The Religous Right's Coming Civil War?
(CNN.com: "Religious rally attacks 'arrogant' judges")
Perhaps I should just ignore these people, but they are beginning to scare me. Not annoy, nor anger, nor disgust me. Frighten me. Not quite the fear of barbers in Iraq who now post signs that they do not shave men -- to avoid being murdered by the extremists who demand total capitulation to their worldview. My fear is that we are on that same path, and I see no hope of avoiding the coming conflict.
Let me give some background. Like many people, I was lonely as a kid; my folks divorced when I was 14, I had no friends, I pretty much hated myself, and the future was probably going to be the descent into whatever the hell the people who let me hang out with them were doing: that would be drugs and despair by the time I had finished high school. But I got sidetracked from that: I became a Jesus Freak. I got saved, born again and baptized in the Spirit.
For the rest of high school, I was happy and fulfilled. I had friends, and I had what I thought was a great future. Of course, I did not see what I did not have. Who does at that age? And frankly, given my alternatives, this path was probably the best one for me. That it became a dead end ten years later is beside the point; at that time, and for the next decade, my life had purpose and meaning. The philosophy underlying my faith, of course, was the fundamentalism that soon would come to dominate religion in America. I accept that philosophy: The Bible was absolute. Abortion was evil. Gays were ....
And this is where it fell apart. For some reason, even though I am straight, I just never could see why being gay or lesbian was wrong. I had read the Bible enough to understand that not only were all the prohibitions of the Old Testament wiped out by the New Covenant, the Gospel of Love that Jesus lived and died meant that all persons were welcome -- as they were. The more the religious fundamentalists insisted that the gays were bad, the more isolated I felt from the Christianity in which I had lived for so many years.
I think I was seeing that if gays were evil, simply because of who they were, where did that leave me? I liked sex (ahem, the idea of sex; that is another sad story), I enjoyed the occassional beer, I listened to Jimmy Buffett music, I read secular novels. Most of all, I saw myself as I really was, and that person was not pure and holy. I was, according to the Christian gospel to which I tried to shape my life, fallen. Jesus was ok with God, but not me. Somehow, it was supposed to be enough that Jesus saved me from hell, but what about ME? I still existed, and either I was evil (albeit saved) or I -- me, the essential me who would exist throughout eternity -- was corrupt beyond hope. Hateful to God.
In the end, I fell away from my faith for over twenty years. Today, I follow a different gospel, a gentle path of love and faith through Quakerism, but I have not forgotten where I used to be. I know these people who are demanding that God is on their side, that their interpretations of the Bible are capital-t Truth, and who are coming to the conclusion that as God smote those who stood in the way of the Israelites on their way to the Promised Land, so He will strike down those who stand in the way of their gospel. That means me, for one, not to mention the majority of Americans, ninety percent of the rest of the world, and most members of the Federal Judiciary.
With people like Tom DeLay and James Dobson, not to mention President Bush and Condi Rice, confirming these beliefs and whipping them into frenzies of righteous anger, I feel it's only a matter of time. I know what goes on in these kinds of meetings, how the prayers and songs and sermons, not to mention the utterances held to be straight from God via the Holy Spirit (tongues and prophecy), all push the message deeper and deeper: We are God's chosen, and we live among a fallen people. God's wrath is coming, God's judgment; God will not let us continue to suffer in such circumstances.
It does not take a degree in Divinity to recognize that the Christian gospel is not about making life on earth holy; it's about what is after this life. But the leaders of this movement are not interested in eternity; their stake is in the here-and-now. They are fallen prophets seeking the kind of glory and power Jesus turned his back on. They do not minister to the spirit of the weak, sick, and imprisoned as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 25. Instead, they follow the path of their pride, their absolute faith in what they choose to believe. And they have made it, in the words of Bruce Cockburn's song, a "gospel of bondage."
There is a battle coming, and it won't be restricted to politics and elections. Those who believe they are God's chosen will act upon that belief. Perhaps they will gain the power to imprison and punish the non-believers, much the same as the Islamic extremists do. Maybe, like the worst of these fanatics, they will kill in God's name. Maybe we will have a state religion. Or perhaps a civil war as they seek to withdraw from secular society and take over large portions of the country in the name of God. I don't know. I just know the mind set, the vast and unshakable belief in the holy righteousness of their thoughts and opinions.
They have created God in their own image, and they will seek to force us all to kneel before their self-created idol. What happens when we necessarily refuse?
|
August 14, 2005 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (87 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Diesel | Aug 14, 2005 10:07:04 PM
Sorry. Can't agree with you there. In my humble opinion, I think you're being a little melodramatic. I think the thing you are forgetting is that those people that tend to be "uber-religious" (for lack of a better phrase) are also staunch supporters of the Constitution of the United States.
