Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Perhaps I should add as an appendix that I do not necessarily support everything I described. While I agree with most of the issues above, I don’t necessarily think the church should act on all of them. In many cases (small government, for instance), it’s fine for Christians individually to vote their conscience, but groups that identify themselves as Christian have no business taking a public stand on anything that is not essential to Christianity. Every time we do, we alienate a few more people whom God loves, and that’s too high a price to pay for non-essentials.

Chop, this is a well written essay about your religious beliefs as they apply to modern American culture, including politics. I may not agree with some or all of your views (I strive to be center and balanced in my writing, so I will not discuss those issues), but applaud your willingness to stand up for yourself and your fellow Evangelicals. What you should be proud of is that you have done so without insulting, slandering, denigrating, or otherwise offending any but the dimwitted neanderthals that will invariably spew their venomous idiocy in later posts that mine.

Finally, I would like to point out that you stated from the beginning that you could genuinely speak for yourself only, and you proved that true on a couple of points by stating that your position was against the prevailing positions of your Church/organization. What this means is that we are all humans, and may disagree with the mainstream ideals of whichever group we most closely associate ourselves with, religious or otherwise, without losing our identity, and without being traitors to our cause. It’s only when we go to extremes in promoting our view, or attacking someone else’s, that we tend to become less than decent, civilized people capabale of progress. With that said, please humor one dig at American_Pundit and say up front: I can’t say this for Chop, but as for myself, there was nothing partisan or political about this post. This was just my commentary on Chops essay, so don’t make a mountain out of my anthill.

Good Day!

Chops, fine article. There are some assumptions made above however, that disturb folks such as myself who see Evengelicals proceeding from false premises with the desire to use law to force others to live under similar false premises.

Let’s begin in the beginning. You said: “The way we understand history, evangelical Christians settled this country as a place where everyone could practice their own religion openly and not be confined by a top-down orthodoxy.”

But it was these same Christians was it not who conquered Native Americans and deprived them of their right to practice their religion? Deprived may of them from speaking their native tongue, deprived them of their ceremonial songs and dances? Your view of tolerance historically is not born out in fact.

I remember Evenagelicals in Detroit in 1960 ranting about an American President establishing a papacy in the Whitehouse with the advent of Kennedy’s election. Does this sound like tolearance? Sounds like paranoia to me with no basis in fact.

And today, do Evangelical missionaries overseas not still ply their 17 and 1800’s tactic of offering medical and nutrition assistance to the needy “in exchange” for submission to Christian religious service attendance? Is it charity when that received is conditional upon exposing oneself to a religion other than what one was brought up to live and believe in?

You said: “We see government social spending as a threat to the church as much as a boon to the poor.”

Not surprising since if the government aids the poor it short circuits Evangelicals ability to minister their faith upon the needy in exchange for so-called charity. Much of the tactics of Evangelicals is centered on and designed toward converts. It is their mission to convert as many as possible by whatever charitable or political means are available. This does not appear to be a particularly sound basis for freedom for other religions and tolearance of same.

You said: “Secular humanism is the prevailing ideology of the U.S., especially the upper classes and courts, and is in total opposition to what we believe.”

This is exactly the kind of intolerance for other people’s beliefs, ideas, and preferences that gives Evangelicals a bad name. The majority of this country are NOT Evangelical and don’t want religion taught in the public schools. They want empirical knowledge taught so that their children can add, subtract, spell, read, comprehend, manipulate the world of science and technology or the arts in such a fashion as to benefit society and derive a decent living wage.

But, Evangelicals will have none of that majority crap, since as you said according to your view, the founding fathers avoided democracy like the plague in the hopes that the majority would not have their way. Your comments continue to reinforce for me anyway, the belief that Evangelicals have little tolerance for what others want or believe, and that being “God’s chosen ones” entitles Evangelicals the right to govern how others live and choose to live their lives.

I don’t mind if Jews or Evangelicals wish to believe that they are chosen by their God, but, the instant they believe that status entitles them to rule over others, I say, No WAY! And I will fight to the death to insure such “chosen ones” never have the right to dictate social policy or law that will govern myself or my offspring.

Eh, also I apologize to the reader for my grammatical and typographical errors above. I failed to proof the commentary before I posted it.

Marriage is not universal?

o.O

I think you need to get out and see more of the world, and learn more of history. The native americans had marriage before any christians came here. Likewise many pagan religions in other parts of the world. It is not unique to judeo-christianity.

I’m not going to pick apart the rest of your post, but seriously… this part is just wrong.

Much of the tactics of Evangelicals is centered on and designed toward converts. It is their mission to convert as many as possible by whatever charitable or political means are available. This does not appear to be a particularly sound basis for freedom for other religions and tolearance of same.

David, I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your comments, other than to say that (a) Chops was only making his position known, not debating it, and (2), from your quote above, I’m a bit surprised you view this method of converting so dimly, when both the Catholic Church and the Muslim faith are both known historically for their violent crusades of conversion. And it is also the stated position of some Muslims (I cannot provide such evidence - I am only reiterating what I’ve read/heard over the years) that believe one must convert to Islam, even if only by violent domination, which does occur in certain parts of our modern world. Good day!

good piece, chops. i think you nailed the main platform (to mix political and religious terminology) of the evangelical movement. you know this, but i’ve always appreciated your ability to discuss sensitive issues with nuance…

An excellent article, Chops - it describes the point of view of my evangelical friends very well (although they also disagree on some of the points) and I think helps me to understand their points of view better on some of the issues.

Perhaps you can help to clarify one of the areas I find confusing. You say “evangelical Christians settled this country as a place where everyone could practice their own religion openly and not be confined by a top-down orthodoxy”, then later in the article “We firmly believe that the Bible is universally applicable”. To me, these viewpoints are irreconcilable - on the one hand you say people should be free to believe what they want and on the other hand you state that the document which sits at the core of your religion should be applicable to everyone.

Having read the Bible myself I know there are a lot of things in there that definitely don’t apply to me. It seems that basing laws and culture on one book from one religion essentially is confining people to a top-down orthodoxy.

Am I misunderstanding the points?

Mr. Dugger,

Here is the info you were not originally aware of:
The Koran says, “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them” (Qu’ran 9.5)

Much of the tactics of Evangelicals is centered on and designed toward converts. It is their mission to convert as many as possible by whatever charitable or political means are available. This does not appear to be a particularly sound basis for freedom for other religions and tolearance of same.

Can this only be said of religions?
Can it not be said of non-religious groups?
Do Atheists not try to convert? or do they just reel in those who cannot bring themselves to take the leap of faith?

