A question to liberal Christians

[Az]

As we open the dialog between the various positions there are going to be some semantic problems. As we have seen the word fundie can be quite devisive. So I would ask my Christian friends here to advise us what term or phrase we nonbelievers could use to convey the right wing zealot variety of Christian that seem so bent on returning this nation to the dark ages.

What label should we use to represent the irrational right wing fundimentalist Christians? (preferably something shorter than irrational right wing fundimentalist Christians)

[hlthe2b]

1. Given they have taken Christ out of Christianity, "Xians" seems

appropriat IMO....

[Cheswick2.0]

31. well you have just proven the lie

that using the term xians was not meant to be insulting.

[hlthe2b]

59. Could you please expand/explain your comment? I don't follow....

I did not create the term, "Xian," but it seems to go along with my beliefs re: the abbreviation of Christmas as (Xmas), for purely commercial purposes. This practice was certainly considered to be insensitive when I was growing up, giving that it does take Christ out of the meaning for the day...

I think the Xian term is reserved for those who preach hate and knowingly exploit in the name of "Christian religion" for their own agenda and personal gain. I certainly don't see how it insults the majority of faithful who attempt (to whatever degree) to follow the tenets of Christianity.

Bottom line for me is that I STRONGLY resent people like Fred Phelps or Falwell, or Pat Robertson being referred to as Christians, thereby lumping everyone in the same "pot." There are certainly Christians along every political spectrum and not all try to find a religious excuse or justification for their political beliefs, societal objectives, or personal failings. Nor do they try to re-interpret (or selectively consider) the word of Christ to conveniently justify their actions and political aims....

[Alpharetta]

2. I'm OK w/ "fundies"

It's clear enough to me.

Fundamentalists: Those who believe the Bible is inerrant, except for those parts that they disagree with.

[Jose Diablo]

27. Fundies works for me too n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Self righteous hypocritical Pharisees

They are very similar in their actions and gross misinterpretation of Scripture to the Jewish religious leaders of 2000 years ago who were so scared of Jesus Christ that they demanded His execution.

[shaolinmonkey]

15. Pharisees, definitely.

Using religion only as a lever to exert power over the masses.

[mzmolly]

32. How bout Neo-Pharisees? Or ...

Some sort of play on the current and the past? :P Or NeoPhar's?

[Classical_Liberal]

37. Pharisee gets you into trouble with Jews

Pharisees were the antecedents to modern Rabbinic Judaism. I don't want to offend our Jewish friends. I am perfectly ok with Fundy, and I think those are disrupter threads.

[mzmolly]

41. Really? I hope that's not the case, but it's good to know if so.

Thanks for sharing.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. Please read

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0405/article/040511a.html

[Selwynn]

4. it doesn't take that long to type fundamentalist.

I like fanatical religious right, or fundamentalists. I never make a big deal of it, but I admit I don't like the term "fundie." I guess I just think name calling like that is something I could imagine Bush or neo-conservatives doing as a bullying tactic. I mean, I keep thinking of how Bush goes around giving everyone nicknames and how I feel about that, and I kind of feel the same way about that term.

But its not the end of the world of someone says it. I am not a fundamentalist or a "fundie" so I have a hard time getting too riled. :)

[rucky]

5. Religious Right works

abbreviated "RR". it gets the point across without unnecessary displays of disdain.

[AspenRose]

26. I like that one

Religious Right or, as someone pointed out below, Right Wing Christian (RWC).

[mzmolly]

36. How bout RWH

Right Wing Hypocrite?

[On the Road]

6. "Evangelical" is a Neutral Term

No one would take offense at that.

Of course, there are different types of evangelicals. The majority in the US are either Baptists or have similar beliefs and rhetoric. However, Pentecostals, conservative Catholics, or Calvinists (like the reconstructionists) have some significant differences.

[rucky]

20. They're not all Conservative

in fact there are many Liberal Evangelicals

www.sojo.org

[On the Road]

21. Yes, but "Evangelical" as It's Commonly Used

does not include the SoJo people. There are so many permutations of religious belief that you can't capture them all.

[QC]

47. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton are evangelicals.

So that renders the use of "evangelical" as a term for fascist theocrat pretty useless.

[On the Road]

56. Jimmy Carter I Might Accept

Bill and Al do not fit the mold.

[QC]

57. Bill and Al are Southern Baptists.

Over a third of evangelicals are Democrats, in fact, so lumping all evangelicals into the religious right just isn't accurate. It also means that insulting all evangelicals by calling them Falwell's handmaidens is an extraordinarily bad political strategy.

[salin]

7. Have a hard time with it myself

but tend to think of it (mouthful ahead) as the politicized literal fundamentalist evangelical religous right.

