Don't let pushy Christians fracture our nation

[mopaul]

The vast majority of good Christians should rise up and confront the crazy born-again zealots who call themselves Christians. Let's never forget our wall separating church and state. It's there to protect us all. To protect us from one religious group infiltrating and conquering our government. To protect us from fundamentalist chaos.

Think of what would happen to our country if Christianity were declared the official religion of America. Many assume it already is, "We are a Judeo/Christian nation", blah blah blah. We are a nation of hundreds of religions, all living peacefully, and worshiping freely, side by side. But certain soulless individuals in our government hate Muslims, hate Hindus, hate religions they see as cockroaches in the cupboard.

Unless you've actually had dealings with fundamentalists before, you probably don't actually understand the grave danger they pose to our union. They play hardball, they don't like to lose, and they have billions of dollars at their disposal to toss around to lobbyists, senators and congressmen.

The republinazis began playing these people for chumps as a voting block during the reagan dark ages. They are stealthy too, many Christian conservatives pretend to be mainstream, get elected, then reveal themselves as zealots, with a political agenda. It never fails. The fat cat politicians themselves are hardly pious, religious, or saintly, they trot around holding bibles, like bush, but inside, they are demonic to the core.

They USE Christian conservatives. They don't really give a s--t what your particular sect is, they just want your votes. Then they'll leave you in the alley with your dress torn.

God will be on this year's campaign platforms for the republiwhores.
The monkey in the suit will say that he talks to God, and Jesus is his favorite political philosopher, he'll say that God told him to get Saddam, to raise our taxes, to rob our treasury, to invade nations and kill thousands, and make billions.

You CANNOT reason with religious zealots, of any stripe. They don't think like the rest of us. They are hypnotized, and under mind control, from Robertson, Falwell, Graham, and Benny Hinn. You cannot negotiate or capitulate with a crusader for Christ. Seriously though folks, if we can't keep a lid on our zealot neighbors, the ones who speak in tongues and vote straight republinazi, they will bring this country down. They'd rather see it in rubble and dust than see it your way. They have their minds and hearts set on world domination and Armageddon. They also feel threatened, and cornered.

Heads up people.

[Kamika]

1. you know what?

If I took your post, and replaced every "christian"

with gay, jew, muslim, or something else, I'd be banned

[LARED]

2. I noticed that as well n/t

[Solon]

3. I don't understand the problem

He's talking about the Religious Right, not all Christians. He makes pains to differenciate the two in the first sentence. You could replace the Christian with Jew or Muslim and not get banned.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. well, let's see how it sounds...

Don't Let Pushy Muslims fracture our nation.

Don't Let Pushy Jews fracture our nation.

Don't Let Pushy Gays fracture our nation.

Don't Let Pushy African-Americans fracture our nation.

Don't Let Pushy Women fracture our nation.

How does it go? "No discrimination based on sex, race, color, or creed"? Generally, people try to be sensitive to other people's ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and avoid broad generalizations.

Except on DU, against Christians. Then broad statements are a-okay. (Well, to be fair, he didn't say ALL Christians - just the PUSHY ones!) :eyes:

[iverglas]

56. sounds pretty funny!

Don't Let Pushy Muslims fracture our nation.
Don't Let Pushy Jews fracture our nation.
Don't Let Pushy Gays fracture our nation.
Don't Let Pushy African-Americans fracture our nation.
Don't Let Pushy Women fracture our nation.

And the reason it sounds so funny is that those are pretty much all imaginary cartoon characters. Know of any Pushy Gays trying to fracture your nation?

I think that a logical fallacy may be creeping in here.

Saying "pushy Christians" is not saying "Christians are pushy". (Fallacy of the undistributed middle? Somebody help ...)

What it says is "(those) Christians who are pushy".

If you said "don't let black cats cross your path", you would hardly be represented as meaning "all cats are black, and don't let them cross your path".

So I hope you're not misinterpreting "pushy Christians" as meaning "all Christians are pushy". -- Oh look, you said:

(Well, to be fair, he didn't say ALL Christians
- just the PUSHY ones!) :eyes:

Yeah, he didn't, so acknowledging that he didn't would in fact be eminently fair ... or the least one could do. So I don't know what the eyes are rolling for, or what the problem might be.

.

[mopaul]

4. good point

of course we can't allow pushy catholics, or pushy presbyterians to take over the nation either, but the reality of the CC movement and it's power over our elected officials stands. they are a serious threat to us all. of course, most of us ARE Christians, so we might feel slightly put off by such a headline as mine.

if i be banned, i'll understand. but i'm trying to make a serious point about Christian zealotry and it's dangerous grip on people's minds. i don't want to see well meaning Christians blamed for the stupidity of a tiny percent.

[Kamika]

5. I'm not saying you'll be banned

I know I wont alert you (I hardly ever alert anyone)

I'm just trying to show how skewed the rules are.

I'm sure your post was with all intentions good.


But If I'd post something like.. the oversexual gays must stop being that and the normal gays must take back their image etc etc.. whooeeee that would be the door for me..

(Super disclaimer: the thing about gays was just an example, I am not writing it as a statement or anytithing like that.)

[Solon]

7. How are the Rules skewed?

If mopaul posted that ALL Christians are radical and dangerous I can see the point, but he specified a few radicals that call themselves Christian, a BIG difference. It would be the same in specifying any religious radical group that advocates violence.

[Kamika]

9. read my example

topic

[Solon]

12. Are you saying that it is not OK to point out radicals at all?

Or just Christian Radicals. If I criticize Al-Queda as a Radical Islamic group, will I be banned? It is no different and to use your example, as far as I'm aware of, if there is a group of Homosexuals that would use violence or subterfuge to gain political power over others, I would criticize them too. Neither group are representative of the whole segments of the population, but they could claim to be. Pointing out that members of said groups have to speak out against them is neither wrong or bigoted. We all have a responsibility to denounce the tactics and terrorism that such groups employ, otherwise they win.

[Kamika]

13. no

I'm just saying, it's ONLy ok to point out "christian" radicals in the way mopaul did it

[mopaul]

14. just like on star wars, Chrisitianity has it's dark side

99% of Christians are wonderful, intelligent people. it's the one percenters that make all the noise and trouble and stink.

i understand kamika's points too. my headline is deliberately provocative, because talking about these things is like tightrope walking. i get really carried away with it sometimes, to the point of near hysteria, like the guy in the body snatchers, running down the street warning everyone, or paul revere, on his alarm.

too often, we let people GET AWAY WITH CRAP, and give them a pass, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS.

just because troublemakers happen to go to the same church as us, does not mean we give them full run of the nation.

[Solon]

15. Hijacking Christiananity

Think about this, the reason that mopaul stated his argument in the way he did is that groups like the CC and FoF are redefining what a Christian is in America. They are Ultra-Nationalist Theocrats, no other Christian groups allowed. They are claiming to be the only "True" Christians based on political not religious beliefs. And their agenda is dangerous to all minorities that they believe are hell-bound, including the vast majority of Christians in this nation. That is why they believe they are persecuted in this country, they are a minority themselves, but a mobilized and fanatical one. Mainstream Americans of all faiths should call them on this fact, and denounce them, however fellow Christians would be more persuasive to the majority in the country simply because they are the MAJORITY.

[mopaul]

18. i think roberston should be removed from t.v. by law

i think we should actually step in and shut down people like roberston and falwell, because, we have a SEPERATION of church and state. robertson ran for president, i don't think that should be allowed. he has only one agenda, spreading the gospel to all corners of the world, and making billions. he is evil, and he has too much political influence with his hypnotized devotees.

this makes him dangerous to our nation. if robertson wanted to, he could mobilize his base to to really crazy things, like kill gays, or burn synagogues, etc. true believers, mixed with political and religious zealots, make for a very dangerous combination.

[Kamika]

19. You should'nt worry about that

What you should worry about should be how many of these guys are in high army positions

[Solon]

22. That's a slippery slope that I do not want to touch.

If your talking about publically subsidizing his program I agree, but to institute what amounts to a religious test for sutability for office then I disagree. He can be dangerous but as long as he is not overtly threatening anyone he deserves first-amendment protection everyone else enjoys. We can fight him tooth and nail, for the hearts and minds of people, but within the context of the Constitution, and in voting his candidates out of office.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. By law?