I do agree that the fight against gays being able to marry will eventually be lost.
Mainly because the fight to stop it has not been defined well enough.

Robert, Chops was not simply relating his own view. As he said, some of what is in his article he does not necessarily subscribe to.

You are quite correct that Christianity and Islam chose barbaric methods of conversion in the past. But, the fact that they have shed (for the most part, (bombing abortion clinics and 9/11 come to mind), their historically violent tactics, does not mean they have given up on believing their mission is to NOT tolerate other religions by way of making it their mission to convert as many as they encounter by whatever non-violent means necessary and choosing the vulnerability of the injured, sick and starving as one of their preferred methods.

Religious freedom means tolerance and acceptance of other people’s religions and practices and sharing in interfaith efforts based on common values and morals. Making the conversion of other religion’s members a primary goal and focus, reveals a very basic and fundamental intolerance. It is true, as Chops said, that it is flawed to paint all evangelicals with one brush. But, there is a fundamental message that spews forth from most Evangelical pulpits, and that is their mission to convert.

It is difficult for me to trust a church, any church, synagogue, temple, what have you, that conveniently carries the message that conversion of others a moral duty to save their souls while at the same time also translating into some of the greatest wealth controlled by single organizational entities and fostering plush living for the clerics.

Anthony Quinn played an ascendant pope in a movie called The Shoes of the Fisherman, in which he took poverty in the world to heart and the Christian belief in charity to its logical conclusion. He sold the Catholic’s landholdings and assets to feed 10’s of millions of starving people around the world. Such charity of course only appears in movies and fiction. Organized religion is as much, often more, about monetary acquisition as it is the betterment of mankind on earth.

As any politician will attest, the shortest route to the control of wealth is through politics. And the Evangelicals have made politics one of their highest missions in the modern day. I see this as one of the greatest dangers facing American civil peace and order in the future if such movements by organized relgions to control the reigns of political power is not halted.

Chops,

Good article. It brings up a question I’ve been meaning to ask on WatchBlog for quite a while now, and this seems like as good of a time as any…

Why do so many Christians think that it’s a good idea to trust religious instruction to the government? As a Christian myself, I’m very particular about the religious teaching that my children get. I take them to the Church of my choice, and teach them my beliefs at home. I can’t imagine why so many Christians seem eager to put those choices in the hands of politicians.

Christianity is an incredibly fragmented religion. Even my small community in the “bible belt” is fragmented with dozens of Christian denominations. If we Christians can’t agree on what doctrine to teach in our churches, do you honestly think we could agree on what doctrine to teach in our schools? Isn’t it better to leave such instruction to parents and church leaders?

I live in front of a Bible Church (closely related to Baptist), and I can honestly say that they have no intention of controlling politics for their gain.

I’m Catholic (although a confused one, since I’m not sure of my beliefs at this point in my life), but out of curiosity I visited their church quite a number of times. It’s not for me, because I can’t stomach a literal interpretation of the bible as they give in sermons. But, I respect them. Their congregation is the closest knit, and most helpful in the village. If someone is ill, they are there to help. Not just their “own kind”, they’ve helped me because I was their neighbor. They are everywhere, in a heartbeat, to help this community.

I’ve gone walking with the pastor’s wife, and never, has she spoken about their “mission” to convert people. Nobody ever bothered me when I said I wasn’t comfortable in their church, and I still see the pastor’s wife.

During the ‘04 presidential election, I was a Bush campaigner, and when I was handing out signs, the pastor turned me down because he didn’t want to offend anyone by his political affliations. How is that using religion to control politics? That’s just the opposite to me. Also, they collect money for charities of diasasters, without a string attached. They DO go on missions, but from everything I’ve listed above, I do NOT feel that they are doing it out of manipulation, but rather out of the kindness and selflessness their religion teaches.

I’m not a “religious” person in the sense most people would think, but I’m not an aetheist, either. I don’t think it’s wrong for a person of any religion to have their actions influenced by their faith, so long as it is for good. More people in this country (and planet) need the “fear of God” put into them. How many children that see God as their Father do you see in trouble? How many children that grow up without God do you see in trouble? Think about it. I may not know what I believe in right now, but my children attend church because it’s my duty as a parent to provide them with faith, and they can make their final decisions later as adults.

In my opinion, any one who flings the term “aetheist” to identify themselves is using it as their own form of religion, and it provides much insight that they are proud to believe in nothing, and have to work for nothing, because they get to look forward to nothing, because they pride themselves into answering to nothing. There’s a whole lota “nuthin” going on with aetheists. If some people truly do not think there is a God, then why did they invent their own word to denounce Him? Why not just be indifferent?

I remember a lesson in elementary school. I was mad at a girl and I said I “hated” her. The teacher said I still “cared” about this girl. I of course said “NO!”, and the teacher told me that hate is still a feeling, and that if I truly didn’t care for her, I would not have thought about her either way, good or bad. The same concept is applied to those who do not believe in God (aetheists). If someone is taking a moral path because of their belief in God’s will, why let it bother you? If someone is helping the sick in Africa because God told them to do it, let them do their service. I don’t see the “Coalition of Aetheists” doing the same thing! I certainly doubt someone on their death bed is going to say “I don’t want medicine because I don’t want to hear about God”. The Christians still give out their help even if their don’t “capture a convert” or whatever you want to call it.

Let the “religious” people be, at least they believe in something to have them do good for their neighbor. I find nothing wrong in someone having “faith” using it to influence their political decisions, so long as it doesn’t force conversion. It actually helps keep morality.

David,

While some people/churches do provide charity solely for conversion purposes, that is most definitely not true of all churches. The problem comes from two fundamental principles of the Christian faith:

1) Spread the Gospel

and

2) Help others in need

If we’re truly following our Savior, we’re doing both everywhere we go. So, if we show up somewhere to help the needy, we share our spiritual teachings while we’re there. And, likewise, if we show up to teach, we help out those who need it.

Unfortunately, there are those (in every denomination, and indeed every religion) who will make the help contingent upon acceptance of the message.

Personally, I don’t consider secular aid/welfare to be a threat to the church at all. My ability to do the Lord’s work is never limited by others doing it, too.

John - thanks for the reference.