The only way you will be "forced to kneel before their self-created idol" is if radical Islam is allowed to takeover the Western world.
Posted by: christopher | Aug 14, 2005 11:16:48 PM
Religious fundamentalism is the source of an incredible share of suffering in today's world. If only those who claim to exalt Jesus would live as he did, people the world over would respect and love them.
Posted by: Sid | Aug 14, 2005 11:38:39 PM
Diesel-
The uber-religious are not 'staunch supporters' of the Constitution. I don't know where you get that? If you ask them which document they would choose, the Bible or the Constitution, they will say the Bible. When you tell them that the Constitution allows them to choose the Bible without government interference, and therefore they should choose the Constitution over the Bible, they will insist the Bible is the better document and will still choose it over the Constitution.
The only reason religious moderates exist today is because of the advancements in science and reason, not because of a better understanding of religious texts, as some would like to believe. In other words, religion has had to adjust to the realities of scientific discovery and the kind of culture such discoveries spawn, e.g. secular thought.
Fundamentalists refuse to accept the realities of such thought and therefore consider themselves true believers. Moderates are just half-ass believers and don't deserve to be followers, according to fundamentalists. That's why Christian conservatives claim you have to be 'born-again' in order to be saved, even if you already belong to, say, the Lutheran church, because simply being born and raised Lutheran and attending some nice little Lutheran church in Minnesota where you mind your own business isn't enough. You have to be a fundamentalist... a born-again, or true believer.
Posted by: W.D.Russell | Aug 15, 2005 4:57:42 AM
This is something I have told people for quite some time. These fundis have missed one of the most important ideas in the Bible. Mankind was created in the image of GOD. These people have created GOD in their image.
Gays and the Bible:
1 GOD did not think the subject was important enough to include it in the Ten Commandments.
2 Jesus never spoke on the subject, not what was written down anyway.
3 The Apostles wrote about the subject, but the 2-3 times they mentioned it, it was included in a list of other sins. No where did they say that homosexuality was worse than the other sins.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 15, 2005 5:08:18 AM
Dear God, whose Name I do not know, please protect me from your followers. Amen
Posted by: Anais | Aug 15, 2005 5:43:49 AM
It is not "radical Islam" that we need to fear -- it is fundamentalism of any stripe. I was raised in a relatively strict Roman Catholic household, and I, too, wonder what happened to the Beatitudes -- and why do the fundies base so much of their ideology on the Old Testament? But once one is "saved" there is no reasoning....there is no there there.
Posted by: Robert | Aug 15, 2005 6:30:28 AM
Well done Sid, Ray, Anais, Christopher, and W.D.Russell, you do exist!
I was beginning to feel alone in a sea of fungi’s - like Red Tide, if you breath it in it's harmful...
If we were to build hospitals and schools in Iraq the Iraqi people would have done what we can never do with war. If you need faith to make your life meaningful then have faith in your self and build a world of love and not hate.
Posted by: Jamie | Aug 15, 2005 7:07:20 AM
Perhaps I should just ignore these people, but they are beginning to scare me. Not annoy, nor anger, nor disgust me. Frighten me.
No, absolutely you should not ignore these people. The religious right's alliance with conservative republicans is a powerful one and dangerous for our country.
Here's one reason.
For democracy to work well, voters need to think critically and weigh evidence with an open mind. Only then will the majority make good decisions.
As it stands now, the substantial numbers of evangelicals who ally themselves with the Republicans (20% of the country or more?) base their votes on either a) what the pastor says (perhaps in return for government grants), b) red-herring wedge issues like abortion or gay rights (I don't believe the Bushes really care about these things -- they just use them to push people's buttons), or c) the public religiosity of the candidates.
That is not the way to get the best government. On the contrary, it allows corrupt and incompetent hypocrites to gain public office. And demeans the public dialog we need for our country to move forward.
Posted by: Clemsy | Aug 15, 2005 7:11:26 AM
True democracy is a secular heresy. While I don't think Mr. barnhart should be frightened at the moment, keep your finger on the pulse of the people he's talking about. They represent the America of Salem Village, not Philadelphia.
Posted by: REF | Aug 15, 2005 7:48:17 AM
What a silly tirade. Where is the evidence for his silly fears? In the latest home-made bomb the Baptists have delivered to a Federal Judge? There haven't been any. Is his evidence the masked suicide bombers marching in our streets, holding their Scofield Study Bibles high? There aren't any. Maybe it's the drive-by shootings, where the zealots scream out, 'Jesus is Lord!'....well, there haven't been any of those either.