I think that would be a violation of both Freedom of Speech AND Religion. But hey, nobody cares about that as long as Christians are the ones that are discriminated against.

And hey, Robertson ran for president. So did Jesse Jackson.

[mopaul]

52. robertson blurs the line between religion & politics

i din't vote for jesse jackson for exactly the same reason, even though i like him. i won't vote for an evangelist or preacher of any kind, they have an obvious agenda.

many people take a candidates religion into consideration when voting.
there was a big stink when kennedy, the first catholic president took office. people get all bent out of shape thinking about a jew president, or a hindu president, but every president we ever had was religious to some degree.

i hate it when a politician FLAUNTS his religion, which is something that should be kept utterly out of politics.

politicians should accept NO money from a church or religious group.
preachers, priests, rabbis and men of the cloth should not run for or be president.

and congregations should not be swayed one way or the other how to vote by their prospective clergy. it mixes church and state too much.

and if churches can contribute millions to political parties, they should start paying taxes, like every other special interest group

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Guess what, that's his right

We have this funny thing called a Constitution. You should check it out. Being religious doesn't void those rights, though many here wish it.

Sorry you don't like politicians flaunting religion. Religious people don't hide it. Too bad for you.

Why should "preachers, priests, rabbis and men of the cloth" not run for or be president? According to what?

Congregations are swayed by their beliefs.

[arendt]

65. FYI, read "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bauer n/t

[boobooday]

76. The original argument

I think the original argument was that SOME Christians were trying to hijack the entire concept of Christianity, and that the MAJORITY of Christians should resist the takeover.

It wasn't a slur against all Christians, as others have pointed out.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[mopaul]

11. ALL religions are welcome in my America

that's what i learned as a boy. freedom of religion. it's what makes us America. we don't have bloodbaths in the streets because one sect has a problem with another sect. that's for undeveloped, third world countries, not America.

But we really can't have a dominant religion that pushes out all others. true religious zealots always seem to descend into mass murders to prove their piety.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. still, there is much deletion going on for being

"anti" something for mentioning facts about a "few" radicals of other religions. It never seems to happen when someone trashes Christians, as in the lead post here.

That there are different degrees of Christianity is food for thought. I often ask myself howcome. We have white Christians and we, apparently have, black Christians. I do not mean that in the sense of skin color, but more in the sense of the orientation and the attempts to catagorize Christians into an "either" "or"

That religion has entered onto this political stage has led, in my opinion, to more hypocrisy than ever. It has become a battle of religion--again. It is unfortunate that a spiritual belief system lends itself to this type of infighting and bigotry against each other.

Yet no religious leader has come out and criticized the radical, extremist religion of George Bush, Ashcroft or any of the Reconstructionists . How come? Or did I miss it? Is it a subject no one dares mention--no clergy that is?

It is one reason why I cannot subscribe to any one religion.

[Solon]

20. What matters is the tone of the rhetoric.

You can make an opinion about a radical subset of people become bigotted very easily, and such posts should be deleted, however many posts are not, and it is the tone that matters.

For example: Lets say there is a post about vandilism involving Jewish graves involving the KKK or Neo-Nazis. Now I could say that they are a bunch of White-Supremists and are terrorising the neighboorhood. Or to be bigotted myself, call them a bunch of Crackers on a rampage. Which would be deleted?

BTW: Mods, I don't mean to be racist to white people, I'm not self-hating :)

[mopaul]

8. I'm a zealot myself...

...some zealots are mad for Christ, I'm mad against religious zealotry. all through history, religious zealotry has killed millions, and we think of those times as ancient history and it could never happen again. but religious zealotry is still here, in the modern age, and it goes against all the progress humanity has made up to this point. witness all the fallen civilizations. what caused their demise? many times, it was religious zealotry

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

49. Aren't you always preaching about 'civil discourse'?

insinuating someone is insane for holding an opinion counter to yours is hardly 'civil'.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. I am merely agreeing

He said he was mad. Who am I to disagree?

[mopaul]

79. there are millions of crazy people running around

and i'm just one of them. if you really think about it, you're probably crazy too. i just admit it.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. You want to violate the 1st Amendment

That's crazy.

[Solon]

6. Exactly MoPaul

I understood it at the "Pushy" part, and calling them Christians is a self identifier, they call themselves that. One thing to keep in mind is that they truly believe Pat and Graham are speaking God's word, and therefore that can make them dangerous.

[LeahMira]

23. I don't think so...

If I took your post, and replaced every "christian" with gay, jew, muslim, or something else, I'd be banned

Every group does have its lunatic fringe. Maybe it's easier to ignore some of them because they are a small number.

I heard somewhere (probably TV) that 40% of Americans self-identify as "born again." I'm not sure exactly what that term means to Christians, but I imagine it involves some additional commitment made in adulthood. Whatever it means, 40% of the overwhelming majority of folks is a large number.

I wonder, though, what would be appropriate for moderate and liberal Christians to do in order to distance themselves from the lunatic fringe. It does seem to me that among themselves more moderate and liberal Christians do manage to separate themselves from the fundamentalists, but in public they are not willing to criticize other members of the family. I sometimes wonder if the moderate and liberal Christians aren't too sure just what they believe.

[iverglas]

89. what is to be done ;)

... by "moderate" and "liberal" Christians.

I was raised, many years ago, as one of those liberal ones, in just about the most liberal mainstream Protestant church on the face of the earth: the United Church of Canada. (It was formed in the early 1900s by a merger of part of the Presbyterian Church and part of the Methodist Church in Canada, and another smaller sect.)

The UCC had a large humanitarian (as opposed to strictly evangelical) presence in China quite a while ago, and as a result many Chinese immigrants to Canada were already UCC and established their own congregations here, but were mostly uncomfortable within the Canadian church. In recent years, large numbers of Chinese congregations have split from the main UCC over issues on which the church's stand was too "liberal" -- like, several years ago, ordaining gay men and lesbians. (Women have been ordained in the UCC for ages; a childhood friend of my mother's, a lesbian former minister, spoke at my grandmother's memorial service.) They continue to be vocal opponents of "liberal" practices in the church, just one of those sad contradictions ... minorities oppressing other minorities.

The UCC is outspoken on social policy issues in Canada, both on its own and as members of ecumenical groups. The UCC has always been big on ecumenism. Its closest counterpart in the US is the Churches of Christ, I believe, although it has a fair bit in common with Unitarians in many ways.

http://www.united-church.ca/

Here's a taste of something from the site about old Mel and his movie:

In response to those who wondered if the February 24th news release downplayed or denied the historical understanding of the cross or the resurrection, the Rev. Bruce Gregersen, General Council Minister for Programs for Mission and Ministry, offers some further thoughts for reflection.

"My comments do not seek to deny the historic understanding of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. What I am challenging is the very narrow view that Jesus' passion was a play set in motion by God in which Jesus' suffering has no connection to the time in which he lived. Palestine was under occupation. Jesus' birth was announced as bringing "liberation to the captives." Mary's song speaks of the mighty being cast down. Jesus stood in solidarity with an oppressed people who suffered under the unyielding power of the Roman Empire.

The hope that Jesus' death and resurrection brings to humanity was, and is, connected to real historical situations of death and oppression.

To speak of the suffering of Jesus as being the price for the debt of sin leads us to a spiritualization of suffering and the whole pattern of corporal mortification that is a part of extreme conservative movements. Liberation theologians have also indicated that the way in which this emphasis has been used to spiritualize the actions of the church – in other words, to argue that the church has no business seeking the ending of oppression or injustice – is just the opposite of what Jesus, I believe, was about," explains Gregersen.

Now there's theology at a level it deserves to be done. ;)

The United Church has long taken a public position against criminalizing abortion in any way, for another example.

Bill Blaikie is a member of Parliament for the (social-democrat) New Democratic Party, and also a United Church minister. Tommy Douglas, one of the founders of the party and the "father of medicare" in Canada (and grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland), was a Baptist minister. (Amazing, I know.) The "social gospel" tradition he was part of is the foundation of UCC theology and practice.

