaded with hostile invective.

I'm working within my faith and community to try to influence the direction in which it is headed and to get the good out of it that I know is in it. I don't see what demonizing them will accomplish at all, let alone what it will accomplish more effectively. The more "us vs. them" people choose to make this, the more they will feed the most extreme elements that they claim to oppose. Fundemantalist demagogues love nothing more than someone they can point to and say, "See? They want to destroy all of Christianity!" So long as you make yourself that person, you're helping to keep them in power.

 

[cantdog]

I resent the suggestion that I am "unconcerned" because I differ with your opinion on how to best solve a problem, or because my manner of expression on the topic is "bland" and apparently insufficiently loaded with hostile invective.

I'm working within my faith and community to try to influence the direction in which it is headed and to get the good out of it that I know is in it. I don't see what demonizing them will accomplish at all, let alone what it will accomplish more effectively. The more "us vs. them" people choose to make this, the more they will feed the most extreme elements that they claim to oppose. Fundemantalist demagogues love nothing more than someone they can point to and say, "See? They want to destroy all of Christianity!" So long as you make yourself that person, you're helping to keep them in power.

It was Tutu that I characterized as bland, old horse, not yourself.

I see rather the same bland and desultory discussion in my own church community, insofar as I have one. Perhaps it is just my current situation, personally, but I find myself disinclined to reasonable and respectful measures.

I'm actually beginning to see these people as a genuine menace.

But if I am not to oppose a genuine menace, what, then? Wouldn't want to feed elements, I can see that; that would hardly do. But I do not see the wisdom in just watching the phenomenon without opposing any part of it.

 

[xssve]

In case you're wondering why a Bible camp is being run like Camp LeJeune...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/31/left-behind-christia.html

Click on Part two for more. Presumably, more Dominionism at work. Huckabee has made his Dominionist loyalties explicit.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It was Tutu that I characterized as bland, old horse, not yourself.

I see rather the same bland and desultory discussion in my own church community, insofar as I have one. Perhaps it is just my current situation, personally, but I find myself disinclined to reasonable and respectful measures.

I'm actually beginning to see these people as a genuine menace.

But if I am not to oppose a genuine menace, what, then? Wouldn't want to feed elements, I can see that; that would hardly do. But I do not see the wisdom in just watching the phenomenon without opposing any part of it.

Thank you for rescuing me from the unenviable doom of blandness, Cantdog. I do sincerely appreciate your post, and thank you for it. I realize that you're not typically thinking of me personally when you're marshalling your ire on this topic, but it is painful to be lumped in with everyone else of my faith as the enemy - at least when I care a straw for the opinions of the person speaking. As it happens, I do care what you think, and that makes me, ironically, more likely to to feel stung and complain of it. Thank you for a bit of gentle salve.

As for Tutu, I think he's in a difficult position. Traditionally, African churches have had a more hard-line stance against accepting homosexuality. I couldn't really say whether that's coming from the church leaders, the populace, or both, and so I'm not sure to whom he feels he must address his arguments. I don't know if he's trying to get a church to accept changing ideas of its people, a people to accept changing ideas of its church, or some of each.

On the topic of menaces, I agree that doing nothing is not the answer. But changing the opinions of large swathes of people is a slow business, and if you want them to stop following the menace, you have to present them with something else to follow. As Matthew Arnold said, we need sweetness and light (that is, beauty, vision, and moral leadership), not just protest as a goal in itself.

One of the problems I see in my own church (Catholic), for instance, is the wretched way in which they approach sex. They devote most of their energy to telling people what not to do and they offer a view of sex that is often so narrow, unrealistic, and frankly childish that it has absolutely no appeal to any sensible person. I think that a huge piece of the puzzle that is missing is offering to people a joyful, warm, and appealing vision of what sex should be and helping them see what the advantages are. If they weren't so damned scared of their own shadows when it comes to feminism, I think that the church could offer young women, particularly, some good advice on setting their own standards and not allowing their sexuality to become a commodity or the disposable plaything of whatever boyfriend demands it. For everyone, they could do a great deal more to show the benefits of a marriage-based sexual relationship on the emotional, psychological, and personal fronts, and I think that that would be immensely more useful than harping over and over on the negatives of other models. I believe that they have failed, and failed badly, at giving people something to strive for, and that to me is at least as important as telling them what to avoid.