Man....get a life....
Posted by: Don | Aug 15, 2005 7:51:41 AM
I too have become increasingly frightened as I read more about the Christian Reconstructionist movement, whose hard-core members endorse the stoning of gays, witches, those guilty of adultry, heretics, non-believers and disobedient children.
I kid you not.
In their world view, the Bible trumps the Constitution, and like the Catholic Inquisitors of old, ANYTHING can be allowed if it leads to saving souls, including torture, repression, etc.
Posted by: B. Williams | Aug 15, 2005 8:10:49 AM
Thank God I’m an atheist!
Posted by: Becky | Aug 15, 2005 8:19:59 AM
My biggest fear of fundamentalists of any stripe is that they are conditioned from childhood to accept without question some particular package of ideas. People who grow up this way almost never develop the ability to see the truth because information must always be filtered through their fundamental belief system. It reminds me of when I was in Seventh-Day Adventist elementary school 30 years ago and the dinosaur rage was really starting. We were taught that dinosaurs were the evil product of gene manipulation before the flood and were a primary reason why God had to destroy the world. When confronted with evidence of an ancient earth, we were told God created the earth with the look of age in order to test our faith in the Bible. We were basically innoculated against anything that would have caused us to question our beliefs.
Where this plays in to the national political scene is that those who are fundamentalist Christians today trust George Bush implicitly because he is a born again Christian. Criticism of him and his administration is seen as Christian persecution. Further, these people so believe in the coming apocolypse that they will not step up and fulfill their duty as Americans and as citizens of this planet to speak out against the atrocities and outrageous leadership that could actually lead us straight into apocolyptic world war. I think they would actually welcome this because they are so anxious for Jesus to come (or for the rapture, depending on the view of their particular sect) that they would be rejoicing that Heaven was near. Violence against Christians anywhere in the world is tracked, reported and touted as proof that the end is near - but never critically examined to determine the true cause. For example, Christians are up in arms about the Sudan, not because China, in its roll on the U.N. Security Council is blocking intervention in order to protect its access to Sudanese oil, but because the people being slaughtered are Christians. If it was the Christians slaughtering the Muslims I dare say they wouldn't be interested in the issue at all.
In short, I believe fundamentalism clouds people's reasoning and results in the creation of a highly manipulatable population that is at least to some extent unable to participate intelligently and responsibly in self-government. The fear of Christians under normal circumstances would be ridiculous, but with an administration like our current one, which is clearly so willing to manipulate these people to gain the power necessary achieve truly evil things, we all need to pay close attention.
Posted by: Mooser | Aug 15, 2005 8:47:29 AM
Let us not forget there is a group in America that steadfastly refuses to open its heart to Jesus. A group of people who are not simply lapsed Christians, but teach their children every day that Jesus is not devine, or the Son o' God, at most, he is the author of some rather nice sayings. Are you willing to trust the influence of a group that consistently and completely deny Jesus as their Saviour?
These people are the Jews.
Can we possibly tolerate in our midst such apostasy? What kind of example is this for our children?
Posted by: Mooser | Aug 15, 2005 9:08:34 AM
Listen to a prominent Phd.'s thoughts on the subject.
Posted by: LT | Aug 15, 2005 9:32:34 AM
Excellent topic. AND the reason I was offended that someone on the Dist. 16 topic was looking for someone to take on Frank Morse.
If there is an excellent candidate who could run a positive campaign on issues and voting record,that would be one thing.
But why anyone who posts here would want one of the co-sponsors of SB 1000 (a Republican at that!) removed from the legislature simply for partisan reasons is beyond me. Did you not hear what he said on the subject? People like that are needed in the GOP if it is ever to go back to sanity (speaking as someone raised in a Republican family).
In 1992 some of us used to annoy some of the anti-gay folks by saying "Fine. If you are going to quote that list of bad behaviors at the end of the 1st chapter of Romans, why not put the whole list on the ballot? It might make life difficult for gays but it would also outlaw many practices of the OCA ("maliciousness, deceit, whisperers, proud, boastful", among others) and other obnoxious groups. That generally ended the argument and the people would walk away.
Posted by: David | Aug 15, 2005 9:36:15 AM
"a little melodramatic"? How about this gem?:
Not all Christians back 'Justice Sunday'
[copyrighted and mis-tagged comment deleted. -Editor.]