Bill wrote a piece a while back about Stockwell Day, who was then the leader of the religious-right party in Canada, Reform. He was a former teacher at a private fundamentalist Christian school in Alberta that had been investigated and found to be teaching anti-semitic material. Bill addressed the vocal opposition to Day's religion-in-politics approach, and the whole notion of "conservative Christianity" and its connection to conservative politics, and I recommend the article highly.

http://www.punditmag.com/articles/blaikie.html

Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day's ‘Christian Conservatism' has been the subject of considerable debate since his arrival upon the federal stage. But, according to Member of Parliament Bill Blaikie, Day's religious convictions have little to do with many of his policies, and his attempts to associate his faith with his political views do little to explain how Christianity actually influences his brand of conservatism.

... What Day has not done is give an account of how his faith actually informs his politics. Where, for example, does he find justification in the scriptures for uncritically accepting a view of the economy as one in which, as an ideal, people compete, rather than co-operate?

Those are the kinds of questions that need to be put to the religious right, publicly and pointedly, by the Christians whom mopaul was addressing.

.

[Liberal Christian]

105. Great post about the United Church of Canada

Just one small correction.

The partner church in the United States is the United Church of Christ, not the Church of Christ.

The word "United" is key. It is the word that separates two denominations that are about 180 degrees apart on the liberal-conservative scale. The United Church of Christ, a 1957 merger between the Congregational Christian churches (think Plymouth Rock and the Mayflower, Amistad, first woman ordained in 1853, etc) and the Evangelical and Reformed Churches (mostly German immigrants to the US).

While there is not universal agreement on issues like homosexuality, reproductive choice, and other culture issues in the United Church of Christ, there is, generally speaking, most of our regional judicatories do ordain gay and lesbian pastors, some of our churches have performed Holy Union ceremonies for years, and we continue to be active in peace and justice issues, following the words of Micah "This is what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God" and the teachings of Jesus.

To learn more about the United Church of Christ (the US version of "UCC") check out the website at http://www.ucc.org.

(Edited for clarity)

[iverglas]

111. ah, I'd thought so!

Then I saw that reference at the UCCanada thing about Mel, to the "Churches of Christ" material about the movie, and thought it might have changed or something. I suspect the UCCanada article just had it slightly wrong.

And I neglected the Congregationalists, who I think were included in the UCCanada merger back in the 1920s.

I guess that's where the structure of the church derives from -- individual congregations have a lot of authority over what they do, including whom they marry, now that same-sex marriages are being performed in some provinces of Canada. While some UC congregations undoubtedly don't, it wouldn't be too hard to find one that does.

But Evangelical and Reformed? How did you end up with *them*??

I've always found Dutch churches interesting. On the left, the RCers, and on the right, the protestants. As a generalization. Although I think the Dutch Reformed in Canada are a little more unpleasant than their home-country counterparts. Kinda like those Boers.

My longtime city councillor was a Dutch RC priest, whom I worked and voted for every election. When campaigning as a candidate for office myself one time, I discovered I'd knocked at the door of a house occupied by 8 RC priests. The one who came to the door was (originally) Dutch; he said he and his Dutch (immigrant) colleagues would of course be voting for me ... but he couldn't vouch for those French-Canadian priests he shared the house with. ;)

And thanks for the reciprocal information! The old UCCanada still has a place in my heart, despite our long separation.

.

[Liberal Christian]

115. How church merger partners find each other

iverglas asks: But Evangelical and Reformed? How did you end up with *them*??

The first thing you have to remember is that "Evangelical" in the sense in which it was used in the German language of the original members of the Evangelical Synod of North America, simply means "Protestant." In Central and South America, "evangelico" still means "Protestant." It was not at that time used in the sense that it is used today in conservative Christian circles.

The Evangelical Synod of North America traced its beginnings to an association of German Evangelical pastors in Missouri. This association, founded in 1841, reflected the 1817 union of Lutheran and Reformed churches in Germany.

The Reformed Church in the United States traced its beginnings to congregations of German settlers in Pennsylvania founded from 1725 on. Later, its ranks were swelled by Reformed immigrants from Switzerland, Hungary and other countries. (Edited to add: This is different than the major Dutch Reformed traditions -- the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America. All trace their roots to Calvin and Geneva, but find themselves expressing that theology somewhat differently.)

The Evangelical and Reformed Churches in the US merged in the 1930s. So did the Congregational and Christian churches. Almost immediately, both denominations, which were committed to ecumenism, began looking for other partners who were disposed to live out Jesus' hope "That they may all be one." One UCC historian says that the two denominations merged less because of their similarity to each other than because of their fervent desire for ecumenism.

And that's how we all ended up together :)

[iverglas]

123. (aargh)

(was getting a link to put in the reply I'd composed, and good old netscape crashed, and it's time for lunch, so, being brief ...)

You gotta remember that my church history got a bit stunted, me having gone agnostic (and gone to hang out with Unitarians) when I was 15, and then atheist within that year. ;)

One UCC historian says that the two denominations merged less because of their similarity to each other than because of their fervent desire for ecumenism.

I hear resonance! In my day, the UCCanada was after merging with the Anglican Church of Canada. Nice folks, generally quite socially progressive (also opposed to legislating regarding abortion after the law was struck down in 88, as I recall). But there were a couple of problems. One was that we ordained women, and they didn't until a fair while later. And the other was that Peter thing -- they had bishops, we didn't.

The women thing was eventually worked out within the international Anglican communion -- local option, mutual recognition; Anglicans in Canada have ordained women for quite some time, including an old ex-Maoist friend of mine married to a "Peace Now" Jew, how Canadian -- but that bishop business just wasn't solvable.

So now the mainstream liberal churches in Cda focus on common-front efforts and forums for dialogue, the main one being the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. And it was while clicking on the page for the members of the CCCJ (because I'm curious too, not knowing exactly who all is involved), I crashed. Lemme try another tack. ... Hmm, no, the CCCJ seems to be an organization of individuals rather than institutions. www.cccj.ca

Here we are, I was just muddled. The Canadian Council of Churches: http://www.ccc-cce.ca/

• Anglican Church of Canada
• Baptist Convention of Ontario and Québec
• British Methodist Episcopal Church (Associate Member)
• Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, Canadian Diocese
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Christian Reformed Church in North America
• Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada
• Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada)
• Orthodox Church in America
• The Presbyterian Church in Canada
• Polish National Catholic Church
• The Reformed Church in Canada
• Religious Society of Friends - Canadian Yearly Meeting
• The Salvation Army
• Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
• The United Church of Canada

They're not all "progressive", that's for sure, but they don't include the Pentacostals and suchlike. By the choice of those who aren't members, of course.

(There they are -- I won't say who, but one in that list put *my* phone number in one of their bulletins a few years ago, and I got calls for years from confused congregants ... and I couldn't find the right number in the phone book anywhere because I couldn't figure out what its official name was. When an old friend of mine happened to call looking for her denomination's office and got me instead, I got it straightened out and was able to re-direct the other lost sheep.)

Here's the page of the Council's Commission on Peace and Justice:
http://www.ccc-cce.ca/english/jp/index.html
I'm *sure* there are similar organizations doing similar work in the US, but being drowned out by the religious right.

http://www.ccc-cce.ca/english/jp/index.html?Iraq02.htm~main

26 March 2003

Dear Prime Minister Jean Chrétien,

The Canadian Churches commend you and your government for remaining firm on your stand, as repeated March 17 in the House of Commons, that while Canada insists that Iraq should fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, Canada will not participate in a war on Iraq led by the United States.

Now that the war has started, we cannot but deplore the fact that the United States did not abide by international law and acted in spite of the United Nations’ opposition to war. Canada’s commitment to uphold international law is well reputed and we are proud of the fact that you have maintained a coherent position under such circumstances. ...

You might be interested in http://www.visiontv.ca/ -- Canada's version of religious television programming. (Yeah, we get the Swaggarts and Tiltons too in syndication, and have our own homegrown version of the 500 club or whatever it is, "100 Huntley Street", but Vision TV is mainstream.)

.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. Very well said Mopaul. (n/t)

[JasonDeter]

16. With all the rhetoric in this post

I'm surprised the United States of America has made it this far! Why in the youth of our country the bible was taught in schools! Kids use to pray in schools and yet, America is the greatest country on the planet. Wow go figure.