I'd say the same thing about the problems with some of the most vocal and extreme fundamentalist leaders. First, that media "echo chamber" is certainly something that they exploit; sadly, extremeists with an agenda are usually much more ruthless and ambitious than moderate people of good will, and they often end up with the money and the microphone. That doesn't mean that they speak for everyone, but they do have a way of hogging the headlines that my local parish priest (who looks and speaks like Gandhi, with a beautiful humility of faith) will never have. But whether they speak for many or for few, the only way to deal with them is to offer people a better model and push it with a passion that lets them see the good of it.

That's what's made me so happy to see some of the rising counter-movements even within the Baptist / Protestant / religious right political movements - people who are complaining that "Christian" and "Republican" have become entangled for no good reason, or that surely poverty and human rights ought to be major issues in the Christian approach to the body politic as well, or that racial equality and environmental concerns should also be on the table. It's not just that they oppose the most extreme and, to my eye, ugly elements attempting to claim the mantle of the faith, but that they are offering ideas and causes to rally around.

I think that that is what we really need - something that energizes people and makes them say, "Yes! That's what my faith is really about!" There's a great deal of energy in the wide-eyed young kids coming out of their churches and into the world, and they are idealistic as most of us are in youth. If we can just snag more of them and direct their idealism to building homes and campaigning against torture rather than focusing it on sex-based campaign issues, I think that they have a great deal to offer the world.

 

[cantdog]

Well, I truly wish I could see some of these rising counter-movements.

I don't see 'em.

I haven't the chance to be warmed by perceiving them, because I really can't make 'em out. I did see an institutional shift happen, in the adoption of "Welcoming and Affirming" standards by the UCC. That was some time back, nowadays, but it was damned encouraging to see at the time. But that wasn't the same thing as what you seem to have seen, with the wide eyed kids and everything.

"rising counter-movements even within the Baptist / Protestant / religious right political movements - people who are complaining that "Christian" and "Republican" have become entangled for no good reason, or that surely poverty and human rights ought to be major issues in the Christian approach to the body politic as well, or that racial equality and environmental concerns should also be on the table. It's not just that they oppose the most extreme and, to my eye, ugly elements attempting to claim the mantle of the faith, but that they are offering ideas and causes to rally around."

Man. Not in my neck of the woods, I guess. Oh, I can talk to Quakers and Universalists and catch some of this spirit, but you aren't speaking of those.

My boss is Baptist and a woman, and she's had a hell of a time about that. In a churchly context, people get to make statements about homosexuals and women that anywhere else would be highly offensive discrimination. They get to stand right up and argue in detail about how God's own rule book says thus and so about gays and demands that you have a penis to be a minister. Indeed, the homosexual issue is slowly but surely driving yet another major schism in the affiliation, right now.

I have noticed that unchurched young people are very supportive of gay rights and equality, almost without needing to discuss it. But, as Sarahh describes, that seems to have left the ones still in the churches more and more in a self-bolstering enclave believing the opposite.

Again, excepting Universalists and Quakers and such.

 

[cantdog]

What I do see, and all I have to do is turn the channel to a Christian station to see it, is a wearying litany of hate and what in any other context would be bigotry.

And turning that channel is exactly my point about the echo chamber. There's a Christian radio station everywhere in this country. The Christian networks are big, numerous, and nationwide. Once they get into it, the faithful don't have to be exposed, any more, to any other view. They can get their news there, their politics, their hairstyle tips, their shopping, everything. They move into a different world where Jesus loves them and miracles can happen to them any minute if they send money to the Crystal Cathedral or wherever it is.

When they are in that place they hear some bad shit.

