Christian Is Not Synonymous With Conservative
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/03/30/149717982/christian-is-not-synonymous-with-conservativeby EDWARD SCHUMACHER-MATOS
?t=1333145591&s=3
Who are "the Christians"?
This beguilingly simple question was provoked by a Morning Edition report in which host David Greene referred to an anti-abortion movie, "October Baby", as a "Christian film." Many Christians objected. They didn't identify with the movie or its message.
"I've been troubled for years that conservative, evangelical Christians have appropriated the name 'Christian' as if Christians holding progressive views don't exist," wrote Theodore Johnson of Basye, VA. "In today's story, the reporter seemed to go along with that fiction by using the word 'Christian' without adding 'conservative' or 'evangelical' or some other words to indicate that these are Christians with one point of view that isn't held by everyone who consider themselves Christians."
Johnson's point is more than valid. But Greene's response was also valid.
"'Christian' is a well-established modifier when describing a genre in filmmaking, as well as a genre in music," he wrote me. "There's an award for Christian music at the Grammys, for example. Amazon and other retailers classify Christian movies as a category for sales."
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
When anyone hears the word "god" in the United States the term calls to mind christian iconography. Like the article says, 78% of Americans consider themselves Christian. It seems to me an exercise in futility to try to parse who the best/worst/true/fake/real/unreal Christians are. If you call yourself a Christian, that's what you are. The holy text is the same, the iconography is the same, the history is the same and the objectives of every interpretation of the Christian faith are the same. I consider it axiomatic that anybody, for all intents and purposes, who calls themselves a Christian wants to do what's right.
It doesn't matter how we worship or even if we worship at all. Ultimately, the practice of worship tends toward the same objective. I can't think of any religion that doesn't strive for infinity in one form or another. That search, when personified, seems to result in some sort of deity with infinite human characteristics. Christians have a deity that, "so loved the world he gave his only begotten son." That personification of infinite humanity was developed about two thousand years ago. For most of that time it was the only game in town. Even when people were being burned alive over doctrine, most weren't dying because they didn't believe in the Christian god. They just disagreed about conflicting conceptions of personified infinity.
There is no effective competition for the Christian faith in the United States today. Christianity owns the "god brand" hands down. Other attempts at faith don't have a chance against that monopoly. The whole "new age" thing is experimenting with a fascination with quantum mechanics but that's about as good as it gets. People need, more than anything else, people. A god that is the ultimate person is going to be a hard act to beat.
Most new religions are just offshoots of existing faiths. Maybe Christians will come up with a new personification of god, maybe they won't. A lot of factors will determine whether or not they will get that done. I suspect we are on the cusp of another axial age, but I could be wrong. Be that as it may, I don't have much confidence in the Christian faith at this point. I think it has been overwhelmed by the materialistic zeitgeist of the times. Christianity hitched its cart to consumerism a long time ago and I doubt if it will be able to reinvent itself before its mule dies. But we'll see.
This seems shorter than I expected it to be. Hope it makes sense. That half bottle of red wine will probably get my ass kicked in H&M, might as well make it a clean sweep. 
Oh, here's that chai,
And those that continue to paint all religious, and particularly all christian, people with the same brush give aid and comfort to the enemy, imo.
Have you seen what happens to people here, one of the most actively progressive and liberal sites out there, when religious leaders or religious people speak out? It ain't pretty. I post lots of articles about progressive religious groups speaking out loudly. Have you seen them?
When both the media and the people you most closely politically affiliate with shout you down whenever you speak, it's very hard to be heard.
I'm completely with you here. Let's git 'er done.
I think that there are enough here, we have (dare I say) a brain trust. We come from a vast diversity of cultures, religious beliefs, races, and any other criteria which the Republicans would use to divide us.
Maybe this is our overwhelming strength. Maybe it is that nobody is saying it. Maybe the meme we need is that of exclusion vs. inclusion (we of the latter, of course 
).
The one thing I absolutely know for sure is that the Repugs seem to be vulnerable. They have been fighting a memetic war for decades. The memes are both authoritorian and counter to the evidence. Their record is abysmal. So why does their meme predominate?
If we can answer this question, I suspect the Republicans would be changing their tactics quickly.
As I've done in these forums before, I recommend two books. Daniel C Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which looks at religion partially in context of this memetic interpretation, and John W. Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience which explores in a bit of depth, the social science and psychology of the authoritarian personality which Dean argues is a source to the issues. (Yes! That John Dean!)
To fight these bastards, we need to be informed about what they are all about. I would never claim that Dennett and Dean have the answers, nor would they. But I think the one thing we all need to do here, is to take in all the data, which is the one thing the Repubs do not do. That may be a strength for us.
How do we proceed?
pleasure. I have also learned much from you and hope you will stick around.
I think there are a lot of us here - both willing to listen and to speak up. Despite what some say, I think this site is politically powerful. When I hear the talking heads talk about what the *liberals* are saying, I know where they are getting that information.
I predict that as the election approaches, we will coalesce even more. I'm not so worried about Obama, but I want to try and get both houses of Congress.
Together we can do this.
And I just wanted to say that I very much enjoyed the discussion you and Cbayer just had here. One of the more productive ones I've seen here in a long time. My hat is off to both of you!
I take no credit. Cbayer brings out the best in me, just like the Repugs bring out my worst.
I am learning a lot from longship and really appreciate it. He is a great addition to this group, imo.
Hope you get your avatar. YOu could always make a small donation and upload it yourself, you know.
...but right now I still have reservations. Kind of a long story honestly. But we'll see. 