The big thing is the politicization of the pulpit - which merges in the most bizzarre way (at least to this Christian) old testament theology to complete freemarket ideology (as if all of those parables about greed are now irrelevant) and a demonizationn of anything or anyone who does not agree politically, philosophically and theologically.

It is also a very superficial, self-serving form of Christianity - listen to them over and over again "My Savior" - as if the only point of Christ's existence was to provide THEM passage to heaven - with NO responsibility (as in trying to live according to the teachings of Christ.) Really warped.

To me, it appears that throughout history, in times of great technological and/or philisophical change there has been huge, mass movements of fundamentalism - as if clinging to the most doctrinaire "old ways" is the only way to stave off the inevitable societal changes. Looking over the long picture of history - these movements die out in their widespread acceptance and the valence of their attempts to control others. Being in the middle of such a "revival" period - it is hard to see the arch - or the point where it will burn itself out as a huge movement. However, I believe that as it has in the past, it will again.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Thank you!

I was hoping someone would do this. :)

I always try to use something along the lines of "crazy ass right wing Christians" but that's quite a lot to type in.

May I suggest the initials CAC for "crazy ass christian"? Or RWC for "right wing christian"?

I think having a specific term will help cut down considerably the hurt feelings of the non-CAC/RWC Christians onboard.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. RWC isn't bad at all, but newbies will be clueless. :)

[seabeyond]

9. fundie

went to a end of school year party sunday. our school is fundie. sittin with back to a couple men heard massachusettes ruling. and new what they were talking. and said was end of the world for the fundamentalist. they use the word on themselves.

takes bible literally

[Wonk]

How about referring to them as Dispensationalists?

http://www.google.com/search?q=dispensationalist

[Servo300]

16. That's only one theological point of view.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Do you work for Kerry?

Just teasing.

Seriously, though: this is America, the land of dolt glorification. Using anything more than a VERY common, two syllable word is a bad idea.

Personally, I like Fundy, since it sounds sort of looney and obviously fits the bill. Of course, I'm an agnostic, so the thread's not addressed to me, but I think it makes the distinction pretty obvious. It's got built in ridicule, but more progressive Christians should see the point...

Christians should see these idiots as the enemies that they are, and they should revel in the dismissive of "fundie".

[Cheswick2.0]

34. Thanks for telling me how I should feel

I really wasn't sure.

[PurityOfEssence]

62. You're welcome; thanks for being aggressively thin-skinned

Since you like to intimate that you're somehow more community-minded and moral as you demand that your beliefs be held above reproach, you could do with some suggestions on how to comport yourself. If you're going to be feisty and combative, then don't expect to be treated like a delicate flower.

If you ally yourself with belief systems that are being used for evil, it's your duty to say something about it, and it's my outsider's right to expect you to.

The expectation of having one's beliefs be above reproach is anti-democratic, anti-social and self-absorbed. I've personally taken non-believers to task both on this board and in open society for being overly derisive of believers; I hope you rein in your brethren in a similar fashion.

Religious people aren't being picked on here to a greater degree than non-religious ones, it's just that somehow many of the religious ones think that they should be immune. The weird inculcation that many people get in childhood that believers are nicer and more honorable than non-believers is bigoted crap, and unlike secular bigoted crap, it's beyond question. This "beyond question" silliness is what makes religious belief so dangerous in open society: pluralism is based on equality, and opinions or beliefs held that are based on an unquestionable supernatural being are an expression of intellectual aristocracy. I'll accept you as an equal, but that's it; unfortunately, for many of belief, that's not enough.

I was offering a suggestion, and it seems that others of belief seem to be of the same mind. If you don't like taking heat, don't strut around the playground spoiling for a fight. More importantly, when someone on the other side of an argument tries to join in with a little gentle perspective, don't huff up and snort defensively unless you like looking foolish. You should be thankful to me in general for helping your indulgent martyrdom in the past; in fact, my mild comments earlier in this thread should actually make you even angrier at me for not giving you ample provocation for your ongoing cruel ordeal. Properly performed victimhood should be consistent.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. "Fundagelical" because

interestingly enough, there are fundamentalists who keep to themselves and do not push their beliefs on others.

Evangelicals, however, (liberal and conservative both) feel compelled by God to share the good news about Him, however they perceive him. Hence the reason why I as a liberal Christian have a website about progressive beliefs. (Though evangelism doesn't come easily to me. I believe in a live and let live kind of culture for the most part. But, I got sick and tired of people lumping me and my spiritual left-wing siblings in with the radical right, so .. now there's a website. :) )

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[mzmolly]

38. And, might I say it's a kick arse website!

:toast: Thanks for posting.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. Fundapublican would be a better term, since this is basically

a brainwashing operation by the republican party.

[Beware the Beast Man]

11. As a Catholic I like to refer to them as-

"heretics" :evilgrin:

[banana republican]

54. As a Lutheran I call them Heretics

[Irishladdie]

12. Crusader

Thats what they are after all. Jesus was a liberal, plain and simple!