David - You are of course correct that Chops was putting forth not only his but also his religion’s point of views; however, I believe he qualified the entire essay by disclaiming that he could not speak for all Evangelicals. Maybe it would be better to say that he puts forth the point of view that he subscribes to? This of course brings up the notion that we all selectively choose the point of view we most admire and associate with it, religiously, politically, etc. But now I get into wild tangents….. I do agree with most of what you go on to say in the second post, except that, playing the part of the devil’s advocate, if you believe in the right to freedom of religious belief/association/whatnot, AND the right to free speech (they tend to go hand in hand when speaking of religion in this country), then is it not also their right to try to convert people? Don’t get me wrong - I’m not interested in Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other brand of Bible thumpers knocking on my door. I’ve never seen the Anthony Quinn movie, but I wonder what the church would do after it ran out of money and had no assets left?

Also, to Rob Cottrell - good point, except that if you take the Evangelical view espoused by Chops, then it would be moot: all persons would be Evangelical Christian!

Unfortunately, religion has such a divisive impact on humanity that, no matter what each of us says, believes, or does, we are unlikely to change any other person’s point of view or beliefs. Let me close with something I read in a Tom Clancy brand novel (his brand, if you will, but written by some one else). A peasant in the Kashmir region lamented the modern day standoff between Pakistan and India, and the religious strife between the two peoples, saying that they were happy and peaceful until religion came to them. Food for thought.

Good day!

I vote republican, and I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, other than that I try to keep away from any pigeonhole labels (conservative, neo-con??, evangelist, ect.). As a republican voter I agree with most of the evangelical agenda, because it runs parallel with most of the republican agenda. For example the marriage issue I couldn’t agree with you more, society as a whole needs to embrace the fact that Judeo-Christian beliefs are the basis of western civilization as a historical fact and celebrate all the good those beliefs have done for humanity throughout the world. Though we all fear that evangelicals might hijack the republican party and use it as their own secular play toy. I will say that the one big mistake that evangelicals make is “the culture of life issue”. The fact of the matter is that it is not about a culture of life, rather than the definition of life, something which the bible does not even touch, and that religion, society, or science cannot determine with any amount of certainty. How can you claim to know when life begins? On what do you base this belief? Where in your religion or any other does it say life begins at conception? And most importantly how can you know that by blocking research into cloning, genetics, and stem cells, you won’t inhibit the development of, or access to new medical techniques that could save countless lives? Religion: please stay away from science! Or as Chops put it perfectly in his article, this is not your issue, get your own. for centuries Religion has sought to meddle with and impede science, almost invariably with catastrophic results, results that make religious institution as a whole look foolish. Dogma’s like Earth at the center of the universe, anti-birth control (which is the same as being pro-AIDS) and creationalism itself (sorry its been pretty much disproved, I prefer to think of evolution as the language of god) have all left scars on the church, and driven people from the faith. Its a big multi-billion person tent, and there should be some room left for people who don’t agree with this rigid and mysterious definition of life

Chops-
Your definitions are not necessarily shared by all. As a Catholic I can say my faith is not a pose. That assumption doesn’t sit well with other Christians, and I don’t think it necessarily describes evangelicals.

As a graduate of Baylor University, I know that people who take the bible as a literal document are not the only folks who can be called evangelical.

My experience of Evangelical Christianity is: active evangelizing, an emphasis on the scripture as the sole source of religious authority, and at least a theoretical emphasis on the individual authority to come up with their own interpretation with God’s help. The Baptist and Methodists are two examples of this kind of Christianity.

I think Evangelical culture has become in part mixed with the Conservative/Republican culture, and that’s where I think you take your start from. It’s not an evil thing, if you define religion as faith in a culture, but it can turn an impulse motivated by spiritual concerns to worldly ends.

I think it’s important to step back sometimes and ask oneself where one’s faith leaves off and the other influences take hold.

It’s important to make that distinction, if only to know at what point it might be wise to reject the one course for the other. Too many on the religious right have allowed their right-wing influences overcome their Christian one’s, resulting in rhetoric and action that better befits an Ayn Rand Objectivist than a follower of Jesus of Nazereth. If they want Christianity to be a powerful, positive influence in people’s lives, there must be harmony between the ends and the means used

Robert A. Dugger-
We are not that far out of a period of time where our loyalties were not much more sophisiticated than the clan and tribe sort. We must understand religion related atrocities in terms of culture as well as faith.

I will pose the problem of religion as a pathological cause of atrocity and war this way:
Any faith complex enough and real enough to serve as a guide to people’s life will be capable of generating the motivating emotional force for atrocity.

But the same should go for any motivating emotional factor, by that logic. Politics, Philosophy, Community and any number of other strong influences should be eliminated. But where does that leave us? It leaves us unmotivated to do good or evil, at least of our own initiative. It not only renders us vulnerable to and hungry for others more passionate than ourselves to lead us, it also makes it easy for us to stand by and let extremists do what they want to.

It’s a human problem. We got these strong feelings, and we’re not always wise or smart enough to focus them in the right direction. It is here where Religion, as a work of man can have its redemptive power, taking our passions and turning them back on each other to create a new balance. Religion can motivate atrocity, but it can also prevent it. The key is to understand things from a beginner’s mindset, not act as if we are masters of our own lives.

That includes, in my view, not scapegoating religions, parties, and subcultures. We are all capable of error, and just following a bunch of other error capable folks is not always the best way to work out what the best course of behavior to take is. So I call upon people not just to think for themselves, but learn for themselves. Ours is not a world that tolerates ignorance gracefully.

Excellent compilation of the evangelical Christian manifesto, Chops. It gave me the willies. I absolutely do not want to live in a country governed by you guys.

Your definitions are not necessarily shared by all. As a Catholic I can say my faith is not a pose.

Stephen, Chops’ article is a brilliant exclusionary manifesto of us vs. them. As “Papists”, you and I are not true Christians by their definition.

Chops-

An excellent article, you’ve beat me to it, and I must say, you’ve done better than I could have. (I tend to have a problem with the smooth flow of ideas, if you haven’t noticed.)

In response to some questions and comments:

Not surprising since if the government aids the poor it short circuits Evangelicals ability to minister their faith upon the needy in exchange for so-called charity. Much of the tactics of Evangelicals is centered on and designed toward converts. It is their mission to convert as many as possible by whatever charitable or political means are available. This does not appear to be a particularly sound basis for freedom for other religions and tolearance of same.