[foreigncorrespondent]

21. Well that all depends...

...on if your belief in something being the "greatest" means to actually go out and bomb soverign nations just to get oil, and oil deals, then yeah, it is the greatest, in YOUR eyes.

Have a nice day!

[JasonDeter]

25. Please.

Are you condemning America because of Iraq? bush* will pass. That in itself is a great thing about this country, that we don't have to be saddled with a warmongering puke for a lifetime.

[foreigncorrespondent]

27. No. I'm not condeming America at all, Jason.

I have been to your country. I have lived in your country fora while. I can see her good points as well as her faults, like every other country, but I certainly wouldn't go around spouting that she is the greatest nation on earth.

For a country to be truly great she needs to recognize true humanity first, something America cannot achieve during this current climate of pro war bullshit, anti gay bullshit, etc, etc, etc.

I would like to take this time to remind you Jason, that a lot of countries have an election system in place to oust corrupt regimes. A countries election system doesn't measure a countries greatness.

[JasonDeter]

39. I'll take America any day even with all her faults, Foreigncorrespondent.

Theres only two countries I'd ever want to live in, my first choice is America, my second is Israel. And depending how my first choice treats my second choice depends who my first choice is.

[foreigncorrespondent]

42. Well good, Jason...

...I am glad you are a proud patriot of your country. Having pride in ones country is great, but I was merely pointing out that America truly isn't the greatest nation in the world.

And please don't ask me what country I think is, because I really don't have an opinion. I know it isn't mine. And I know it isn't yours.

[iverglas]

50. feel free

But recognize that this "America the greatest" thing is purely your opinion, and accordingly does nothing to *support* your assertions about anything -- least of all, perhaps, your assertion that its religious history has made it that way.

Ya can't argue backwards that way. "America is the greatest because _______" just doesn't work, when examined carefully.

Why in the youth of our country the bible was taught
in schools! Kids use to pray in schools and yet,
America is the greatest country on the planet.

It strikes me that what you're really saying is:

Kids used to pray in schools --
therefore America is the greatest country on the planet.

But ... "America" is *not* the greatest country on the planet. (Take my word for it. I mean, you expect me to take your word for it, don't you?)

So it's just as likely that:
Kids used to pray in schools --
therefore America is *not* the greatest country on the planet.

Y'see?

Theres only two countries I'd ever want to live in,
my first choice is America, my second is Israel.

And I wouldn't live in either one for all the tea in China. No offence, eh?

Surely you understand that different people will have different notions about what it is about the US that is "great". (And there really just is no need at all to be "the greatest", you know, let alone to go around saying one is.)

What they think made/makes it great will depend largely on what they think is great about it. Your criterion is how the US treats Israel, others' criteria will certainly be very different. Your opinion is just your opinion, like everybody else's. Although some people might do ... differing ... jobs of providing a sound basis for theirs ...

.

[iverglas]

41. ta

You spared me the bother of having to say it. ;)

.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. You're welcome.

:)

[Solon]

24. By what standard?

I don't understand the post, is America the most powerful nation on Earth? Yes it is, however that neither makes it the greatest nor the worst, simply the most influencial, whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. I will say that for myself, I am neither a Patriot nor a Nationalist, I view them as one and the same.

[JasonDeter]

63. Simply put, Christianity is one of reasons the United States of America

is the greatest country on the planet. The origional post in this thread denigrates fundamentalist Christianity as being an evil that is ruining this country, when in fact that so misses the mark as to make me wonder how it could even be discussed seriously! I'd say lawyers are more dangerous than Christians any day! LOL!

[iverglas]

69. try this one

Christianity is one of reasons the United States
of America is the greatest country on the planet.

(Yeah, as I said in my previous post, I was pretty sure that was what you were trying to say.)

How about:

Yeast is one of the reasons that dry bread is the greatest meal you could have.

What? Dry bread ISN'T the greatest meal you could have??

Well then ... what good did all that yeast do?

If the US is not the greatest country on the planet ... what good did all that Christianity do?

But hey, *I* think dry bread is the greatest meal you could have. And I'm right. So yeast is obviously the solution to all our problems ...

It's okay, I don't expect you to understand/acknowledge that you understand (your choice).

And don't get me wrong. Christianity and yeast have undoubtedly done some good stuff. But neither one is, or conceivably can be, responsible for a non-existent state of affairs.

If you want to prove that Christianity made the US the greatest country on earth, you'll first have to prove that the US is the greatest country on earth. Since that's impossible, you should maybe just give up so as not to look really really arrogant and uninformed.

.

[Kamika]

83. i disagree

I think our secularism is what made Usa so great to begin with..

You gotta remember.. Usa was one of the first ever secular countries

[Don Claybrook]

26. What gives you the misguided idea

that The United States (America isn't a country, by the way) is the greatest country on the planet?

Nice mushroom cloud. Ours?

[Kamika]

28. I know what it is

because almost everyone wants to live here :)

Seriously Usa *IS* the best country in the world.. our foreign policy isn't the best but all in all is.

[foreigncorrespondent]

30. Not everyone wants to live there, Kamika.

Please go out and experience other parts of the world first. Try living in other countries which have a lot better systems in place. You will soon learn that the U.S. certainly has a lot more faults than most other industrialized nations.

Don't just look at foreign policy either. Take a look at health case systems, social security systems, etc, etc, etc.

[Kamika]

34. I have

I have seen alot of asian countries etc, alot of people want to live here. Almost all my relatives in Korea want to move here.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. Ok, so most of your family...

...want to move to the U.S. Kamika, that is wonderful. I hope one day those who do will succeed, truly. But alas, you missed my point entirely.

[Solon]

38. Yeah I have godparents that live in the U.K.

And while they love to visit us occasionally, they have no desire to live here, and be subjected to our for-profit healthcare system. Hell I want to leave, I'd be much better off in another nation, but I'm stuck. To be honest I have no high opinions of either this nation of any other. To say one nation is the greatest in the world just strikes of arrogance to me.

[Kamika]

40. Well no you're right

Usa, Canada, and western Europe > the rest

And I can say that cuz I'm a minority etc ;)

[Solon]

64. I hate comparisons like that.

First off you forgot to include Japan on the greater side. But I hate comparisons from one country to the next that are based on opinion and not facts. Yes the Regions you mention have higher standards of living compared to the rest of the world, however they only have those standards due to the exploitation of the rest of the world. Almost none of those nations have sustainable standards of living, the US in particular. So comparisons of that types simply states that we have a temporary advantage compared to the rest of the world and it will not last. If you roll a lucky die, would you be proud of that too?

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. I agree.

To say one nation is the greatest in the world just strikes of arrogance to me.

It is either arrogance, or blind patriotism.

[Solon]

31. I say this as an American.

We are NOT the best nation on Earth, Canada is ;)

[JasonDeter]

51. I like Canadians. Canada is tooooo cold for me though.

I love California and its weather. I like Canada's liberal maryjane laws! Go Canada!

[iverglas]

61. illusions

because almost everyone wants to live here

You might want to check out the recent Pew survey of where people want to live. In point of fact, the vast majority of people are quite happy living where they live, and many have less than no desire to live in the US.

Ah, the mythology. It just seems to be completely impervious to facts.

Seriously Usa *IS* the best country in the world..
our foreign policy isn't the best but all in all is.

Humility is such an underrated virtue.

When stating an opinion with which others might (and must be assumed to) disagree, and when the opinion is so offensive to so many people, it's probably wise to add, at the very least, "in my opinion", even if one doesn't offer anything to support one's opinion ... or can't, due to an almost complete lack of knowledge of anything that one is claiming to be "better" than ...

.

[Q]

74. Correction: the bible was taught in 'some' schools'...

- The Founders (including Jefferson) tried to keep religion out of schools...pretty much for the same reason stated in this thread. For one thing...they didn't want the 'Clergy' fighting over which religion was taught to the children.

- That's why we have the first amendment: to keep government and religion out of each others business and to 'erect a wall of separation'.

- It's strange that so many Americans have seemingly forgotten how and WHY this country was 'created' in the first place: persecution from the Church/State of England.