I'd say skip the following, because we all know what I mean, but in case you think I overstate the issue, here's a very small sample:

"Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line."
--Jerry Falwell

"There are so many women on the floor of Congress, it looks like a mall."
--Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), repeating a joke he heard

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, In a 1992 fundraising letter

"Men in the pro-choice movement are either men trapped in women's bodies...or younger guys who are like camp followers looking for easy sex."
--Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA)

"I want to coin a phrase here, and I don't mind help. What would be the communication version of "ethnic cleansing?" Because that's what in particular the homosexual activists try to do."
--Dr. Laura Schlessinger, August 11, 1999

"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."
--Pat Buchanan, speech to the Christian Coalition, Sept. 1993, as reported in ADL Report, 1994

"Brute beasts ... part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven."
-- Jerry Falwell, on homosexuals, as quoted in The Bible Tells Me So, 1996

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." - The Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, in a September 2004 evangelism television broadcast

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
--Randall Terry, The News Sentinel, (Ft. Wayne, IN.), 8/16/93

"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."
--Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 102

"The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle." Judge Roy Moore -- from a 2002 concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian mother

"The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy?"
--Jimmy Swaggart, The Evangelist, January 1988

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
--Jerry Falwell

"Most politically active Christians don't want equal time with homosexuals, abortionists, animal worshipping pagans, witches, radical feminists and pornographers. We want them silenced and mercifully disciplined according to the word of God."
--Jay Rogers reviewing Ralph Reed's Politically Incorrect in "Chalcedon Report," 2/95

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--President George Bush, August 27, 1988

"It's a hell of a challenge."
--Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) responding to the question "Conrad, how can
you live back there with all those niggers?" AP, 10/20/94

"Now I have learned that the radical, perverted homosexuals and lesbians are already promoting their '2000 Disney Gay Day' -- with Disney's help! And they are timing it to occur in June -- right when children out of school will be flocking to Disney-owned parks! This proves the true intent of these homosexuals: they are after our children!!"
--Bonnie Mawyer, wife of Christian Action Network founder, in a March 2000 letter blasting Disney for allowing gay groups to visit Disney World.

"They want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children." Lou Sheldon, In a recent direct mail appeal

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
--Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

"That's treason, not patriotism. They ought to be run out of our country and not allowed back."
- Tennessee State Sen. Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville), commenting about people who publicly opposed the Iraq war

"Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and there is nobody there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual." Lou Sheldon - In 1992, as reported by journalist Jimmy

"Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It`s not a secret, OK? And I`m not afraid to say it. That`s why they hate this movie. It`s about Jesus Christ, and it`s about truth. It`s about the messiah.
"Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.
"You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.
--William Donahue, President of the Catholic League, December 8, 2004 on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, discussing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" vs. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"

"I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it." --James Towey, during a Nov. 26 online "Ask the White House" question-and-answer session

"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
--Ann Coulter, writing about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people."
--Rev. Jerry Vines, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaking at the June 2002 SBC convention

"They were an endangered species. For many of these Japanese Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street... Some (Japanese Americans) probably were intent on doing harm to us, just as some of these Arab Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us."
- U.S. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), who according to the AP "agreed with the World War II policy of confining Japanese -Americans to internment camps." AP, 2/5/03

"Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you."
--Attorney General John Ashcroft, during an interview with syndicated columnist and radio personality Cal Thomas

"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
--State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

"Patrick Leahy is a 'God's people-hater.' I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."
--Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family

"The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad's central message was submission; Jesus' central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities."
--Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, commenting on George W. Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims "worship the same god."

"You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness (husband) Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, 'You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.' Every little town you go into, you know?"
- U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), who as the Charlotte News and Observer reported, "confided in a speech that she had been driving, worried, around the country for decades fueled by suspicions about Arab and Arab-looking convenience store owners." 2/7/03

"George, do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?"
--Dr. Dobson's reply to George Stephanopoulos when asked about the quote above

"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."
--Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University in a letter to George W. Bush after Nov. 2nd

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. He - I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and - and - non-Muslims, that he was a - a violent man, a man of war. And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example."
--Jerry Falwell, 60 Minutes, October 6, 2002

"I have never said in a sermon or a speech that Muhammad is a terrorist."
--Jerry Falwell, interview with Religion News Service

