Most Christians do not support Bush

[Perky]

This is a pretty simple deductive math.


Bush is hovering around 30-32% in overall approval. Lets assume that 80% of that suppor is Christian Fundies. ok so that meant globally he is getting somehthing like 25-26 percent from Christian.. well if over 70% of the american poplation considers themselves Christians that means he is getting maybe 40% of the Christina voters. and a majority fo not suppirt him.

Does that make sense.

[Lilith Velkor]

1. Is there another term you would rather see used for the evangelical right?

My buddies and I have taken to calling them "psycho-Christians."

[tjwash]

2. How about "extreme worshippers"

"talibornagains" is a good descriptive one that has been making the rounds at DU too.

[Perky]

5. I reject this one

Extreme adoration of God...not necessarlly translate into political agenda...left or right. In fact,, it ought to do wuite the opposite: Create a deeped relaince upon God than of human laws.

[tjwash]

9. Extreme in this sense is in the sense of "x-games" extreme

Worship being taken to the unhealthy and destructive sense.

Gods laws are pretty fucked up to begin with...slavery is OK in the bible, as are stonings for adultery (and adultery can be sex even after you get divorced too), cutting of off body parts for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, beheading and death penalties for working on Sundays, women being subservient to men at all times and being little more than chattel and baby factories. They are pretty far extreme to begin with; they don't need to be taken any further to the nth degree than they are by the talibornagains.

I think we can do just fine without biblical law.

[Perky]

12. it is not extreme I object to...it's" worshippers"

Because ther is nothing wrong with devotion to God. Most of the fundies are dispensationist and have not knlw many profundly worshipful experiencees. THey hold to a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.

[johnaries]

3. How about "psycho-pseudo-Christians",

since they obviously don't follow the teachings of Christ but only use his name. like "CINO's" - Christian In Name Only.

BTW, I'm an Agnostic/Philosophical Taoist. But I like most of Christ's actual teachings, they were actually very Taoist. It's Paul and everyone after him that I have a problem with. On a side note, I thought Peter was supposed to be the foundation of Jesus' church. How did Paul get take over? What happened to Peter, were are his writings?

[Occulus]

14. How about just plain christians?

I'm becoming more and more unwilling to buy into some arbitrary distinction between "good" and "bad" christians.

If you believe christ is your lord and savior, you are a christian by definition, regardless of any other beliefs you may hold that other christians do not. I know this makes some christians here deeply uncomfortable, but it's the truth.

I'm getting more than a little tired of the whole "no true Scotsman" thing.

Ghandi said it best, and to a pope, no less: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ."

[elocs]

16. How is this different than those who view all Muslims as potential fundamentalist terrorists?

With 2.1 billion Christians in the world is it not possible that there are all different kinds and types?

[dmallind]

17. It is and it isn't

I don't think anyone is denying that those terrorists are Muslims (unlike many Christians, who go to great lengths to argue that anyone who commits socially unacceptable acts like Phelps or even terrorist acts like Nicholls or Rudolph isn't REALLY a Christian). At most they may say that they are using a misguided interpretation of the Qu'ran, just as Phelps is using a misguided (at least in the current zeitgeist) interpretation of the Bible. But it's different because of the Christian rush to try and self-defensively say that "bad" believers are not really believers

The real parallel though where the two are similar is that of an expectation for the supposedly majority of the faithful to forcibly denounce and work against their respective extremists. I think this IS perfectly appropriate. Moderate Muslims should alert cops to imams who foment hatred and terrorism, and moderate Christians should likewise. Since Christianity, in the US, has all the political and social power it does, moderate Christians should also be expected to stand up against the more hate-filled and bigoted denominations and preachers who have the public ear and speak in the name of Christianity. Moderate Muslims should of course do the same, but much more meaningful and necessary for them to do so in places where their faith has the power Christianity does here, such as Turkey or Malaysia.


I'm not the poster you questioned, but I read it as an unwillingness to let Christians retroactively disassociate themselves from Christian violence and bigotry by pretending those who do it are not really Christians. They were and are Christians (the only criteria for that name is the acceptance of a divine and salvation-offering Christ, not sanity or politically correct views or abjuration of violent politics.), just ones with whose actions you disagree. I agree with his/her post if so.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. how about the difference between Lieberman and a "real" Dem?

it is monumental imo-
I think the answer would be to evaluate people as INDIVIDUALS- not as "_____'s".
People can 'call' themselves ANYTHING- they can "allaign" themselves with a 'cause'- it isn't what they claim to "believe" or "follow"- the evidence is in their actions.

that is echoed throughout the bible-

"By their fruit, ye shall know them"

Woe to you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Woe to you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead man's bones and everything unclean.

In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Woe to you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous....."

there are so many quotes that say this very same thing.

[Lilith Velkor]

20. Inaccurate, and too many syllables

Every religion has psychos, and it is interesting that a non-Christian is invested in perpetuating the lie that there are no bad Christians. Perhaps you are less agnostic/Taoist than you think you are?