[mopaul]

80. religious oppression is what brought us here

the europeans that is. then we wiped out the native americans and their religion, and replaced it with ours. weird.

but it's true, we left the oppressive, relious/political regimes in england and elsewhere to try a new way. an experiment in government free from any religious shackles

[YNGW]

29. And many "Christians" view the Democratic party.....

.... as being the home of secularists, a word they would define as anti-Christians who are intent on destroying traditional family values and destroying the country. I think these people naturally migrated to the R's because they didn't feel like they had a choice.

[Solon]

33. Only the Radicals.

I have never heard party leadership denounce Christians or Christianity in general, and the majority of the Democratic Party are Christians, do not doubt. They simply don't wear it on their sleeves, like the Repugs do, and they shouldn't either, for to use a religion in the manner that the Repugs do, disparages the religion and belittles the religious.

[YNGW]

43. Clarify

I thought my post was clear. Let me try again.

I made no mention of the Dem party leadership. I'm talking about the social agenda of the Dem party is in conflict with their moral agenda. To them, the Dem party has become the home of those who hold antipathy for religious and traditional/moral values.

This whole transformation seems to have come out of the 60's culture and came into being more predominantly during the McGovern campaign in 1972. Secularists -- defined as agnostics, atheists, cultural/moral relativists and antagonists toward traditional religious and cultural values -- which heretofore had not been a major force in either party, suddenly emerged as a powerful political constituency. And they found open arms waiting for them in the Dem party.

Thus, the R's became the default party of traditional values to these people, not so much overtly, but because the Dem party had been captured by secularists.

I hope that clears up my previous post.

[Solon]

53. I don't hold a high opinions for "Tradition" myself

Cultural and Moral values have always changed throughout human history, and we need a political climate that can adapt to that. If you find that somehow is antagonist to Christianity in particular or any other religion then it can be a problem for you. I will say that in the political process, Morality and Religion should not be a defining characteristic of our laws or politics. Reason and ethical restraints should be the defining characteristic of any political party. We need to keep Religion out of Politics otherwise both become corrupted.

[YNGW]

62. And they do.

>I don't hold a high opinions for "Tradition" myself

And they do. They'll say that reason and ethical restraints are defined by religious morals. Thus the rub.

I understand your point, but I don't know how realistic it is. Combining politics and religious beliefs has been the norm for human civilization since recorded history and likely before. I don't see that changing anytime soon. People today aren't anymore "enlightened" than they were 100's & 1000's of years ago, though they claim to be. Of course, I don't believe the USA will last forever anyway in it's present form, so we're really discussing a system that's eventually doomed to fail anyway. But another will rise, and it will combine politics and religion, and time moves on.

Dare to dream. Be prepared for reality.

[Solon]

70. Progress is always slow, but is countiniously made.

We as a culture take 2 steps forward, and then one step back. But it is the ones that push us the 2 steps that make progress possible. The problems lie in the reactions to change, not the change itself. We are in a reactionary time in the country's history, no more, no less. It has been hastened by the appointment of GW but it was occuring already. And when the people tire of the stifleness that is conservativism then we will go through another progressive period. Its a cycle, but one which liberals have to push for, or else we all lose. Its not just isolated in this country, but the world as well, at different rates of course, but the progress is made in not only the political arena but in the religious and cultural one as well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. And some here seem intent on pushing more their way

[Solon]

57. Question Muddle

Should a political party be secular in nature or religious? Also do the words of the few reflect the will of the majority?

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. A political party should be a big tent

If it wants to get anything done. Some of our great leaders (see avatar) were religious. Are their contributions not sought?

Which words? Which "few?"

[Solon]

81. I am by no means marginalizing Religious leaders such as MLK

He changed the Values of many in the Christian Faith in a push for equality for all. That is an example of change in faith. The words I am talking about are the ones here on DU and in other places where you may encounter those who are the Anti-thesis to your religious beliefs but are members of the same party. Also I agree that the party needs to be a big tent, however no single religion should influence a political party's ultimate goals or overall direction.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. You are not

Many here would do so.

[Solon]

91. One thing to keep in mind is that his faith led him to a conclusion

that people of all races and creeds should be equal before the law. However, he did not seek to convert anyone to Christianity and spoke of what he personally felt was an injustice before God. That is what made him great, for instead of using religion as a sword, he used it as an open hand. He saw the promised land in his heart and it included all and excluded none. He respected the difference between the secular and the religious and found that they can co-exist in their particular spheres of influence, one can change minds, the other can change laws.

[mopaul]

86. King's religion was real, bush's is not

martin luther king was a great religious AND political leader and thinker, but he was fighting AGAINST government oppression. bush and his phony religious mask, use the faithful as pawns to attain control and oppress everyone.

kennedy had to assure the nation that his catholicism would have no sway in his governmental decisions, as if when elected, we'd all have to genuflect and learn latin, and exclude protestants. it was ridiculous. but now we have a president, who manipulates his religous base like robots, and they play right into it, like fish on a worm.

[iverglas]

95. and now try answering the actual question

It was:

Should a political party be secular in nature or religious?

You said, in "reply":

A political party should be a big tent
If it wants to get anything done. Some of our
great leaders (see avatar) were religious.
Are their contributions not sought?

You could have tried a simple 'yes' or 'no', you know. It was really a yes-or-no question.

Should A POLITICAL PARTY -- not the people in its tent, not its leaders -- be religious?

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. It's not a simple yes or no

A political party should be a mixture of many beliefs.

[iverglas]

104. but it was a damned simple question

And if you don't want to answer it, that's fine with me.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. It wasn't a simple question

And it required a complex answer, but if you don't want to understand that, it's fine with me.

[JasonDeter]

54. Simply because of the abortion issue.

That is the only reason most Christian fundamentalists don't like the Democratic Party. But of course they don't stop to think that the republicans control the House, Senate, occupy the presidency and control the Supreme Court. And yet abortion is still legal. Why? As a wedge issue and the Democrats let them get away with it every election.

[Solon]

59. Deeper than that.

While there are many one-issue voters out there, for the fundamentalists, it is the whole church/state separation thing. The GOP want to tear down that wall, while the Democrats want to preserve it.

[JasonDeter]

67. I belong to a fundamentalist Church

and the only issue that is discussed is the abortion one. I have yet to hear any talk at length about the "church/state separation thing." I will agree that fundamentalists see no problem with praying in schools, they decry the immoral behavior of so many of America's children (though that same affliction affects Christians too), but the main issue keeping Christians from voting for any Democrat is the abortion issue.

[Solon]

72. Only because it is a tangible issue.

However, if you bring it up, they will rail about how God was kicked out of public schools (He/She/It wasn't), or of the Ten Commandments not being allowed in the public arena, etc.

[mopaul]

77. do your parishoners see bush as a Godly man?

many fundamentalists do. my mother is one, and she's a died in the wool democrat, lifelong. she hates republicans for the most part, but she actually believes that bush is a Godly man, and everything that he does is blessed because he had a born again experience, and is open about it. she has let convicted murderers, right out of prison, stay in her home for the same reason. she figures anyone who's had a born again conversion is automatically o.k.

i hope you and your church are not of this stripe, because that's exaclty what i'm referring to.

[arendt]

97. Abortion is common ground for fundies, but theocracy is Dominionist

Can you place your denomination on the
Dispensationalist - Dominionist spectrum?

arendt

[Q]

92. We can't allow religion to control the abortion issue...

...because it's one of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and allowing the State to control reproductive rights.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. Your speech is just the left side of the culture war

and like all Culture Wars, this kind of canary in the coalmine exagerration helps to distract us from what's actually happening - our laws are being rewritten, not by fundies, but by multinational corporations and the wealthy. They are instituting a new international government where they have rights protected by the states, and we have none.

Democrats don't want to talk about it, because they are involved. Republicans don't want to talk about it, because they are worse than Democrats.

So instead we get Culture War - right-wingers spouting nonsense about gays and abortion and left-wingers pretending that they are the biggest threat.

What's the biggest threat to abortion rights in the US right now - fundies putting new restrictions on abortion, or HMO pricing health services so high most women can't afford decent health care?