Posted by: Jim | Aug 15, 2005 10:41:39 AM
Apparently REF never heard about the thousands of death threats that Christian extremists sent to federal judges during the Terri Schiavo situation. Or the Christian fundamentalists who attempted to firebomb a West Virginia grade school that dared to include evolution and sex education in its curriculum. Or the clinic workers who were shot and killed by "pro-life" Christians. Or the Christians who threatened the atheist who challenged "under God" in the Pledge. Or the Jewish family in Alabama that was hounded and threatened because they objected to mandatory Christian prayers at the local high school. Or the Republican senator from Oklahoma who endorsed the death penalty for abortion providers. Or his colleague from Texas who made a thinly-veiled threat of violence against "activist" judges. The list goes on and on and it's pretty clear that Christian radicals can be just as bloodthirsty and dangerous as their Islamic counterparts.
Posted by: AvengingAngel | Aug 15, 2005 10:57:16 AM
Here's the limited edition, commemorative Justice Sunday II program.
Posted by: PlacitasRoy | Aug 15, 2005 11:08:35 AM
As a recovering a fundimentalist I really identify with your sentiments. Having battled the bible thumpers in the 80's over "porn" and watching Robertson's political rise, I said for many years he was the most dangerous man in the US. Reed's "Stealth candidate" comment scared the bejessus out of me! I do think his influence has been reduced with the growth of the internet, but not to a great degree.
Theo-cons/ neo-cons- both groups are a threat to the US that I want my Grandson to experience.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them." Maya Angelou
Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!
Posted by: Mooser | Aug 15, 2005 11:10:33 AM
No, I am not joking. While a huge number of Americans can (and will) simply slip back into church and yell "Lord,Lord" if their jobs or getting a loan depends on it, Jews will not be able to do such a thing, and if asked, cannot even be equivocal about the subject; they do not accept Jesus as their personal Saviour. Theological differences between Christian sects (other than Mormons and Catholics) can be papered over for the sake of political unaminity.
But how the hell are we going to be a "Christian Nation" with all those demned Jews rejecting Jesus' devine embrace? Huh? Well?
And be aware: these are not your ordinary backsliders, who can easily be brought into line with a little economic or social pressure, these are people who have had the chance to get with the devine program for 2,000 years and dug in their heels, like whats-his-names donkey.
If you want to make America a Christian Nation, first thing you gotta do is get rid of the Jews. And when I think of the rate at which they marry schicksas I could plotz! There is something just not Kosher about it.
So tell me, what are we gonna do about the Jews?
Now I remember! Baalam, that was the guy with the recalcitrant ass.
Posted by: paul gronke | Aug 15, 2005 12:24:42 PM
Well with posts like these, I can assure you that Democrats will never win back the Christian vote. Christians are just misled or stupid, right? And if only they could see the light, they'd all vote Democrat, right?
Folks, we have to face reality: millions of conservative christians know *exactly* what they are doing, that they are *well informed* about the issues, but they simply value different things than we do.
And they see much of the agenda of the Democratic Party as deeply threatening to their way of life--and I might add, as illustrative of some of these posts, many Democrats as dismissive of their values and even intelligence.
As it stands now, the substantial numbers of evangelicals who ally themselves with the Republicans (20% of the country or more?) base their votes on either a) what the pastor says (perhaps in return for government grants), b) red-herring wedge issues like abortion or gay rights (I don't believe the Bushes really care about these things -- they just use them to push people's buttons), or c) the public religiosity of the candidates.
My biggest fear of fundamentalists of any stripe is that they are conditioned from childhood to accept without question some particular package of ideas. People who grow up this way almost never develop the ability to see the truth because information must always be filtered through their fundamental belief system.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 15, 2005 12:46:14 PM
paul gronke:
dems will never win the vote of those following dobson & delay. theirs is not a free vote; it's one that is tied to their churches and the dogma being preached there. dems stand for choice, personal liberty, a social structure where we care for weak and needy, and a refusal to replace the constitution with any religious text. they stand for a version of god who more-or-less hates us. they will not vote for us, so why would be bother to court that vote? how could we?
the "religious" vote we can win is the person of faith who accepts plurality of belief, who does not insist that the 10 commandments trumpts the constitution, and who values democracy as much as faith. most democrats are people of faith, of that kind of faith. we simply have to demonstrate and communicate that faith. it's going to take a while, given the awful job previous dem leaders have done. fortunately howard dean, for one, is speaking clearly that you can be a person of faith and a democrat. what you cannot be is a democrat and a person of extreme religious dogma. our tent may be big, but it's not that big -- nor that weak.
Posted by: Becky | Aug 15, 2005 12:57:10 PM
An article in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15faith.html) about Justice Sunday fits well in this conversation. One quote: "Speaking at the Justice Sunday telecast, Phyllis Schlafly, the veteran Christian conservative organizer, asked: 'How do the judges get away with such outrageous decisions? By asserting that Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land. But you know that is not true. That is a terrible heresy.'" The "supreme law of the land" which Phyllis Schlafly believes it is a "terrible heresy" to supercede is the law of God.