1) Chops addressed this concern already, it is not that it ‘short-circuits’ the church, rather the current federal system seems to be ineffective at large in bringing about lasting change. Your implication seems to be that we want the government to butt out so that we can get our grasping fingers around the throat of their souls.
2) The point is that churches are much better equipped to meet needs as they are local, and can deal with specific families, and also have the capacity to invest personally.
3) Evangelism is important, but people will not listen to what you have to say if their needs haven’t been met. I do not know of many churches who place stipulations on their charity. (such as attendance or salvation) Forcing someone into church is worse than their free-willed absence, as it only engenders resentment.
4) This does not seem like a tolerant system? As I stated above, I do not know of any churches (not saying there aren’t any, just I’m not aware of them) where there are prerequisites to receiving aid. This is perfect tolerance: in spite of a universalist viewpoint, recipients are not forced into conformity.

Your comments continue to reinforce for me anyway, the belief that Evangelicals have little tolerance for what others want or believe, and that being “God’s chosen ones” entitles Evangelicals the right to govern how others live and choose to live their lives.

Your view here is that Evangelicals want control over others’ decisions. This is not true, as the belief in our free will as a gift from God should prevent the desire to control the choices of others. I, personally, have no problem with whatever anyone else wants to believe, but that stance does not interfere with my viewpoint that the Bible is universally applicable. The difference is that it is not me who will be applying Biblical standards to humanity, I believe that God is the sole individual capable of performing that task.

Mark- that last paragraph addresses some of your concerns as well.

…does not mean they have given up on believing their mission is to NOT tolerate other religions by way of making it their mission to convert as many as they encounter by whatever non-violent means necessary and choosing the vulnerability of the injured, sick and starving as one of their preferred methods.

This is a very cynical and misguided viewpoint. For Evangelical Christians, the universality of the Bible and the personal relationship with God leads the believer strongly towards sharing their views. This is not an intolerance. It becomes intolerance, perhaps, when an individual refuses to accept the right of the person they are trying to convert to deny the Christian message. I will say that this may be common, but I don’t believe it indicates an overall religious intolerance. Part of the reason for the dogged persistence of some is due to personal care for the person in question. This is a personal matter, and the religious stance should be one which allows for the denial of the Christian message. People commonly respond to me saying that I am the exception for my viewpoints and behaviours, but does that somehow make me NOT an Evangelical Christian?

It seems as though your main problem here is the push to convert. What you seem to be missing is that this stems from a love for people and genuine concern for their eternal well-being rather than a desire to increase the membership or income of the particular congregation. I must say that I don’t quite grasp your overall concern. If non-violent means are exclusively used in an attempt to persuade people to accept the Christian message, what is the problem? Anyone hearing may choose to ignore and follow whatever belief they want. You paint Evangelicals as preying on the unfortunate in our society, when it is simply a matter of who will let someone else show concern for their state of being. Someone in need will accept help from whomever offers, and the church sees it as an opportunity to show the community the love they have to offer. Of course, the care goes much deeper than the physical needs of those being cared for, so there is a desire to see them decide to accept the Christian message, but they will receive aid nonetheless.

Rob-

Christianity is an incredibly fragmented religion. Even my small community in the “bible belt” is fragmented with dozens of Christian denominations. If we Christians can’t agree on what doctrine to teach in our churches, do you honestly think we could agree on what doctrine to teach in our schools? Isn’t it better to leave such instruction to parents and church leaders?

I guess I don’t know where you’re coming from. I don’t know of Christians who want doctrine taught in schools. You’re correct about the number of different doctrines of Christianity, but the thing that should be realized is that most of these denominations do not view each other as heathens, there is simply a difference in emphasis or possibly in interpretation of scripture. Most Evangelical denominations have way more in common than not, and the commonalities cover the essentials of salvation, so there’s no reason to suspect that someone isn’t saved because they attend a differently denominated church.

Lisa-

Thanks for your attesting to the existence of Christians acting out of kindness without being primarily motivated by conversion.

AP-

Stephen, Chops’ article is a brilliant exclusionary manifesto of us vs. them. As “Papists”, you and I are not true Christians by their definition.

I don’t see this accusation coming from the article at all. There are certain Catholic beliefs that Evangelicals may disagree with, however as long as one accepts Christ as personal saviour, one would be hard pressed to argue that Papists are not ‘true Christians’…

Stephen-

I am in perfect agreement with your suggestion of knowing where faith leaves off to other influences. You are exactly right, some have allowed other influences to draw them towards a confusing political stance. Well said.

Your view here is that Evangelicals want control over others’ decisions. This is not true…

Unless I want to have an abortion, study real science, or cure Alzheimer’s…

Andrew, listen to me. Creationism is a myth. The rapture is a myth. The whole “Left Behind” series is sci-fi, like Star Trek and UFOs. Any attempt to make that stuff part of my children’s school curriculum will be met with my full opposition.

You say evangelical Christians don’t have problem with people practicing different faiths, but it’s obvious that tolerance breaks down over issues that affect all citizens. We live in a pluralistic society, and we’re all just going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone supports the evangelical Christian manifesto.

It may seem self-evidently right and good to you guys, but a lot of others disagree.

Nicely done, Chops. Even in my most secular moments, I have always thought the presence of religion in public life is essential.

Lisa:

I, too, am a Catholic who is questioning my beliefs, maybe even to the point of becoming an atheist. I think that your assessment of their beliefs, morals, and actions is one of the most ignorant that I have ever read or heard. It seems that you have never met an atheist or read any atheistic literature. Atheists do not live for nothing. They live for others and for themselves. The simple fact that they do not follow a self-sacrifice-supporting document does not mean that they are not philanthropic. Atheists can often times be much more humanitarian than theists because they do not concern themselves with differing beliefs when providing aid, a problem that causes much disaster in the world. They also have completely pure reasons for philanthropy, as they are not doing it simply to get to heaven, but because they truly believe in its beneficial effects in this world. They see that putting down the human race as evil beings plagued by Original Sin and human life as a prison sentence in an evil body is completely condescending to humanity. Atheists understand that more can be done on this world in the name of humanity and through belief in the capabilities of humans, rather than in our complete dependence on another being. By believing that your life should be lived in complete accordance with the “inspired word” of a supreme being, you are downplaying your own capabilities as a human. I am not saying that theism is destructive to humanity. I am only saying that it should be combined with faith in the capabilities of humanity. It is only through that faith that humans can truly help others.

Ryan,
Amen

AP-

Andrew, listen to me. Creationism is a myth. The rapture is a myth. The whole “Left Behind” series is sci-fi, like Star Trek and UFOs. Any attempt to make that stuff part of my children’s school curriculum will be met with my full opposition

Listen to me, I’m not pushing for doctrine in schools, I’m not sure where you got that idea. So, I don’t know what I believe about the origins of our existence, nor am I concerned about it. As for the rapture, that remains to be seen, and “Left Behind” isn’t even worth talking about, its crap.