Fundies make *great* enemies for DU, and we can spout long essays attacking and mocking them. Each side read their lines, and the CEOs laugh all the way to the bank.

I've seen this before...

[Solon]

36. Multiple fronts in the war on freedom.

While I understand the argument, I also recognize that these people can be a real threat. So we must be dilligent and fight the war on both social and economic issues.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. nope - Bush and Kerry agree - Pro-NAFTA, Pro-Iraq War, Pro-Offshoring

Hell, come to think of it, I guess they are both against marriage too. The Culture Wars are all heat and no light. No one's mind gets changed - it's just which side can alienate itself from the public faster with escalating rhetoric and tactics.

Bush is pandering to their lowest bigots, but the Culture War doesn't affect the people running the party. Cheney's daughter will NEVER be denied employment, reprodutive health care, nor any harsh reactions for her personal relationships.

The Republicans are stirring up bigotry for the reasons they always do, to keep their base from wondering where their jobs went. Some of them will believe that gay affirmative action blacks took them away - but even the most ignorant bigot will only swallow so much.

Who wins the Cultural Wars?

[Solon]

87. The culture wars are not new, and time is on our side.

One thing conservatives have that are going for them is that they are persistent. However, the most they can do is slow down change, they cannot stop it. Also, regardless of what a single candidate either believes or disbelieves about an issue, they must change, or lose elections. Our job as concerned citizens is to make them listen, and to push the country in the right direction. Its either that or give up. I for one will not give up.

[arendt]

60. You are both half-right

Remember 1992, when the corporate people were embarrassed
by the fundies in the GOP? The fight between economic conservatives
and cultural reactionaries splintered the party, and with Perot's help,
they lost.

What everyone needs to get is that :

The corporations and the fundies have an agreement now.

It goes like this:

1) the fundies look the other way while the corporations loot the
treasury, export our industrial base, gut our regulatory systems,
and try to use the American military as their own private Mafia.

2) all of the above activities result in the total economic exhaustion,
political paralysis, and military overstrech of the U.S. At some
point, the country just has an economic collapse, followed by
paramilitary anarchy, initiated from the right.

3) the corporations, having moved their HQs to off-shore
locations, look on with equanimity as the losers fight over
the rubble. Of course, the corporations want to move back
in for one final round of exploitation before the US is just
one other ignorant, backward, plantation of theirs.

4) So, the corporations back the fundies in setting up a theocracy.
To the corpses, its just another corrupt, manipulable, autocratic
police state that pays them their cut off the top, holds down
civil rights and union organizing, and generally behaves as
their puppet.

The deal is: the corpses get to loot us today, and the fundies
get to be the lords and masters of the wreckage that the corpses
leave behind.

Does this make any sense to you? Can you see that the fundies
are backed and coached by the corporations? The fundies are
the "deniable" weapon of the corporations as they pull a CIA-
style "destabilization" of the U.S.?

You can't ignore the fundies. You have to expose their corporate
paymasters, and their paid propagandists in the media.

Currently, they are using Mel Gibson to set up a front-organization
to lever the Hollywood crowd out of the one place on the media
landscape that they do not have complete control over.

Mel's movie is really a part of moving the media consolidation
to the next step - the introduction of fascistic mass spectacle.

I really wish you could see that the fundies are the glove that
hides the corporate fist. They are not "a joke".

arendt

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. The fundies are not as big as everyone pretends, nor that powerful

The SBC is a power block in Dixie, no doubt. The loose network of evanglical churches are another. They are real.

Focus on the Family and the Pro-Life groups are mailing lists. They make their money with direct mail scare stories. The televangelists are the same. Their support is wide and very shallow.

Bush doesn't give a damn about banning gay marriage, nor does he have theocracy in mind for his next term. This is to raise money for these networks and get people to the polls.

The corporations will reign it in when it interferes with profits, and no redneck fundie is going to prevent a CEOs daughter from having an abortion or marrying her girlfriend.

"Currently, they are using Mel Gibson to set up a front-organization
to lever the Hollywood crowd out of the one place on the media
landscape that they do not have complete control over. Mel's movie is really a part of moving the media consolidation to the next step - the introduction of fascistic mass spectacle."

The Corporate Media has been a "fascistic mass spectacle" for a long time. Are you worried that the flavor of propaganda will change? It could get worse, and maybe it will. But that's what we get for thinking that sucking up to media executives will get us favorable coverage. I remember when the defense contractor took over the media companies in the 1980s - how is this different?

[arendt]

93. What little mind Bush has is all about theocracy.

The only thing that keeps Bush going is his firm belief
that he has been "chosen by God" to save the world
from terrorism and to bring the US under Christian
domination.

Look at his ACTIONS:

Appointed fundie-supreme John Ashcroft
Started "faith-based" assault on separation of C&S
Signed mother-killing anti-abortion bill
Said zero negative about Roy Moore and the 10 commandments

The only thing that Bush CAN do on his own is
push for theocracy.

The military stuff is run by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
They do it for the loot. Bush does it for the sadism.

> The corporations will reign it in when it interferes with profits, and
> no redneck fundie is going to prevent a CEOs daughter from having
> an abortion or marrying her girlfriend.

No. Read my scenario. The corporations no longer need the
US. They are beyond any nation's legal reach. They live in
permanent extra-territoriality. Countries are like motel rooms
to them.

They have decided to loot the US, the richest middle class on
the planet. When it is digested, they will move on to loot whatever
country is the next richest. Of course, it will be nowhere near
as rich. But, hey, the corpses, like the Romans before them
are a KLEPTOCRACY. They live by looting.

As for their daughters, they will just move to Switzerland or
Bermuda or wherever the corpses decide to domicile themselves.

Don't you get it? They are in the process of flushing the US.

arendt

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

100. The corporations cannot exist without the US federal government

"No. Read my scenario. The corporations no longer need the
US. They are beyond any nation's legal reach. They live in
permanent extra-territoriality. Countries are like motel rooms
to them."

No, that's the spin, not the reality. The Bermudas ARE the US, under the power of the US federal government. Every corporation has at least one government that sponsors it. Companies like Halliburton that move the headquarters only do it because they LET them. The US or Europe controls the offshore havens, it's just a loophole they let them use.

"They have decided to loot the US, the richest middle class on
the planet. When it is digested, they will move on to loot whatever
country is the next richest. Of course, it will be nowhere near
as rich. But, hey, the corpses, like the Romans before them
are a KLEPTOCRACY. They live by looting."

Of course. They need a small segment of the US population - perhaps 10-20%. Maybe the majority could be left under the reign of local theocrats, but the majority of the US is Christian - very secular, rarely go to church Christian. The idea that fundamentalism is going to sweep the nation or that people will tune out Survivor to watch Pat Robertson is laughable!

They WILL use religion as a wedge issue to divide America while they loot it. But let's not kid ourselves about the Democrats here - playing along with Bush's Culture War is so they DON'T have to talk about Nafta, or Iraq.

[arendt]

109. In case you haven't looked lately, the corporations ARE the US Fed Gov

Preface: I think we agree about facts, and disagree about
motivations. I am much more cynical about how phony
the top level of US government has become in the last
25 years. The people do not control this government.

-----

The corporations have complete control of this country.
They loot the treasury, laugh at the regulations, have
their crooked judges fix any problems.

They own both political parties. Look at how effectively
the DLC, with media help, purged any activist from the
Democratic field. What is left are two rich pro-corporate
suits.

> The Bermudas ARE the US, under the power of the US federal government.
> Every corporation has at least one government that sponsors it.

No. Every government in the world today has at least one
corporation that sponsors it. In the US today, the GOP is
sponsored by the Oil Industry and the Military Industrial
Complex.

> The US or Europe controls the offshore havens, it's just a loophole
> they let them use.

You need to read "Hot Money and the Politics of Debt" by
a Canadian named Naylor.

Governments have been overthrown by intelligence services.
The spooks needed money and front companies. They set
them up in offshore havens.

Those fronts became self-funding rather quickly, uses drug
and arms smuggling. Then the spooks went "off the reservation".
They started undermining the governments that set them up.

The CIA undermined Carter, and helped Bush Sr into office.
The Mossad looked the other way while Rabin was killed by
an ultra-orthodox. Now they work hand in glove with the
criminal Sharon.