Another quote: "Mr. Donohue of the Catholic League and others warned the Democrats not to discriminate against Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith. They argued that any questions about his personal views of moral issues, especially abortion, would constitute discrimination because those issues fall within the teachings of the church." This supports my earlier point that any criticism of a public official that claims to be a Christian is immediately perceived by Christians as persecution. This misconception innoculates believers against considering other points of view and perhaps falling away from the faith should something outside the teachings of the church make more logical, scientific, humanitarian, spiritual, or political sense than the line they are feeding to believers. It also serves as a handy political tool for the current administration.
Posted by: Howard | Aug 15, 2005 1:02:07 PM
A funny thing about those Ten Commandments... after you read past that tenth one, it just keeps on going and going and going... "Ten Commandments" is more of a "Readers Digest" excerpt of the literally hundreds of commandments given.
The person of faith who accepts a "plurality of belief" is an oxymoron; that person doesn't know what to believe, by definition.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Aug 15, 2005 1:33:16 PM
Check this Web site out... for all those gays looking to be "rescued".
Posted by: Mooser | Aug 15, 2005 1:47:08 PM
So, is there one Christian out there honest enough to tell me how we are going to make America a Christian nation without getting rid of the Jews, or at least forbidding them the vote, or the privilege of holding office, or a drivers license.
I don't see how we can be a Christian nation with a large group of influential, affluent, non-Christian efluvia in our very midst!
I mean, right in the middle of our very midst!
Can we allow that, or this, as the case may be?
Posted by: Hooper | Aug 15, 2005 2:42:37 PM
"What happens when we necessarily refuse?"
It's always the same when we refuse.
Daniel was thrown into a den of lions because he prayed to the "wrong" god.
Galileo was placed under house arrest because he claimed the church's doctrine was false.
A century or so ago, the Mormons in Missouri were ordered to be "exterminated or driven from the state" by the good Christian governor.
It won't matter if you are Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. If you don't do what they say to do, or if you even publicly express a differing opinion, they will crucify you. Galileo got off easy.
Posted by: LT | Aug 15, 2005 3:12:43 PM
Paul, just how are you defining "Christians"?
Well with posts like these, I can assure you that Democrats will never win back the Christian vote. Christians are just misled or stupid, right? And if only they could see the light, they'd all vote Democrat, right?
If a Methodist or a Congregationalist or a Baptist dares to run as a Democrat will they not attract people from their own denominations because Robertson, Falwell et. al have seized the right to determine who is a "Christian"?
In 1981 I was talking to someone who belongs to the Baptist church which Mark Hatfield attended when he live in Salem. It is American Baptist, far different than S. Baptist. (Never forget there are so many varieties of Baptist that both Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell were ordained Baptist ministers, and that Jimmy Carter is not the only Baptist ever elected as a Democrat. ) Jerry Falwell had held a rally on the capitol steps in Salem, and this person said Falwell didn't have a clue what it meant to be a Christian. Someone from Western Baptist Bible College had written a guest opinion about being unhappy with a video shown by Falwell's group that same week--it downgraded Billy Graham and showed Falwell had a problem with the Beatitude about peacemakers.
If someone wants to define "Christian" as following the Gospel or the Sermon on the Mount, that is fine. But there is a difference between those who think we are all God's children and "as ye do to the least of them...." not to mention "love thy neighbor as thyself", and those who think "true Christians" are only those impressed by Justice Sunday. Either that first group of folks are "Christian" or they are not.
And I have met some people "proud to be Christians" who don't know the Sermon on the Mount is in the New Testament. Is that OK as long as they are followers of someone like Robertson?
If to be "Christian" means to be a believer in Falwell, Robertson, Justice Sunday, OK to bomb abortion clinics and beat up gays, then lots of people who go to church every Sunday are not "Christian".
There are some churches which express doubt whether Catholics and Orthodox (Greek or Russian) are truly Christian or if that is reserved for evangelicals.
A United Church of Christ church held a funeral for 2 lesbians who were kidnapped, beaten and killed. Local elected officials attended the funeral to send a "not in our town" message.
Either that UCC church is a "Christian" church or it isn't.
Let's be clear on meanings.
I supported John B. Anderson for president in 1980. He was once Evangelical Layman of the Year. He's what I define as a Christian. He was challenged from the right in the Congressional primary in 1978, which had an influence on his decision to run for president. Among other things, he'd voted for the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 after Rev. Martin L. King was shot. Either Anderson is a "Christian" or he isn't.