Also, did Lao Tzu ever tell his followers to sell everything they own to buy weapons, or instruct them to maim themselves for thinking about bad things?

[Perky]

4. Christofascist sums it up for me.

They are no doubt a powerful force.... but I think they have over the last year or so have unreveeled and splintered.

[Lilith Velkor]

21. Sounds accurate

I only use that one among people who actually know what fascism is, though. Most folks just think it's another f-word and tune out.

As for the CFs, they are still pouting about Lebanon not turning out the way they hoped, I think.

[Warpy]

7. Oh, there are so many to choose from

Hypochristians

Born yesterday Christians

Fools for Jebus

Rapture rousers

Pretenders of the Paraclete

I'm sure we can all think of so many more.

[Perky]

8. Why do any of the terms have to simultaneously knock the the faith itseld.

There is a hin in many of these terms that it is not their politics but their faith in general which is the issue,

Belief in the rapture or in the Holy Spirit are not indicators of political persuasion.

[Warpy]

11. The modifiers change that

They really do. Please learn to consider them.

Other members of the faith will thank you.

It's time to stand up to these people instead of giving them your tacit approval as fellow Christians. They are not. They are idolators who have stolen the name to cloak their sins.

Perhaps a rereading of the chapter concerning the whited sepulchre is in order.

[Perky]

13. I disagree

Their politics do not come out of their listening to Holy Spirit. Their politics do not emerge firmly ad reloutely for their belr eschatology,


They use selecetive pasages, to justify their ploitical agenda and it very reare that they invokce Chirst in justifying thier agenda....They in fact are pharisees holding a form og Godlines but denying the power there of.

[AspenRose]

6. This Christian doesn't support him

I stand with Jimmy Carter in that regard....

[supernova]

10. I don't support *

and I am christian.

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church USA (the exact oppoosite of "hotbed of religious furvor") and am slowing finding my way to either the Quakers or the UUs.

[dmallind]

15. Correct as framed yes

The country is 83% Christian. If Bush has 26-32% approval ratings depending on who you believe, then if we define support as approval at this time, clearly it's impossible for a majority of Christians to support Bush. This is good and proper and as it should be given his policies.

If we define "support" as having voted for then we're on a stickier wicket. Regular churchgoing voters favored Bush over both Gore and Kerry by a wide margin, and depending on if you believe the vote counts or not, so did all voters at least in Kerry's case in a majority Christian nation. This is not so good.

Where Christian = Bush fan I think comes from (and I will ignore the claims of Bush fan = Christian - I'm looking for Christian support of Bush not evidence he's supporting them) is that by far the most successful and prominent organized Christian lobbies are nigh universal in supporting Bush. I'm sure there are minor religious lobbying groups who do not of course, but these are drowned out by the evangelical protestant (and to a lesser extent fundamentalist Catholic - although for Viguerle and Weyrich they think Bush is not theocratic enough to support) who have far more clout and media presence.

I know the standard liberal Christian response is that these are a minority within the faith, but my question remains - if that is so how come they are so much better funded, with more lobbying clout, more media saturation and more ability to deliver a consistent bloc of engaged and passionate voters? IF everyone who tells a pollster they are voting because of their faith votes Republican, and all the Christian TV and radio stations and arena-filling evangelists support Republican issues, it's a very tough sell indeed to say that these are a small minority giving the real kind and gentle liberal Christian majority a bad name.

If the majority of Christians ARE of the latter kind then they seem much less committed to political action than their minority brethren on the far right, much less willing to spend money to spread the kinder gentler word, and much less willing to unite into what would surely be the most formidable voting bloc in the country if they did and set up lobbyists pounding on every door in DC saying that a vote for war, or against helping the needy, or whatever else you want to claim as the will of the "majority Christian", means the loss of far more voters than the snake handling set can promise. They would have three cable and radio channels to every one of the fundies and use it to spread messages of love and charity and kindness instead of hate and bigotry and war. They would denounce from their pulpits the charlatans who now speak in their name almost unopposed, and encourage their flocks to refuse to send money to the Robertsons of the world and stop buying from their sponsors.

Since we are not even a fraction of the way toward seeing action remotely like that, the only conclusion is that the majority of Christians either see no need to take back the public and political image of their faith from the tongue-speaking gay-bashing women-hating blood-lusting neanderthals who have co-opted it hook line and sinker, or that they really aren't the majority after all, and many of that 83% are maybe going through the motions on Sundays or calling themselves Christian for social acceptance rather than for any true dedication to the faith. Trust me if I were Christian I would be shouting from the rooftops with all the voice I have and all the money I could spare that the Christian Coalition and other hate groups don't speak for me, because these folks do far more harm to the faith than a simple nonbeliever like me ever could.

[Kansas Wyatt]

19. Fundies think they were lied to by Bush

They even go so far to say that he was their only choice in 2000 & 2004, inspite of being warned about the wrong choice they were making.

They refuse to acknowledge their responsiblity for Bush, and blame him for lying to them, so they sit back and claim it's not their fault. Pulling their heads out of the asses just isn't an option for them ever.