[Momgonepostal]

14. I have no problem with "Fundie"

Do some people not like that because they consider themselves fundamentalists but not hateful, extreme fundamentalists?

What about RWE Christians, does that explain the concept in a concise enough manner?

I really dislike the term "Xtian." I know someone always says that the X is from the Greek for Christ, but no Christian I know would abbreviate it such. The only people I see use Xtian are people who I suspect use it because they know it irks Christians.

[quisp]

18. I like Bartcop's description of the Religiously Insane

but an acronym like RRR (or R cubed) Radical Religous Right.

[supernova]

19. Religious Right (RR)

is fine. We all know who we mean by that: Robertson, Falwell, etc...

I think anything else degenerates into name-calling, weakining the name-caller's argument overall. The name caller can wind up sounding every bit as hyperbolic as the namee. :7

[starroute]

23. "Religious right" is a movement, not an individual

Suppose you want to say, "I've been getting bugged by this _______ at work"? What do you call the people involved?

Religious righties? Christo-righties? Doesn't sound like much of an improvement over Fundies to me.

"Fundie" at least has the advantage of associating them with the equally intolerant Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu fundamentalists, rather than with other Christians.

[salin]

24. Religious Rightist? Religious Reactionary?

Or the old Du standby: Talibornigan (per those who want to impose by law/government their extreme form of religion)

[supernova]

51. Fundamentalist is fine

I've even used the "fundie" term myself at times.

[enki23]

22. "complete f**king dumbasses"

a subset of the broader category of "complete dumbasses"

[Cheswick2.0]

35. As compared to

the complete fucking bigots a subset of the complete bigots that you represent?

[liberalron]

25. I don't really have a name for you;

however, I'm pretty much in supernova's camp w/ The Religious Right, which doesn't denote a denomination or faith.
As I understood the post, it was this group, variety, movement of people. As for the question re. the individual, "I've been getting bugged by this _______ at work", here's one of many: "I've been getting bugged by this 'asshole' at work".
For me, this blending of nationalism, patriotism and religion is of great concern, as it has great capactiy for injustice, to say the least.

[liberalron]

28. Oh yeah, Rucky also said RR

However, I also like Pharisees, but for me that is for the leadership in power.

[keithyboy]

29. Christ would call them 'hypocrites'

:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

30. There is no one term that will lump all these people together

But it really is not the name you call people which causes the problem. It is the insistance, by some, on insulting their religious beliefs rather than their politics.

[salin]

33. Sadly... there seems to be a growing movement

which entertwines the two - where extreme, literal views of the bible are desired to be imposed on all through legislation/goverment... and where the politicization that comes from the pulpit and other leaders - that essentially link political beliefs/voting with "evil" or "good". It is as if that after years of efforts from the Robertson movement - to intentionally make political, the pulpit - that sometimes, for some groups (and now trickling to some individuals) the line is blurred between religious beliefs and politics. Thus - I prefer terms that speak directly to the "politicization" or connotes the desire to impose religious beliefs through politics - as a means for characterizing a specific group.

[liberalron]

42. That would be Theocrats then,

wouldn't it. That fits.

[Az]

43. Thats one I like

It truly does seem to fit their position.

[salin]

45. indeed it does

simple - and captures the essence of the problem.

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. Fundagelical Christian Theocrats. That ties it up in a neat bow.

Some folks call them the American Taliban.

[CityZen-X]

40. Fundie Mentals!

amen?

[Poiuyt]

44. American Taliban

Isn't this considered Dominionism?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[LDS Jock]

46. Religious Reich

maybe a little on the name calling side though

[QC]

48. Another vote for theocrats here. n/t

[jorno67]

50. anti-christian

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. I'll vote for "theocrats," too

because that's what they want, the whole nation to follow their beliefs.

[geniph]

55. I always called them ConCINOs...

Conservative Christians-In-Name-Only. There's nothing Christian about their philosophy.

[smirkymonkey]

58. ChristoFascists!

I can't take credit for this, because I got it from another poster (who's name I have forgotten) but I think it describes them well.

[ithacan]

60. Right-Wing Pseudo Christians

check out this web site, it explains it all very clearly:

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

Matthew 25:31-46: WWJD?
What Would Jesus Do? Jesus Would Send All These Right-Wing Pseudo-Christians Straight to Hell (And Liberals May Not Be Far Behind)

by Jack Clark


Introduction

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.

The premise of this essay is that you can't be a true Christian if the focus of your life is thwarting others and the society itself from fully implementing such a fundamental teaching of Christianity as Matthew 25:31-46.
<much more>

[Cleita]

61. Bill Maher referred to them as the guns and Jesus crowd.

It could be shortened to G & J nuts but that might be offensive too.