Does "Christian" include everyone who believes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Does it mean evangelical Protestants who aren't real sure they like Bill Frist anymore since Dr. Frist made that speech on stem cell research? Which is it?
Posted by: Vinnie | Aug 15, 2005 3:46:05 PM
Fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to be and act insane. Religion has been the bane of humanity.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 15, 2005 3:57:08 PM
Excellent post. It inspired me to share some thoughts on my own weblog about this subject of the Christian Right Culture War:
"Religious right on a crusade"
I included an interesting (and disturbing) email message from Ford Vox, founder of the faithless creed, Universism, after he had lunch with a director of Focus on the Family. He came away feeling very much like Mr. Barnhart does: the battle with Christian fundamentalism is coming (if not already here), and it won't be pretty.
Posted by: Mooser | Aug 15, 2005 3:58:40 PM
Well, I guess there's not too much to worry about! I've been waiting all day, and not one "Dominionist" has been able to inform me what the fate of non-Christians will be in a "Christian" America!
Or is that something they don't want to talk about?
Posted by: Gaia Sighs | Aug 15, 2005 4:10:51 PM
And what of those who refuse to subscribe to the psychosis of religion? Who, instead, put their "faith" in the rationality of Man? Are we to be hoist on our own petard - guilty of creating a better auto-de-fe upon which to be crisped - one side by faith, the other by politics?
Is that the true end game of Democracy?
Feh!
Posted by: Marie | Aug 15, 2005 5:02:46 PM
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
My background is very similar to yours. I devoted nearly 20 years of my life to a quasi-fundamentalist church group and like you, I know this mentality intimately. Indeed, even though I no longer share their worldview, I still have people in my life that I deeply love who do. I agree with you and would add that the danger these people pose is knit up with their very "goodness," which is why their influence on our society is so perniciously dangerous. It was my desire to do right, to be good that was manipulated for all those 20 years. If I had been encouraged to hate others, to do evil, the message would not have been able to root itself so deeply in my person. And so the question we must face when dealing with such people is this: How can we ask them to be (what is in their eyes) less good? Less pure? Less willing to give their lives for what they see as holy? This is our challenge and until we embrace it for what it is, we will never succeed in wooing these lost souls--for that is what I believe they truly are--to the Christ they so ardently seek.
Like you, I fell away from Christianity for many, many years. For me, the mere mention of the word 'Jesus' made me recoil with pain. But in time, I came recognized that I still had the same hunger for something that transended myself, just as I had when I was 19. And for me, I could still find my way of approach through Christianity because I remembered that Jesus said that the sum of the law is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to love my neighbor as myself.
I also came to see that none of this has anything to do with the covenant with my government as a citizen in a democracy. While my views about religous issues may animate my response to politics, my religious persuasions themselves have no place in the public square. The life I would live within my church and the covenants I bind myself to are that alone and must be distinguished from civil covenants. In keeping with this, I think the gay issue is a straw man--one can believe within the context of a church that homosexuality is wrong (not my view) and still be willing to defend a gay man or woman's full rights of citizenship before the Constitution. There is no reason, in a free society, that we cannot coexist with our different belief systems--indeed, we must do this. The Republicans have created an issue out of nothing for the purpose of dividing us.
But I write this because I think in a sense, I am more hopeful than you. I agree with you that the danger these people pose is far more dangerous than most people think. But I see another path than direct conflict. I think the only way to really reach fundamentalist Christians is with the truth of their own scriptures. Just as the Republicans have distorted the Constitution to their ends, so right-wing "Christians" have distorted the scriptures and the gospel. I have long thought that there is a role for Christians to play in this fight of ours--we need to redeem the North American Church from its current apostacy by bringing them back to the one true faith. Sorry for rambling on for so long.
Marie, Chicago, Illinois
Posted by: Marie | Aug 15, 2005 5:15:25 PM
...I ought to have said that Christianity is for me, the form that this one true faith takes. For ME, but not necessarily for anyone else. I've come to think that what I celebrate through Christ is what I've come to see as our inner "default position" if you like for the good, the light, and I know that this takes a different form for everyone. For some, it even takes atheism. And I think this is a good thing.
Posted by: Sid | Aug 15, 2005 5:58:51 PM
Since the Bible has more calls for violence in it than it does for peace, what will Christian fundamentalists do as science and reason continue moving us forward with secular knowledge, e.g. science is finding that homosexuality is a natural part of the animal kingdom?