> The idea that fundamentalism is going to sweep the nation or
> that people will tune out Survivor to watch Pat Robertson is laughable!

Like the Nazis, when the majority sees the price of opposing
these thugs, they will shut up and "convert". They may not believe,
but they will obey. And, the thugs will control the spoils, so a lot of
people will sell out for goodies or for more than mere sustenance.

Do you think more than 10% of Germany were die-hard Nazis?
No. They were just secular folks. But you get religion real fast
when the Gestapo starts checking your background.

arendt

[NashVegas]

55. The Irony of this Thead Topic

Is that your post appears to be an attempt to fracture adherers to Christianity.

Well done, my man!

[mopaul]

58. not

i just feel it is a real issue, and a real threat. the religious/political threads have gone ballistic this week, and i've stayed out of most of it. but this is just another thread on the same stuff we've been discussing, just a different angle thats all.

but it's hard to make a point sometimes on this subject without offending someone. i am not attacking your religion, if it's christianity, as i assume. i was raised a christian, my parents and family are christians, i have no quarrel with anyone's belief system, and i've learned to speak in a somewhat less offensive way, but, it's tricky territory.

i'm not driving a wedge. i'm yelling out a warning cause i'm afraid.
not afraid of the little old lady next door who goes to church 4 times a week, i'm afraid of bush, the phony christian, the powermad monster posing as a christian, and mocking christ openly, and sucking in all those well meaning but deluded christians who support him.
they deliberately do not see the evil in front of them, because of their twisted concept of christianity

[Q]

78. You're right...it is a real issue...

...but many don't like to discuss it any more than they like to admit that the Democratic party has been taken over by conservatives.

- The problem? The Zealots you refer to want to go beyond their individual right to vote and take an 'active' role in government by using the power of religion to influence who gets elected and how laws are written.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

94. You gave up your own culture and now you attack it

"I was raised a christian, my parents and family are christians."

I remember a conversation with a co-worker from India. We were both agnostic, rational people. He had no problem identifying as a Hindu, even though he didn't participate in any religious rituals or hold any metaphysical beliefs. Why does Christian have to be narrowed down to only fit the most rabid fundamentalist bigots?

Why did you surrender all that culture, all that literature, all that history to the worst elements? Now you take that label "Christianity" and publically emphasive the worst aspects?

Guess what? You're a Christian. :) You were born a Christian into a Christian family. That's how most of the world sees you, and that won't change in your lifetime. Sorry! :hi:

[mopaul]

99. I CHOSE not to be a christian

here's how it works. if you're born in new dehli, you are a hindu.
if you were born in israel, you are a jew, if in nebraska, methodist.

most people remain whatever religion their parents adhered to, for life. but some change religions, from say catholic, to hebrew. happens all the time. and some people, like me, choose to leave our familiy's religion altogether.

i am not a christian anymore, but i don't advocate dragging all christians into the street and shooting them in the face. that's something that falwell would do to catholics if he were given free reign.

and i've learned over the years to overlook the fear that certain sects have concerning atheists. they seem them as kooks, who can do nothing but attack believers. i just seek a balance, like the one written in the constitution

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

107. you're a Secular Christian

a non-religious Christian. A non practising Methodist. Theologically speaking, a heretic (I'm one too). You may be a strict atheist, but culturally you're a Christian. When traveling to say, China, they might use that label as short hand for you, and they couldn't care less if you go to church nor your lack of metaphysical beliefs.

[mopaul]

108. for 5 years, i was a hindu

i used to do what the hindu, in the early 70's. had a religious conversion to hinduism fashioned after the beatle's experience.

so, what am i now? a non religious christian/hindu/atheist?
labels. just labels.

i am no longer a hindu, no longer a christian, and yet, i've not been struck by lightening or re incarnated as a slug.......yet

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

114. nah, you were a young Christian flirting with eastern religions

just like the Beatles were. Your culture is still Christian, you're a Christian.

[iverglas]

116. funny how --

-- as Midwest Momma pointed out way down below -- most Christians would not agree with you when you say:

Your culture is still Christian, you're a Christian.

I'd thought that Christians kinda insisted on some bare minimum of adherence to some minimum set of beliefs ... like, oh, god exists and Jesus died for your sins. And really, the club usually gets to decide who's a member.

Surely you're not suggesting that, what, "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a Christian "cultural" thingy? I mean, it came to Christianity via the Jewish scriptures, and I think a few other religions really do have similar thingies.

As other religions and cultures have thanksgiving festivals, and springtime-resurrection festivals, and self-denial rituals, and all that kind of jazz. You're not actually claiming Christmas as a Christian festival, are you?? I think you define Christianity just a tad over-inclusively and, paradoxically, exclusionarily. Christians just don't own those traditions.

I was born to the children of immigrants from the UK, England to be precise, thus into "English" culture. I don't think that the citizens of the UK and their government would look too kindly on any claim by me to be "British". Despite my pale skin and fondness for the Beeb, and roast beef with Yorkshire pudding.

Yup, my family gets together on Thanksgiving and at Christmas, those being the days we are released from our labours and have the time to travel a few hundred miles for the purpose. We also get together on Labour Day, although most of us are not blue-collar workers, in fact we're all self-employed; are we now trade unionists? And on May 24th weekend, another long weekend of travel (in celebration of Queen Victoria's birthday, believe it or not); maybe that means we are "British" after all ...

.

[arendt]

101. Not "gave up", rather "had it stolen"

> Why does Christian have to be narrowed down to only fit the most
> rabid fundamentalist bigots?

Because those bigots have excommunicated ever other kind of
Christian from just about every "Christian" denomination in the
US.

The US is a total anomaly among advanced Western nations.
The rest of the advanced world has gotten progressively less
religious (and, perhaps, more spiritual); but the US has third
world levels of rabid fundamentalist beliefs.

> Why did you surrender all that culture, all that literature, all that
> history to the worst elements?

1. I did not "surrender" it. It was hijacked from me. Read Bruce
Bauer's "Stealing Jesus" for a history of how it was done.

2. Your very metaphor of "surrender" is war-like. And that is
exactly the way the fundies see it: Jesus is a muscular soldier.

As twice before, with Gnostics and with Cathars, the "love"
and tolerance side of Christianity is being put to the sword
by the "wrathful god" side.

Loving Christians have about as much chance in the US as
the pacifist Bahais had in Khomeni's Iran. The Bahais were
slaughtered; and so will any person in the Us who espouses
love and tolerance. They didn't shoot MLK by accident.

The whole issue goes beyond "religion" to basic psychological
stances. The fundies are into masculine power and punishment.
So what if they slapped the name of some religion on it. It is
the same crap, no matter what religion.

arendt

[iverglas]

103. fascinating

Why did you surrender all that culture, all that literature,
all that history to the worst elements? Now you take that label
"Christianity" and publically emphasive the worst aspects?

Fascinating ... 'cause I and others perceived mopaul as doing the exact opposite of what you characterize him as doing.

He objects to the worse elements among the adherents to Christianity attempting, and to a large extent succeeding, in "publicly emphasizing the worst aspects" of that community.

I too was "born" and raised Christian, in an extremely "liberal" protestant denomination in Canada. I taught Sunday School, using the church's 1960s New Curriculum that emphasized ecumenism and social responsibility. My grandfather was a church soloist all his life; the three officiants at his funeral were his church's new minister, the RC nun who had sung and prayed with him during his 2 years in an RC nursing home, and the Mennonite music teacher who was the protestant chaplain at the nursing home. All in the great United Church of Canada tradition -- a bit unusual, but our choice (my mother's idea), and nobody was offended.

I have very few quarrels with that church, which is almost always a progressive force for positive social change in Canada -- I simply don't believe in a deity or in anything supernatural, so I have not been involved with it since I was about 15.

Guess what? You're a Christian. You were born a Christian
into a Christian family. That's how most of the world sees you,
and that won't change in your lifetime. Sorry!