... correlated, as was mentioned elsewhere in the thread above. What these studies of the relationships between intelligence (or degree of effort expended in thinking) and religion, between intelligence and politics, and between religion & politics, have shown is an interesting set of correlations. That's all. There is a correlation between lower IQ scores and the attractiveness of religion to offer simplistic answers to life's questions. Similarly, there is a correlation between low effort thinking and the simplistic solutions offered by U.S. conservatism. Lastly, there is a correlation between participation in organized religion and conservative politics.
In all of these cases, it's correlation, not causation: dummies are attracted to religion and conservative politics because both offer easy answers. Christian fundies (more likely to be church-going) are attracted to conservative politics because both embrace authoritarian organizational structure. Doesn't mean all Christians or conservatives are dumb, or that all Christians are authoritarians. It means there's a strong correlation between these attributes of individual beliefs, when viewed in aggregate.
-------
From lurking DU, my impression is that we still have a ways to go before sparks stop flying between strong atheists and progressive Christians. There's not a lot of trust... yet... so I wonder if such a political coalition as described is possible at this time? Since we're being so honest, let's cut the Gordian knot. I see two obstacles to the admirable goal of coalition-building: (1) atheists, and (2) progressive Christians. I only sort of kid... Let's walk a mile in the sandals of each:
(1) On the atheist side (full disclosure, here): atheists do not welcome even Jesus OR his teachings (or Mo' or Buddha etc) into any non-theological debate. The minute that religious belief is inserted into a political debate (but not just politics) it is no longer the same debate. It derails the debate, taking the course of conversation out of the realm of the falsifiable and into that of the infinitely disputatious. This is incredibly frustrating for most atheists, and (here's the key bit) it doesn't matter if the Jesus inserted is the 'socialist' Jesus or 'Rambo' Jesus... I think this is the hardest thing for prog Xtians to understand: we atheists see the problem as the involvement of religion and politics -- any religion. It's not the SORT of Jesus -- it's the Jesus, itself. So atheists want prog-Xtians to confront the fundies in their churches, and get religion out of politics... including the religion of the prog-Xtians, themselves.
(2) On the prog Christian side (correct me if I'm off-base): prog-Xtians feel as if they are under attack from both the far right and the atheist left. They are denounced by the fundies and margalized in their own Churches (witness the liberal leaning of Catholic laity compared to the Bishops), and find themselves in the unenviable position of debating theology with wingnuts who think Jesus is coming back this year. Never mind debating the theology of, i.e., abortion or climate change!! Then, when they seek out folks with similar politics, they find themselves in the Big Tent, where any theology is unwelcome. Prog-Xtians feel marginalized religiously and politically, and when they try to un-marginalize themselves in either group, the pushback is instantaneous. 'Socialist Jesus' is evil to the fundies, and imaginary to the atheists. The end result is that prog-Xtians seeking to reclaim Christianity are fighting on two fronts: theological on the right flank and political on the left. So prog-Xtians want atheists to help them engage the right flank, while using the Big Tent as their HQ.
If I'm not mistaken, my little exercise has identified the biggest obstacle to such a coalition, summarized in the last sentence of each. Atheists don't ever want to hear about Jesus -- any Jesus at all -- in any public political (scientific, etc) debate. The biggest target of our ire in the U.S. is the RW fundies, but we would be equally put-out by, i.e., Native Americans opening an OWS General Assembly with a prayer. But prog-Xtians are believers, and take their faith seriously and personally, and while the biggest target of their ire is also the RW fundies, they would not be put-out by non-denominational, non-sectarian religious observance if it accommodated everyone equally. That's where we part ways: the Big Tent is a political tent, and to us atheists, there's no room and no time for religion, therein. Skip the opening moment of silence, please, and let's get down to business.
OK, I tried... no doubt I'm biased, so please correct my erroneous assumptions. That was all on the bummer side. On the groovy side, I think recent months have seen a marked increase in actual communication across the a/theological divide. I think change is in the air. If I were forced to guess why, I'd say that the aforementioned obstacle is less important than putting progressive Dems into office, as we near November. Will this translate into a softening of relations, after November? I hope so -- surely prolonged rational discourse is bound to increase mutual understanding and foster compassion. As for what that future coalition might look like? My hunch is that we'll just learn to be political, and we'll leave all the religious talk at home or in the church, where it belongs. Movement atheism is already political, out of the box, and desires nothing more than to just stop talking about god in public. I for one have zero problem working with Xtians, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. And I applaud Xtians who confront abusive leadership and beliefs in their own churches before they become public policy. What I do have a problem with is prog Xtians who would just substitute socialist Jesus for Rambo Jesus in the public sphere.
...at least in my case. I think the distilled version loses something (like nuance and diplomacy). I at least don't want to destroy Christianity. I just want religion out of politics. Sure, there's the 1st Amendment, but the religious aren't the only ones who have it. If believers want to keep having a heated debate, and to keep getting knee-jerk reactions, then by all means keep exercising the 1st Amendment in that way. Atheists will continue to exercise their free speech rights in response, and gee -- we're back to square one. I was trying to frame realistic terms for discourse -- find the obstacle and find the common ground.
If compromise is possible, what is each side willing to give up, and what is non-negotiable? Getting religion out of politics is definitely non-negotiable -- whether it's socialist Jesus or Rambo Jesus. Likewise separating religion and science. I can't imagine that what's most important to progressive Christians is keeping the status quo, but swapping their Jesus out. I assumed good faith in that regard. Is it really asking so much from political allies that they won't burden our common cause with their religious baggage?