What we're witnessing from religious fundamentalists of all religions is their reaction, or backlash, to the progress the Enlightenment set forth. Reason and scientific discovery contradict many passages in most religious texts. Christian conservatives believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, so how do they reconcile their literal belief in the Bible with our nation's secular laws that prohibit murder? What is to prevent us from anticipating the emergence of Christianists who behave exactly like Islamists when the Bible offers up such passages as this:
If your brother, the sone of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you ar far away anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from your God. (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)
So if some guy who's best friend has just become 'born-again' goes up to him and says, 'hey dude, you want to go to a yoga class with me? It's at this really cool Buddhist temple.' What's the true bible believer to do?
What if Jame's Dobson's Christianist agenda doesn't go through in the courts and in Congress? What if science continues to win? How will Dobson and his followers react?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 15, 2005 7:27:49 PM
i think what liberals/progressives have done wrong -- those who endorse and celebrate the enlightenment -- is present their beliefs in the same dichotmous (?) terms as do the religious people. Many liberals and intellectuals do beleive in god, of course, have done so all along. however, in the attempt to separate the enlightenment from the dark ages of uber-religious tyranny, secularism was made to be the necessary companion to science, art, and thought. in the modern political era, we find that the separation of church and state has taken on the visage of godlessness -- as a result of both the propaganda of the religious and the "neutral" administrators of the new deal et al.
it is going to take a lot of work, and time, to reframe this one. for one thing: how do we keep church and state separate in the proper ways while allowing public officials to act based on their personal beliefs? how do we decide which popular ideals have a place in governance? i would love to see quaker ideals put into place in our laws and foreign policy; what gives my faith priority over a fundamentalist?
to say that the answer is non-dogmatic government or such does nothing to get us closer to a real answer. it's going to take a lot of time, a lot of work, and somehow the means to hold civil society together long enough for us to work through these issues.
Posted by: cab | Aug 15, 2005 8:45:00 PM
The War may just start in Crawford. A Bush supporter just drove a truck over a bunch of white crosses symbolizing those killed in action in Iraq a few minutes ago. This does have the potential to get ugly.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 15, 2005 9:05:56 PM
"Perhaps I should just ignore these people..." There is a lot to be said for that. Indifference can be a very effective method. Instead of devoting a lot of time and effort to the nigh on impossible - speaking reason to faith - people would be more effective supporting something positive - like what the Democratic party is supposed to be but isn't. Instead of re-acting - act!
Posted by: PKR | Aug 15, 2005 9:21:34 PM
Good to see blatant religious bigotry is alive and well on the left.
Posted by: LT | Aug 15, 2005 9:34:33 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501281.html
is about a split among conservative political activists over Dr./Sen./Majority Leader Frist's views on stem cell research. Maybe it is time to remember that laws are supposed to be written by elected officials and not by activists/lobbyists.
I don't think it is "religious bigotry" to say those of different denominations have different theological views.
And is "the left" anyone who disagrees with Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et al? Is the article posted by J. Hunter in a comment here "religious bigotry of the left" or just an admission that religious people can and do disagree politically and theologically?
Or is someone just trying to cause people to get angry?
Posted by: 218mitchell | Aug 15, 2005 9:36:45 PM
Blow the Whistle!
>Posted by: REF | August 15, 2005 07:48 AM
>
>What a silly tirade. Where is the evidence for his silly fears? In >the latest home-made bomb the Baptists have delivered to a Federal >Judge? There haven't been any. Is his evidence the masked suicide >bombers marching in our streets, holding their Scofield Study >Bibles high? There aren't any. Maybe it's the drive-by shootings, >where the zealots scream out, 'Jesus is Lord!'....well, there >haven't been any of those either.
>Man....get a life....
...because Matthew Shepard doesn't have one anymore.
HEADLINE: "REF Gets 10 minute penalty and a game misconduct"
Ferdinand Magellan knew what science was doing to "organized" religion when he said, "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon.And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
Posted by: Pliny | Aug 15, 2005 11:09:22 PM
REF:
Um... They may not be the now stereotypical suicide bombers, but there were cyanide bombers in texas...
Posted by: Buxtehude | Aug 16, 2005 12:07:51 AM
Yes, the religious kooks are more dangerous than in the past. They are subconsciously embarrassed that their versions of reality were not validated by their versions of god in the 'aftermath' of Y2K. They are sorely disappointed that no one came down, not a seraphim, not even a bored angel, in fact, no one made their presence felt. No smiting angel smote anyone. Mayhaps they were too busy filing their nails or primping their wings, or they just couldn't find their implements of smitation. Whatever. But the fundies have taken note. No one seems - at least in the mighty firmament - to pay them any mind. So, Georgie makes a pretty good stand-in. He's considered a "godly man". And, of course, Tim La Haye and the rest of that team of wackos churning out the 'Left Behind' twaddle are very happy to respond to their desires, fill their needs for expecting to see those that are less "good" than they will be punished for the handicap of not seeing the world through their eyes. The parasitic pastors, and the GOP alike, are very happy to pretend to being the all-knowing, righteous prophets(profit$) & visionaries, prepared to remove all responsibility from their followers ("do this or else"). Much like the god for which they are ready substitute, they have a few foibles, which (the god's) can be easily encountered in a cursory reading of the goodbook. In fact, it fairly makes this god out to be a bit of a psycho, or at least, schizophrenic.