You say evangelical Christians don’t have problem with people practicing different faiths, but it’s obvious that tolerance breaks down over issues that affect all citizens.

No, I do not say they don’t have a problem, rather that they shouldn’t have a problem. Remember, I can’t speak for everyone; but allowing for everyone’s free will ought to be a focal point of anyone adhering to Christianity.

AP-

Essentially, in the quote you attributed to me, you cut out the meaning. I said that Evangelicals trying to control was not true, but what I continued with was pointing out that foundationally (not rhetorically) Evangelicals should be based upon the notion that free will is given to everyone and we ought not seek to infringe unnecessarily upon it forcibly. The problem lies with what Stephen had to say, in that some individuals (quite numerous, now) allow political ends-justifying means to overcome their more faith-based sensibilities.

I hope that John (and anyone else who read the back and forth on another thread) will forgive me for rasing the issue again, but I really need to raise the question of gay marriage here again. My point elsewhere was not so much that I’m for it as I just cannot see any rational reason for anyone to be against it*.

Chops, you seem to have what is (I believe) a truly Christian perspective which is to say that you should love homosexuals as all other people, but you still oppose gay marriage on the grounds of “get your own.”

I mean no offense, but this sounds like the arguments of an elementary school kid getting mad because someone else colored their pony picture the same color as she did. You may desire that the state not be involved in marriage but there’s no going back now. Marriage has a legal status and to deny it to a certain segment is discrimination. To allow gays “get there own” is to practice precisely the same type of “separate but equal” treatment you decry earlier.

*Note - I had written elsewhere that I understand (although disagree with) the religious objection to gay marriage for those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Please let’s not start another debate about the bible’s views on homosexuality as its already been covered here.

All I’m looking for is for someone to kindly explain to me why so many people are so worked up about something that has no bearing on their lives.

Rob-

I will relate the (still hollow) argument I’ve heard numerous times when trying to convince members of my church. The reason they’re all worked up is because they believe that by not banning gay marriage, that we are somehow encouraging or at least condoning homosexual acts in a moral sense. This hardly needs refuting, nor do I feel like discussing this issue further. This is not the only argument, but it is by far the most common one that I have come across.

A big problem in any church is the tendency towards the congregation accepting whatever is fed from the pulpit, instead of engaging themselves with scripture throughout the week on their own as a supplement. In this way, the words of their leader become a replacement for gospel, and it is easy for entire groups to be misled (not necessarily purposefully) by the political aspirations of one individual.

Ryan-

. By believing that your life should be lived in complete accordance with the “inspired word” of a supreme being, you are downplaying your own capabilities as a human.

I would argue against putting too much stock in the capabilities of humanity as well. We can’t even justifiably account for our own existence…

John:

Funny thing you should quote the Quran when your own religion started the Crusades, the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, etc.

As for the Bible being literally correct, do you advocate slavery and the burning of witches?

The Quran speaks good of Christians and Jews too. If you want to be a strict interpreter, I can land just as hard of a case on the Bible as a Christian Fundamentalist can on the Quran. I read the Quran and it is a remarkable sleeping pill but it is lighter than the Bible. It is the first to allow women the right to divorce their husbands and is the first to force men to treat all of their wives equally and Allah wants counseling as well when problems arise. I call that progressive, I guess but that is doctrine and is not what we see today; as far as radicalism goes.

Surah 2:6 Those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Allah means God by the way so it is an extension of the Bible.

Danny-
The Koran is not part of the bible. The Koran is a direct, cohesive poetic revelation of God (if you take their position). The Bible is different. It’s like one of those collections you see in the book store, and it combines history, prophecy, religious law, and letters. It claims inspiration from God, but is not taken to be a direct message.

To those who erroneously believe Christianity is the foundation of all western society, a history course is in order. No space here, but the origins of western society are not Christian. The origins of western society are ancient Greece and Rome, neither of which was Christian (exluding the one Roman Christian emperor amongst many dozens.)

Athens and democracy and Rome’s Senate representing the people, architecture, philosophy, art, and even many stories in the Bible come from civilizations predating Christ and Christianity. Christians are responsible for the ‘dark ages’ in which such knowledge and wisdom were to be suppressed and withheld from the people, knowledge was dangerous. Very similar to what fundamentalist Christians are trying to do today by usurping science with creationism, and separation of church and state with theocracy.

History repeats itself. If fundamentalists have their way, a new dark ages will emerge in which knowledge is based on the Orwellian notion that fundamentalists shall be the source of all knowledge and no one shall be permitted to think, believe, or act any way other that how fundamentalists dictate lest they be deemed enemies of the state.

And make no mistake, fundamentalists do regard all who fail to believe as they do, as enemies of the state they are trying to create.

David,
I agree wholeheartedly. Dispensationalism is a poison. They are a large cause for the low birthrates amongst whites. I want a diversity and not let the white race be dominated by others. The reason being is that the white race has enough of a bad reputation by historical revisionists. I am not a racialist by the way but I don’t want to live as a slave one day either. The birthrates have to increase and I pay a lot of attention to those statistics.

Note: I can’t post comments from home, so some of the below will relate to things posted a while ago. I apologize for writing all of these back to back.

David - Maybe you missed the thing about not flaming Christians.

But it was these same Christians was it not who conquered Native Americans and deprived them of their right to practice their religion? Deprived may of them from speaking their native tongue, deprived them of their ceremonial songs and dances? Your view of tolerance historically is not born out in fact.

Christians absolutely bear some blame in this. The first settlers, however, did
a better job (given their limited understanding) to work with and help the
locals they met than any succeeding generation. For most of history,
opportunists were almost exclusively the spearhead taking Indians’ land;
everyone else came behind. This does not exonerate Christians, but your point
was off-topic, except as a means to flame Christians.

I remember Evenagelicals in Detroit in 1960 ranting about an American President establishing a papacy in the Whitehouse with the advent of Kennedy’s election. Does this sound like tolearance? Sounds like paranoia to me with no basis in fact.

They were protesting because they didn’t want a state religion. Sounds like the
original point I made. Were there intolerant nativists? Of course, but again
this is beside the point except as a way to flame Christians.

And today, do Evangelical missionaries overseas not still ply their 17 and 1800’s tactic of offering medical and nutrition assistance to the needy “in exchange” for submission to Christian religious service attendance? Is it charity when that received is conditional upon exposing oneself to a religion other than what one was brought up to live and believe in

Another mistake we’ve made. Modern missiology strongly discourages “food pro
quo” programs. They still happen, but the leadership in virtually every
organization understands that creating so-called “rice Christians” is
destructive to the church in the long run. As far as conversion, we are 100%
for it. Spreading the good news of Jesus Christ is what I live for. If you
think that my beliefs disqualify me from participating in Watchblog or in
American democracy, please tell me. I’ll let everyone else judge who is being
tolerant. Were you planning on raising any points about Christians in American
politics, or were you just wanting to flame Christians?