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."
--Bailey Smith, a founding father of Robertson's Christian Coalition, once told 15,000 people at a Religious Roundtable briefing in Dallas, June 26, 1994

"The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior."
--Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

"If he's going to be the counterfeit of Christ, he has to be Jewish. The only thing we know is he must be male and Jewish."
--Jerry Falwell commenting on the anti-Christ, January 1999

"Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
--Lt. General William G. Boykin, in a January 2003 speech in Daytona, FL, recalling his efforts to capture an Islamic militant in Somalia who had said he would be protected by Allah. After the militant was captured, Boykin told him, "Mr. Atto, you underestimated our God."

"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel. "
--David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1984), p. 127

There's plenty more of it. It's not just a belief, it is yoked to politics and it is moving to replace secular government. We can't have political campaigns any more in America without it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I have noticed that unchurched young people are very supportive of gay rights and equality, almost without needing to discuss it. But, as Sarahh describes, that seems to have left the ones still in the churches more and more in a self-bolstering enclave believing the opposite.

Mmmm. I often think that that is the strength of Catholicism as well as its weakness. The Protestant churches have many sub-divisions and no central authority, and they're free to fragment into smaller and smaller divisions and ideoloigies until you hit something like the Phelpses (I think that's the - the particularly nasty anti-gay protestors who kept disrupting soldiers' funerals) where the church is basically composed only of a single extended family. The freedom that the infinite possibility of division grants is a bit two-edged and it can lead to those sorts of exclusionary enclaves.

The Catholic church isn't free of that sort of thing either, but I think there is a certain resilience to a central authority. It does make it slower and hard to change things, but then that's not always a bad thing, in my opinion. It does seem to press people a bit more to try to work within the institution and change it than to bail and try to set up a new one. Still, as you and Sarahh note, there's also a fair bit of defection from the whole idea of a church. I think that that's sensible in some ways but a pity in the other - I hate to see ugliness triumph.

If you're looking for a little cheer on the "Are there really movements to reclaim Christianty for more moderate and Christ-like goals?" front, I've read good reviews recently of the book "Blue Like Jazz." I haven't read it myself (just saw the news coverage on it a day or two ago), but evidently it's written by someone who felt frustrated and rebellious at the fundamentalist / Republican version of Christianty, and it's become something of an underground sensation in moderate 30-ish circles.

I'm not having luck Googling up the movement I'm thinking of in the Baptist circles (if I'm remembering correctly) because I can't recall a key name or term that will refine the search enough, but there was a rift about a year ago between people trying to take on more issues like poverty and injustice in a national dialogue and those wanting to stay the course with gay rights and abortion. I seem to recall that this resulted in a split and a sub-group forming around the former nucleus, but I'm sorry to say that that vague description is as much as my memory is giving me tonight. I can only say that I have read several news stories on the topic and they described a political/religious movement of reasonable power.

In my own church, what I'd like to see more of is the independent parish committees that some parishoners set up in the wake of clergy child abuse scandals. I think it's high time that an autocratic and insular hierarchy got a shake-up and that the flock starting taking a more active role in the running of the church. A good priest is a wonderful thing, but then a good priest I think never turns away people who want to be more active in their church. I hope we'll see a revival of an energetic sense that this is our church and we all comprise it together.

Here's hoping some of that makes it out your way. I worry about any faith whose primary tenet is "Take my word for it." If you're not questioning and examining and developing your faith, I can't see that it's really yours. That's what I'd like to see more of - people active enough in their faith and their beliefs that they aren't easily led astray by demagogues and people with axes to grind.

As for the sampling, I don't in the least deny that it's out there and it's nasty. I only plead the case that it's inevitably the people who think they have something to gain for themselves who shout loudest, and that they're not a good representation of either the tenets of Christianity or the practice of moderate and reasonable people, any more than the worst of any other group are. They're just the ones who tend to yell loudest and grab the most headlines, and I promise you that they're at least as dreadful a spectacle to me as they are to you. I, after all, fear everything you fear from them, and over and above that I have another fear: that they will destroy Christianity in others as they have clearly already destroyed it in themselves.