One way to deal with the fundamentalist's smugness is to know the book which they hold sacred better than they do. Not easy, but also not as hard as it sounds. Remind them of the contradictions, the incest, the adulteries, the promoting of human slavery, the murders and the justifications thereof. Have a little fun: ask 'em what it was that David & Jonathon got up to (hint: they were young, they were handsome, and they had their clothes off!). Ask them a little Bible quiz question: "Which biblical figure threw his father off the throne [so much for honoring Ma & Pa], then, to prove he was now in charge, proceeded to 'get it on' with Dad's concubines [was that outright stealing, or just coveting?] - on the flat roof of the palace, in broad daylight?" Bonus question: "What happened to those lovely concubines when Dad regained the throne?" (Hint: it wasn't nice.)Which great prophet (recognized in the Talmud as such) was descended from these Royal sleezeballs? (Hint: well, he'd be of the Royal line, as was his father, and his mother, as well. [read the geneology]. In the same book, this person was described as "The King of the Jews".)
By the way, by which version of the Ten Commandments should we comport our lives? There are 3.
Posted by: Sid Leader | Aug 16, 2005 9:28:11 AM
The Religious Right wants to start a WAR? With us?
As some coward once said, "bring it on!"
Posted by: Richard L. | Aug 16, 2005 9:33:06 AM
You are a paraniod whacko. Your opinion ignores the fact that all legal and legislative momentum has been assaulting the Christian traditions of American culture. Any attempts for the voters to overthrow the tyranny of the secular judiciary is then hammered down by judge shopping until the lawyers find a Steven Reinhardt to stomp on our 1st Amendment freedoms.
In San Diego an atheist asshole and his attorney have been working for years to remove a cross put up at a war memorial in 1918. It offends this piece of shit. Of course the 9th Circuit marxists agreed with him. Is this bum fighting the Religious Right. Hell no, he's taking on the vast majority of American voters. There was an election this July to give the property with the cross to the Feds who will defend the cross effectively. Our liberal aetheist sued to require a 2/3rds majority to pass. The vote to save the cross was 77%. Fuck the bastard.
Just because you're gay and think you are saved doesn't mean you can shut up every American that thinks you are wrong. Personally I tend to agree with you about that but the Lord doesn't ask me for advice and I don't tell him what to do. Still, the old time righteous Christians, Muslims and Jews that think homosexuals are damned perverts have every right to say so as long as they don't take any actions to hasten you the final judgement. You ranting libs scare me a lot more than Bible thumpers. You paranoid leftists are the real danger to freedom of religion and speech.
Go ahead, Stoke your resentment for us Christians. I'll wish you well in spite of it. After all it was Jesus who said returning love for your enemies hatred "will pour coals of fire on their head". We don't need to harm you. You're killing yourself with fear and bitterness.
Rich.
PS: I'm moving to Deschutes county in a few years, God willing. Two of my right wing, Christian friends and their families have moved this year to southern Oregon. We'll make it a red state again someday soon.
Posted by: Doug | Aug 16, 2005 10:22:16 AM
Dear Dick-
at first i thought you said 'stroke' and not 'stoke'. i let out a hearty 'tehe'. i really can't counter your well thought out arguments, but i have 2 questions:
1. is final judgment anything like final jeopardy? cuz if it is, i will dominate ala ken jennings: 'what is the rapture, beeotches!'.
2. what exactly are 'coals of fire'? if they are coals they are just really hot and if there is fire, then that would make them fireballs. (i said balls ('tehe' x2))
please, don't leave me hanging, Dick.
Posted by: Doug | Aug 16, 2005 10:25:28 AM
Dear Dick,
at first i thought you said 'stroke' and not 'stoke'. i let out a hearty 'tehe'. i really can't counter your well thought out arguments, but i have 2 questions:
1. is final judgment anything like final jeopardy? cuz if it is, i will dominate ala ken jennings: 'what is the rapture, beeotches!'.
2. what exactly are 'coals of fire'? if they are coals they are just really hot and if there is fire, then that would make them fireballs. (i said balls ('tehe' x2))
please, don't leave me hanging, Dick.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 14, 2005 9:41:12 PM
Somehow this post seems familiar ...