“Secular humanism is the prevailing ideology of the U.S., especially the upper classes and courts, and is in total opposition to what we believe.”

This is exactly the kind of intolerance for other people’s beliefs, ideas, and preferences that gives Evangelicals a bad name.

Huh? Not submitting to the majority ideology is intolerant? Did you read my
post? I didn’t say a THING about wanting to teach Christianity; I said we don’t
want secular humanism taught. If tolerating secular humanism means learning it
as fact in the 3rd grade, then count me out! If the “3 R’s” is all that was
taught, we wouldn’t make a peep. As it is, elite educational professionals want
to mold the minds of children so they’re “good members of society”. That’s code
for, “we want them to be like us.” Don’t take my word for it: read their
curricula.

I don’t mind if Jews or Evangelicals wish to believe that they are chosen by their God, but, the instant they believe that status entitles them to rule over others, I say, No WAY! And I will fight to the death to insure such “chosen ones” never have the right to dictate social policy or law that will govern myself or my offspring.

David, I said we wanted to participate in politics. If having to vote in the
same booth as a Christian is too much for your sensitive skin, then take your
toys and go home. If you’ll READ MY POST you’ll notice all I said we wanted was
to participate fully in American democratic process, and that we have a number
of objectives we want to achieve through that process. If you can quote one
thing that your fellow liberals agree says that evangelicals want a sole
franchise on American power, then I’ll shut up - permanently. If not, please
quit flaming us Christians.

Your comments continue to reinforce for me anyway, the belief that Evangelicals have little tolerance for what others want or believe

Your comments have given me a whole new view of Buddhism.

Mark said:

Perhaps you can help to clarify one of the areas I find confusing. You say “evangelical Christians settled this country as a place where everyone could practice their own religion openly and not be confined by a top-down orthodoxy”, then later in the article “We firmly believe that the Bible is universally applicable”. To me, these viewpoints are irreconcilable - on the one hand you say people should be free to believe what they want and on the other hand you state that the document which sits at the core of your religion should be applicable to everyone.

Having read the Bible myself I know there are a lot of things in there that
definitely don’t apply to me. It seems that basing laws and culture on one book
from one religion essentially is confining people to a top-down orthodoxy.

The key element you missed was the rest of the second sentance you quoted. In
full, it reads: “We firmly believe that the Bible is universally applicable;
that any society at any time can benefit from the ideas of humility, order, and
justice in the Bible.”

I have no desire to see the Bible enshrined in American law. However, its
principles are universally applicable. For example: the nation that behaves as
if it is god unto itself will get into trouble; the nation that recognizes its
fallability and non-supremacy in the universe will do much better.

Also, the fact that I happen to believe that it’s applicable doesn’t make it so:
but it does explain the basis of my political participation and votes. I’m
going to vote for people who are against abortion and are for AIDS assistance
in Africa. Does that make those positions right? No. *I* think they are right,
but that’s why we have a universally participatory democracy. I’m probably
wrong about some things; you’re probably wrong about others. As we compromise
and deal in a political arena as equals, we create laws that reflect the
consensus of the American people.

David:

Robert, Chops was not simply relating his own view. As he said, some of what is in his article he does not necessarily subscribe to.

You’re both wrong. I’m not relating my own view, but neither am I trying to argue the points I made. This was a descriptive article on conservative Christianity, and I resent the fact that David has taken it as an excuse to get vitriol against Christians out of his mouth. Most people in this thread seem to be having an intelligent, on-topic discussion about what American political Christianity is, not telling us what we should do or should believe.

Chops,
I did like your article despite the fact that I am completely antithetical to your idealogy, political party and viewpoints.
I am just wondering something.

the nation that recognizes its fallability and non-supremacy in the universe will do much better.

I don’t view the US as a humble nation. I can point throughout history, as Sen. Fullbright said, where the US has used the, “arrogance of power.”

Rob Cottrell said:

Why do so many Christians think that it’s a good idea to trust religious instruction to the government? As a Christian myself, I’m very particular about the religious teaching that my children get. I take them to the Church of my choice, and teach them my beliefs at home. I can’t imagine why so many Christians seem eager to put those choices in the hands of politicians.

Mmm, that’s like asking “Why is the sky green?” It’s not. I can be perfectly honest and say that I have never, in all my days, heard a Christian advocate the teaching of Christian doctrine in public school. Of course, some want to send their kids to Christian schools or to homeschool, but I’ve never heard any of those folks whining about how the local public school should teach Christianity. The point I made about education was entirely negative: we don’t want another philosophy taught in school. Most Christians are opposed to teachers’ unions because we are in favor of parents’ rights, while teachers have an understandably low opinion of parents. Too often, teachers and school boards take it upon themselves to teach secular humanist morality to kids, and that’s a serious problem to many Christian parents.

Robert Dugger said:

A peasant in the Kashmir region lamented the modern day standoff between Pakistan and India, and the religious strife between the two peoples, saying that they were happy and peaceful until religion came to them.

The India-Pakistan border (esp. the Khyber Pass) was a flashpoint in battles between the empires of India and the hungry conquerors of Central Asia before Muhammed was a glint in his father’s eye. Hinduism was established after the fact by the first successful wave of conquerors as a means of keeping their race from mixing with the indigenous blacks.

One would have thought that the atheist and nationalist slaughter of the 20th century would have cured us of blaming religion for our fundamental badness.

Stephen Daugherty said:

Your definitions are not necessarily shared by all. As a Catholic I can say my faith is not a pose. That assumption doesn’t sit well with other Christians, and I don’t think it necessarily describes evangelicals.

Stephen, I appreciate your intelligent input. On the definitions, I stuck with the applicable definition from Dictionary.com for the word evangelical (the link is in the post). More importantly, I wanted to give people a view of the self-definition of evangelicals.

Being a Bostonian & having travelled in the non-Christian world, I’m particularly open-minded toward Catholics. The whole Mary thing gives me the willies, but I consider any Catholic who trusts in God’s grace through Christ’s sacrifice to be a brother. However, most evangelicals in the U.S. don’t know that such Catholics exist, and are much quicker to dismiss Catholics as “other”.