Christianity is not the same set as an ethnicity or a culture the way some religious traditions are; one really is not "born" Christian. But yes, I'm "christian" to the extent that my personal and public values were certainly informed by a particular Christian tradition, what we here call the social gospel -- but also by many other influences. I wouldn't presume to call myself "Christian"; I'm an ex-Christian, among the many other things I am, and the world is quite free to see me as such.

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

110. you're a Christian too

"Christianity is not the same set as an ethnicity or a culture the way some religious traditions are; one really is not "born" Christian."

Sure it is. Fundies don't get to make the rules. If your parents were Christian, you're Christian. Many, if not most, Christians in the West are rather secular people, and religion has mostly an indirect affect on their lives.

I guess when you and your family traditions are devoid of any Christian elements, you will have made the crossover from Christian to something else. As long as you visit your family at Christmas, have meals at Thanksgiving, you're a Christian.

[kayell]

117. Are you aware that most of the Christmas traditions come from Paganism?

To say that because one visits with family at Christmas, one is Christian is ridiculous.

Am I a Christian simply because my mother is? My father isn't, and has almost never attended church. My mother for years attended Unitarian services, which may or may not be Christian. My ancestors on my fathers side were Catholic, and I've gone to Catholic services at family reunions. Does that make me Catholic? My distant ancestors would have been Celtic Pagans, and there is probably more pagan influence in my life now than anything else. Does that make me a Pagan? I went to a Quaker high school, and have enjoyed going to meeting. Does that make me Quaker? My ex was Jewish, and we celebrated both Jewish and Christian holidays from a secular standpoint. When I was a kid I used to play the dreidel game with the neighbors at Hanukkah. Does that mean I'm a bit Jewish? I've had one heck of a good time celebrating Holi (paint and dye and water everywhere!) Does that make me Hindu?

You all can try to define me or others anyway you want, but it doesn't make it so.

[kayell]

120. There are "Christians" that say if you celebrate Christmas you are not

Christian, because you are celbrating a pagan holiday.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. You have no problem with anyone's religion

You just want to ban some religious folk from TV because of their beliefs. Sure, that's consistent.

[mopaul]

113. benni hinn would be first

he is a total fraud, taking money from the poorest of people and promising them nothing but empty air in return. he pretends to heal them, takes their donations, and lives like a king. but we allow it, cause he's a good christian man. robertson does the same thing.
selling jesus, as a commodity, stealing money from the desperate believers. it should be stopped. it's as phony as 'john edwards crossing over' where he talks to the dead. people believe him, cry and support him with cash. it's a rip off.

pat roberston should be banned from taking a political stance and encouraging his millions of hypnotized devotees to vote a certain way.
it mixes religion and poliitcs in the most obscene way.

have you sent pat money? my mother sent him a lot, and jim and tammy too, and now she sends money to benny hinn. pat lives high on the hog off poor little old ladies and owns diamond mines in africa employing slaves. jesus would spit in his face and you know it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

118. you're right mopaul, those scam artists need to be taken down some way

You're right about that. Do you remember the name of that christian group that exposed a number of televangelists, including Mike Warnke for one? They are on the same level as the "self-help" and "motivational speaker" type scams. How to do it I'm not sure.

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. It seems Mopaul would just ban them

Who cares about innocent till proven guilty or the 1st Amendment after all.

[iverglas]

126. can you attempt to be coherent?

And, if it isn't asking too much, to accurately represent what people say?

It seems Mopaul would just ban them
Who cares about innocent till proven guilty ...

What in the name of all that is unholy has the presumption of innocence got to do with anything?

The presumption of innocence means that no one may be punished for a crime unless it has been proved that s/he committed it. It has nothing to do with the regulation of the use of the public airwaves. No one who is prohibited from using those airwaves is being punished by anyone for anything.

This isn't the gun dungeon, you know. (Anybody visited Justice/Public Safety lately? Those who have never toured it might like to take a look.) If you throw around wild allegations like this you may expect to be met by demands that you back up what you're saying.

Mopaul HAS NEVER advocated that ANYONE be PUNISHED without being afforded DUE PROCESS.

THAT is what you are insinuating he has done with your caustic little remark about "innocent till proven guilty", whether you happen to know that you're insinuating it or not.

It seems to me to be incivil in the extreme to accuse someone of proposing that anyone be punished without being afforded due process when the person being accused of making such a proposal HAS NEVER MADE IT.

BANNING_IS NOT_PUNISHING. If you would like this repeated until you either understand or acknowledge that you understand it, I'll be happy to oblige.

Advocating that anyone be prohibited from using the public airwaves is not advocating punishment without due process. Again, if you need any repitition or further explanation of this concept, I'd be happy to oblige.

In the meantime, it would seem to me to be wise to stop making these insinuations -- or, if you really really want to keep doing it, stand up and make your accusations directly, and stand behind them.

.

[mopaul]

122. they make all christians look bad

they always have, even way back in the early radio days til the present. a church takes up a collection to pay the bills and stay open etc., but after a point, taking money and amassing it and living in baronial splendor while your donators live like paupers. it's just evil, and so very un-christlike.

robertson should've been shut down long ago, simply because of his extreme political power and influence. he's a nutball.

for some people who don't attend church, these t.v. evangelist phonies represent all christians, which is sad.

i am serious about a previous comment i made, about taking legal action to stop robertson, and hinn and all other charlatans, that's not what jesus was about. i believe they break the law when they take money for a stated purpose, and then use it to live like queen elizabeth.

so many of christ's passages speak of the poor, the outcast, the least of us, and how the wealthy and indeed all of us should be humble and helpful and supportive of the meek.

but the robertson's of the world are like parasites, leeches, growing fat on the very blood of their devoted hosts.

[KG]

68. Don't let pushy mopauls fracture our nation!!!

:hi:

you know what time it is, bra....

[MidwestMomma]

82. The irony to me is the moderate/ progressive Christians who defend the

zealots because they think you are attacking the Christian faith, don't realize that the same zealots would judge them as unworthy as Christians and beyond redemption and would have no problem condemning them to hell.

If you do not fall within the zeolots/fundementalists VERY narrow definition of a Christian, they don't even consider you one. My daughter had to quit going to one of her friends youth groups because she got tired of hearing how Catholics aren't Christians because they aren't born again. (And this was only one of this churches many problems with Catholics.)

So I have no problem with anyone attacking the religious zealots of this country. I do not identify with them at all and don't see why anyone would feel the need to defend them or feel that someone is attacking Christianity by attacking them. But then I guess I don't think of them as Christians because they are the opposite of Christ's message of tolerance and love.

Peace to all. Thanks for the post. I agree we must be on guard against the people that would subvert Christianity for their own evil gain.

[Q]

90. Ashcroft is a good example of a zealot...

...who 'uses' christianity to advance a partisan political agenda...using religion as a justification to stiffle dissent and circumvent secular law.

- The Bush* administration is full of this type of zealot...who wrap themselves in the flag and hide behind religion to escape accountability and the rule of law.

[seabeyond]

96. the humor in this

and i do say humor cause living in a place mostly s. baptist the two friends i made where catholics and married a catholic and there are so few here,........growing up in calif my catholic friends would tell me i was going to hell cause i didnt go into confession once a week, as i stayed home on weekends with parents playing games and they went out drinking and screwing boys. hm..............

wink

[madfloridian]

124. And we left the Southern Baptist Church because of the "holy" Iraq war.

You are exactly right. I was raised in the church, and I no longer meet their specifications for patriotic or for being devout.

[IconoclastIlene]

119. Not just fundamentalist religious zealots.

Neo-nazi's, nazi's, skinheads, white supremacists of all types and their ilk are thick as a brick, also.

[Cleita]

125. Glad to see you back MoPaul.

I have missed your excellent essays these past months.

Your point can't be emphasized enough. Your point about religions who want to create theocracies is sadly so true. Unfortunately, if they gain control, history has already proved that persecution of non-believers follows.

[Forkboy]

127. People here complain that no one differentiates between the fundies

and regular Christians,but then when one plainly does so it STILL isn't good enough.

[Moderator]

128. Locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, many of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules don't forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."
........
Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.
........
If you just don't like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click on the appropriate icon on one of that person's posts.

We do not typically delete threads which many members may consider to be "flamebait." However, the administrators will occasionally remove threads which we arbitrarily consider too rhetorically hot or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.