 

[cantdog]

Yet I know full well, from clear evidence in my daily life, that there are Christians who don't think this way. And lots who don't entirely feel this way.

I want to see a countermovement. A figure like Margaret Chase Smith, when she stood up and called HUAC and McCarthy on his gobbledegook.

I'd settle for being able merely to note that this sort of stuff was growing more marginal and less influential.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yet I know full well, from clear evidence in my daily life, that there are Christians who don't think this way. And lots who don't entirely feel this way.

I want to see a countermovement. A figure like Margaret Chase Smith, when she stood up and called HUAC and McCarthy on his gobbledegook.

I'd settle for being able merely to note that this sort of stuff was growing more marginal and less influential.

I've got my hopes hung on the former, myself. I really want to see a counter-movement that pulls the title of "Christian" out of the hands of people who do so little to uphold the good things it has to offer. For a president who endorses torturing our enemies to claim that Christians owe him their allegiance is nearly as nauseating a spectacle as the sight of people giving it to him on that basis.

 

[cantdog]

Well, I can tell you that it's galvanized some rebellious and pointed anti-tolerance atheism. Right through the eighties, one didn't see very much militance in atheism. What I guess we shall have to call 'fundamentalist agnosticism.' But it's hitting the bricks more and more. Sam Harris is not alone. Have you read Harris's book? It's sort of anti-christian, but it's much more anti-muslim, and I think much of the impetus behind it was the fear of Islamists that seems to have taken the place of the fear of Communists in our current political climate.

The impetus for The God Delusion was exactly the movement I'm referring to. The man is a biologist, and no lightweight, either. He got good and tired of encountering fundamentalist yahoos in the classroom who were full of wrongheaded ideas about what Darwin was and what natural selection meant. He also saw that secondary schools, especially, had become a battleground where Darwin's theory was being attacked by very organized lobbies of know-nothings calling themselves Christians.

On the whole, The God Delusion and other works by that author have been models of restraint. He defends Darwinism without slandering Christians as a whole. He refutes the judo arguments for God's existence without too much imputation of malignance to his opponents, even when they are deliberately disingenuous.

But lately, I see a rising chorus of truly intolerant atheism. One of the quotes above is from the President of the United States, you know. He sincerely, for once, expresses an opinion that he's pretty sure atheists qua atheists are incapable of being patriots or ought to be accorded the rights of citizens. Here it is:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--President George Bush, August 27, 1988

Pat Condell, a Brit, has a vogue in atheist circles. We refer him and his blog to one another. He argues that religion has outlived its usefulness on the planet. Its tenets are not based on any form of reason, its believers are espousing ridiculous ideas with no evidence behind them, and some of its adherents are an active threat, blowing people up and causing mayhem. He argues that respecting religion is destructive.

I know it sounds bad. But given the circs, it may not be so irrational a response. Radical Islam is not benign, and radical Christianity isn't, either. It may be important to point this out, just for purposes of self-preservation.

And Pat goes further, saying that we ought no longer to accord this force for divisiveness, for mayhem (hundreds a year slain and injured for the glory of God), for irrationality, for bleakly unreachable unreason, for mental disease of the most virulent kind, any sort of tolerance or respect. We have been nice guys about it, and it has gotten us explosions in the buses and subways and calls for covering up our women's bodies and whatnot.

More intolerant atheism is being published and blogged now. It's difficult to hold a position, rationally, that such stances are wrong. I am somewhat insulated by my job and its milieu. I work in a liberal church, and I have gone out myself into the "mission field."

I have been on missionary trips to third world countries. I know first hand some of the good being done by religiously motivated people in some very grim places around the world. But I bet none of the fascist motherfuckers making the statements I quoted have done any of that sort of work personally.

Reason and tolerance themselves have been put on the defensive by these people. I can't decide, myself, just how urgent the problem is. Niemoller and all that, you know? How much time do we have? Need good men go, yet, to the barricades?