As far as “posers”, I would define anyone who goes to church and calls themself a Christian but does not sincerely believe in Christ or submit to Him as Lord a poser. I really appreciate the fact that Unitarian Universalists do not call themselves Christian: they’re not and they know it. Unfortunately, many others, such as the congregational church where I grew up, call themselves “Christian” but share 99% of their beliefs with UU’s. That’s posing.

American Pundit said:

Excellent compilation of the evangelical Christian manifesto, Chops. It gave me the willies. I absolutely do not want to live in a country governed by you guys.

Thank you for the compliment, and thanks for understanding the spirit of the article!

Creationism is a myth. The rapture is a myth. The whole “Left Behind” series is sci-fi, like Star Trek and UFOs. Any attempt to make that stuff part of my children’s school curriculum will be met with my full opposition.

Please tell me which school board attempted to make the Left Behind series required reading. Otherwise, put away the straw man.

If Creationism is a myth, what’s spontaneous generation? There’s a reason Louis Pasteur was a Christian :-)

We live in a pluralistic society, and we’re all just going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone supports the evangelical Christian manifesto.

Right. So you can vote against us. That’s the great thing about democracy. What is really bothering me about this thread is that there seems to be a camp that doesn’t see a place for me in American polity. And these same people call me intolerant. I don’t understand it…

I remember Evenagelicals in Detroit in 1960 ranting about an American President establishing a papacy in the Whitehouse with the advent of Kennedy’s election. Does this sound like tolearance? Sounds like paranoia to me with no basis in fact.

They were protesting because they didn’t want a state religion.

No. They were protesting because they didn’t want a state religion other than their own.

And Chops, you can’t have a discussion like this and tell everyone who points out the wackiness a Christian flamer. As far as I’m concerned, my Catholic faith is the one true Christian faith, and all the breakaway evangelical heritics are going straight to Hell. But I usually have the grace and manners to keep that to myself in public.

Anyhow, I’m also unwilling to live under a state religion other than my own, so don’t expect me to weep big ol’ tears for evangelical Christians.

If you can quote one thing that your fellow liberals agree says that evangelicals want a sole franchise on American power, then I’ll shut up - permanently.

How about when Republican leaders at the highest national level, like Tom Delay, say,

“we march forward with a biblical worldview, a worldview that says God is our Creator, that man is a sinner, and that we will save this country by changing the hearts and minds of Americans,”

I take him pretty seriously. Rather than shut you up - permanently (I actually enjoy your posts), perhaps you can just acknowledge that non-evangelical Christians have good reason to believe evangelicals want a sole franchise on American power.

Ryan said:

By believing that your life should be lived in complete accordance with the “inspired word” of a supreme being, you are downplaying your own capabilities as a human.

Absolutely. That’s a key point of Christianity. Even if the Bible was penned by mortal men, they knew a lot more than I do, and I’m happy with the results of trying to live according to principles like the 10 Commandments and the Beatitudes. If I organized my life according to my own impulses, I don’t know where I’d be.

I am only saying that it should be combined with faith in the capabilities of humanity. It is only through that faith that humans can truly help others.

I guess I’ve met too many people to have faith in humanity.

What is really bothering me about this thread is that there seems to be a camp that doesn’t see a place for me in American polity. And these same people call me intolerant. I don’t understand it…

BTW, apologies for directing criticism of evangelical Christians world dominating bent directly a you (and Andrew). You kind of personalized your article, “Being Chops”, then distanced yourself from the content. It’s a little confusing.

Aldous said:

As for the Bible being literally correct, do you advocate slavery and the burning of witches?

Stone witches, Aldous, stone them.

You’ll notice that in the New Testament, religion was stripped of the coercive power of the state which it had in the Israelite theocracy. The ancient Jewish criminal code is where we get a lot of our laws (outlawing incest, for example), but no one is trying to have it enforced in totality.

Aldous,

You seem to enjoy ripping on the US and Christians. All I did was provide a reference. Mr. Dugger didn’t have the information at his disposal and had already refered to the Crusades. As for your question, I cannot answer that as it would only dignify it.

AP,

Creationism is a myth. The rapture is a myth.

No, it isn’t. It’s a very good theory (I believe it to be the Truth) without the “missing link.” We can see from the latest eruption of Mt. Saint Helens that stratification happens within moments. It’s impossible for an animal to freeze over centuries standing in the same spot, chewing on whatever plant that was founf in its mouth (or the same situation of an animal with another partially digested animal in it’s stomach). A meteor didn’t hit the earth, that was called a flood. I could continue with a VERY long tirade about this but I won’t. I invite you to visit www.answersingenesis.com. This Web site is full of a wealth of information on the Creation.

The whole “Left Behind” series is sci-fi…

Yes, it is. It’s a series of stories based on Christian beliefs for Christian readers.

David said:

To those who erroneously believe Christianity is the foundation of all western society, a history course is in order. No space here, but the origins of western society are not Christian. The origins of western society are ancient Greece and Rome, neither of which was Christian (exluding the one Roman Christian emperor amongst many dozens.)

I didn’t mean to exclude the Greco-Roman influences, but Enlightenment morality has far more roots in Christianity than in Roman morals. Notice that we outlawed polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice, and deification of leaders. The idea of human equality has direct roots in Paul’s letters. He was the first philosopher writing in Greek to say that Barbarians were equals of Greeks, or that men were equal to women. This was a radical philosophical shift, and its effects are very much at the foundation of our civilization.

Oh, and one Roman emperor was a Christian… plus most of those who came after him! Now who’s ignoring history?

Christians are responsible for the ‘dark ages’ in which such knowledge and wisdom were to be suppressed and withheld from the people, knowledge was dangerous.

Wha??!! Let me introduce you to my friend Attila the Hun. Attila, what do you think of Romans?

“RUARGGGGHHHH!!!!

How about Christians?

“RUARAGAHGHHAG!!!!

If you look at the historical record, Christian monks preserved not only the Bible but the very art of writing! Europe was overrun by waves of Goths, Huns, and Vikings for hundreds of years, and the church was the only place in the West where civilization survived. The East, of course, was not overrun until much later.

History repeats itself. If fundamentalists have their way, a new dark ages will emerge in which knowledge is based on the Orwellian notion that fundamentalists shall be the source of all knowledge and no one shall be permitted to think, believe, or act any way other that how fundamentalists dictate lest they be deemed enemies of the state.

David, this is what I mean about flaming Christianity. I know hundreds of pastors and thousands of Christians, and none of them wants to abandon American democracy. Protestantism was formed as a reaction against the stultifying Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. The Age of Reason, the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the American Constitution were all products of societies of which a protestantism was the official religion.