 

[Boxlicker101]

-- "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--President George Bush, August 27, 1988

This has to be a misquote. George Bush was not pres. on 8-27-88. He was VP, and the Rep. nominee, but he hadn't won the election yet. RR was pres. then.

 

[cantdog]

This has to be a misquote. George Bush was not pres. on 8-27-88. He was VP, and the Rep. nominee, but he hadn't won the election yet. RR was pres. then.

He doesn't have to have been president at the time, to have said it, Box.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, I don't regard the viciousness cant listed as a Christian problem. Or even a religious problem. It's a human problem.

Humans don't like to think and they do like to believe. They like being part of a group. They don't like to be responsible for their actions.

Ideology in all its forms satisfies all those needs. If atheism became as big as religion it too would spawn groups and individuals who would use it as an excuse for hatred and violence.

It's just the way human beings are.

 

[Guest]

But it's such abuse, isn't it? Abuse by someone in a position of authority, like a doctor or a teacher?

When you have someone in a position of such power, because of religion, especially if you've been brought up to believe, to worship, by a loving and supportive family, it's very difficult to turn your back on the entire thing.

And when these religious authority figures begin spouting this vile nonsense, it is difficult NOT to believe. You still want to be part of the group.

But then you question. And then you become disillusioned.

And then you leave.


On a humorous note, my hair seems to be rather - big - this morning.

I remarked to my husband that I looked like a tele-evangelist's wife.

My supportive man gave a look, said, "Nahh. Not enough makeup."

 

[cantdog]

Well, I don't regard the viciousness cant listed as a Christian problem. Or even a religious problem. It's a human problem.

Humans don't like to think and they do like to believe. They like being part of a group. They don't like to be responsible for their actions.

Ideology in all its forms satisfies all those needs. If atheism became as big as religion it too would spawn groups and individuals who would use it as an excuse for hatred and violence.

It's just the way human beings are.

Okay, so I can relax a bit. I have to say, though, you make me out not to be human, particularly. But I know what you're saying.

Atheists generally are being radicalized, though, because of the religious content of this movement. Nobody wants to find themselves on the wrong end of a Kristallnacht because we were complacent or respectful of others' beliefs. The country has black prisons now, and the Executive declares itself linked with this aberrant form of Christianity. Even the century-old right to travel outside the country with a proper passport is not secure. The bars are being brought up and screwed into place, for certain, even though the cages are not yet complete. I don't happen to frequent Pagan sites or read Pagan materials, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that they, too, are putting themselves on a war footing, more or less.

The trouble with this being cast in religious terms is that one is supposed to respect religion. It's a long-standing tradition in our civilization, and we know how destructive ignoring that stricture can become. It is giving these assholes a free pass in some ways.

I shall subside for now, and work against the fascism while forbearing to repudiate all of Christianity or all of religion. That would be simpler, though, and would let me lump them, rhetorically, with radical Islam. I have the feeling that's where they deserve to be lumped, frankly.

It depends how big this damnable thing gets. If it grows enough, then the gloves are off.

 

[cantdog]

BS However, what the amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Shang, i dealt with the last phrase, later in the post.

But it's a valid issue, if the government could spread the money out to all mainstream xians and jews, and argue that no one religion is "established."

It's also valid to point out that 'established' is not quite the same as 'directly subsidized.' The courts however would take the latter to indicate the former. Could you 'establish' without directly paying:
Well one atheist argument is that 'tax breaks' already operate as support: so the official judeo xian 'religion' could just be given tax free status, land, etc.

I'm not wicked sure you're paying attention, pure. These fellows don't give fig one for any Jews. They consider moderate Christians to be the enemy as well.

 

[Pure]

as to countermovements, i have seen some signs.

a prominent evangelical person, head of Faith Based Initiaves for Bush, David Kuo wrote a very critical book about 'betrayal.' the evan'ls figured out that they were being used, and thrown little bones, mostly. see link, below.

there are some evan'l leaders who are interested in the environment, as part of 'stewardship'--see below, Jim Wallace and Rick Warren.

the automatic link with 'republican' is a little weakened. some may stay home, if huck and fred are out of the running.

one could equally argue that Republican philosophy might be broadened. after all, a number of corporations are talking 'citizenship'--which includes protecting the environment-- even though persons on the right, and in the Rand mvt, want corporation, like persons, to talk only rational self interest.
====

see jim wallace:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/id...mazing_true_story_of_the_liberal_evangelical/
===
kuo's book on faith based initiatives, "tempting faith,"

http://www.abpnews.com/1431.article



===

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20131
fitzgerald,
the evangelical surprise, excerpts on the 'centrist' evangelicals.



Yet for some years a number of centrist leaders have been expressing discontent with the right, some directly, but most by departing more or less radically from the right-wing agenda. Rich Nathan, for example, the senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus, Ohio—a megachurch not many miles from Russell Johnson's—preaches that the Christian message cannot be reduced to issues of sex or private morality, and that the emphasis should be on Jesus' teachings about the poor and about peace-making. "Our focus in this church is on racial reconciliation and issues of poverty," he told me. "

The Vineyard association has 650 churches in this country, and you won't find any one of them that's not involved with the poor." Nathan believes that churches should stay out of politics—that they shouldn't campaign for candidates or lobby for legislation—but he speaks his mind on what he considers the moral issues. After the revelations of Abu Ghraib, he preached against torture, and last fall he called the Iraq war "a senseless slaughter" and asked how Christians can claim to follow the Prince of Peace and yet "be led so easily into war."[11]

Traditionalist evangelicals, with their focus on individual salvation, see charity and evangelization as the way to change the lives of the poor. But centrist pastors, such as Rich Nathan and Joel Hunter, preach the need for social justice and have enlisted their huge congregations in anti-poverty programs for those of all faiths in cooperation with local governments. "It's not about charity," Nathan said. "It's about getting to the root causes of poverty and correcting injustices, such as racial and gender discrimination."

His church, for example, supports "fair-trade coffee"—an international program that seeks to ensure that living wages are paid to coffee growers around the world—and has a free legal clinic for those needing help with their immigrant status, domestic violence, or tenant-landlord disputes.

In October 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella organization of denominations and churches that claims thirty million members, issued a position paper laying out ten principles for Christian political engagement. The document, "For the Health of the Nation," called upon evangelicals to seek justice for the poor, to protect human rights, to seek peace, and to protect God's creation—as well as to protect the sanctity of human life and nurture families. Carefully drawn up so as not to provoke right-wing opposition, the document gave official sanction to the efforts of the more progressive leaders to move, at a national level, beyond both the religious right agenda and the traditional evangelical approach to good works.

In Washington, Richard Cizik, the NAE's vice-president for governmental relations, has supported the experienced evangelical aid organizations World Relief and World Vision in lobbying for a major increase in US aid for development, debt relief for the poorest countries, cuts in domestic agricultural subsidies, and the inclusion of labor standards and human rights conditions in trade agreements. (Two years ago World Vision campaigned against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it lacked such protections.)

Centrist leaders have also lobbied the administration for more money to fund the global campaign against AIDS, and for a variety of human rights causes, including the deployment of a strong United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur.[12]
---
Important support for these centrist initiatives has come from Rick Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life, the pastor of a huge church in Orange County, California, and, next to Billy Graham, by far the best known of all evangelical preachers. Just before the 2004 election, Warren sent out a letter to his network of 150,000 fellow pastors telling them that pro-life and pro-family issues should determine how evangelicals voted. But he sent the same network a letter urging them to put pressure on Bush to increase foreign aid, provide debt relief, and eliminate trade barriers that hurt the poor. The following year he called upon his own 22,000-member congregation to support an effort in Rwanda, backed by its government, to alleviate hunger, teach literacy, and slow the spread of AIDS.

His ultimate goal, Warren announced, was to enlist millions of Christians worldwide in the struggle against poverty, illiteracy, and disease. Like Cizik, he had gone through a form of conversion. "I have been so busy building my church that I have not cared about the poor," he told pastors in Kigali. "I have sinned, and I am sorry."[15]