You need to read a little bit more evangelical philosophy, or visit a few churches, to understand what we believe, and do a little less bashing.

And make no mistake, fundamentalists do regard all who fail to believe as they do as enemies of the state they are trying to create.

Umm, source please?

You are trotting out a long series of straw man arguments, derogatory remarks, and attributing to others positions they have never taken. Unless you have something to back up your very serious allegations, please save the vitriol for someone with more patience than I have.

Chops,

I meant to say you did a fine job with the article.

Donny Goodman said:

I agree wholeheartedly. Dispensationalism is a poison. They are a large cause for the low birthrates amongst whites.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard Christians blamed for low birthrates before.

I don’t view the US as a humble nation. I can point throughout history, as Sen. Fullbright said, where the US has used the, “arrogance of power.

I fully agree. A big reason I voted for Bush the first time was that he advocated a “humble” foreign policy and didn’t want to do nation-building. Funny how politicians don’t stick to their word… (The second time, I voted for him because of judicial nominations and because it was a vote against John Kerry)

Chops,
You know this just as well as I do. A ton of young Christians don’t want kids in this world because they honestly believe that a rapture is going to happen or they don’t want to bring a kid into dangerous times. Perhaps still being in high school, I don’t think girls at my age really want kids, rather made up their minds about it, so that might distort my perception but I see the link.
Dispensationalism promotes that. With every earthquake that happens, they run by the masses screaming “BLOODY MURDER, THE WORLD IS GOING TO END.” I know too talking to non-Christian girls at my age that they want kids but Christian girls don’t because of that excuse. Perhaps I am making a bold link and accusation but I see a commonality in all of this. When all things are considered, they do have a fear for the world and you are talking about a church that really is the most popular and biggest one in town. My how the Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Fadwell’s of the world have corrupted such minds?

then we of the Judeo-Christian tradition invented marriage

I want to re-iterate Jarin’s note on this. While marriage is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it was not invented within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Native Americans, Chinese, Northern European pagans, etc. all had a concept of marriage well before Jews or Christians influenced their cultures (or, in some cases, before those religions existed).

Marriage is very important to Christianity, without a doubt. However, Christianity in no way owns the definition of marriage.

Schtaple, Parker, Lisa, John, AP, and everyone else who complimented me - thanks very much. I really appreciate your thoughts and I’m glad I could do justice to a subject that I didn’t write on for a while fearing that I couldn’t.

AP said:

BTW, apologies for directing criticism of evangelical Christians world dominating bent directly a you (and Andrew). You kind of personalized your article, “Being Chops”, then distanced yourself from the content. It’s a little confusing.

No apology needed. I’m sorry, on my part, for the confusion mentioned above. The title “Being Chops” was a bit misleading, but I wanted to make it clear that this was a descriptive, not prescriptive, article.

I can distance myself from some of the positions held above (e.g. on Israel, and even on gay marriage), but when commenters say that evangelical Christians are trying to overthrow American democracy and declare everyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state, that crosses the line of what I’m willing to consider proper debate. It’s analogous to a black person writing about being black in America. He may not agree with every position of the NAACP, and he may think Barak Obama is overrated, but could he have an intelligent debate with someone who wrote:

Blacks are responsible for the ‘dark continent’ in which knowledge and wisdom were suppressed and withheld from the people; knowledge was ‘dangerous’.

History repeats itself. If blacks have their way in America, a new dark ages will emerge in which knowledge is based on the Orwellian notion that blacks shall be the source of all knowledge and no one shall be permitted to think, believe, or act any way other than how blacks dictate lest they be deemed enemies of the state.

Judge for yourself.

Donny said:

You know this just as well as I do. A ton of young Christians don’t want kids in this world because they honestly believe that a rapture is going to happen or they don’t want to bring a kid into dangerous times. Perhaps still being in high school, I don’t think girls at my age really want kids, rather made up their minds about it, so that might distort my perception but I see the link.

Mmm, no I don’t know that as well as you. In fact, I’ve never heard that argument made. The statistics bear out that Christians have more kids than non-Christians. I personally know three protestant families with 12 children each (and one of those families used contraception; scary, huh?). My family has 4 kids, and it’s on the smaller side in my church. Anecdotal evidence, but the stats bear it out as well.

Of course, at your age, it’s probably a good thing that girls don’t want kids, whatever their excuse.

Chops, first of all, reread my comments. I never used the word Christianity as a threat to our future. I used the word Fundamentalists. There are many common factors between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are the threat should they achieve political power and were the perpetrators of so much inhumanity in the Christian name in history.

As for the Christian Emperors, they all reigned after Constantine over a declining empire. Not sure if there is a parallel there with today.

Again, reread what I said, Chops. I did not say Christianity would reinstate the dark ages, I SAID Fundamentalists would. Most non-fundamentalist Christians believe in democracy, freedom of all religious peoples from coercion or bribery from other religions, and in some separation of church and state. Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and a host of others oppose politically much of what Fundamentalists are atttempting.

So, be careful of reading critiques of Fundamentalism as indictments of Christianity, as I am speaking of it, nothing could be further from the truth. I was raised a Methodist, and our church would never presume to offer charity on the condition of church attendance. Our pastor believed in the power of assistance and invitation, not assistance and conditions placed upon it. There isn’t an anti-Christian bone in my body. Having studied Christianity from a philsophical persepective, it ranks up there with Buddhism, and Islam and Taoism as one of the great and beneficial relgions of all time in terms of its potential to elevate human values, peaceful human interaction, and promote life decisions and choices that appeal to the nobler potential of the human species.

Christians who practice mainstream Christianity are not coercive and recognize the wisdom of rendering to Ceasar that which is Ceasars and God that which is God’s. Christians by and large accept that heaven is not earth, and earthly existence can never be heaven. Fundamentalists however, are a different breed. They fail to recognize separate domains between heaven and earth, they seek to install heaven on earth through coercion and political force, and they fear all who do not speak, act, and live as they do. This is what motivates their ardent attempts to reshape society, education, and politics in a way to provide increasing their numbers and decreasing those of all others.

Who can deny teaching creationism in schools as science is not based this very fact. Hitler was just as intolerant and fearful of the Jews, McCarthy just as intolerant and fearful of any not bowing to his power of what is Truly American.

And fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, for that matter, have as a base a fearful intolerance of any who are not like them which is why they desire and work to diminish homosexuality, non-marital sex, euthenasia, abortion, and any knowledge not based on the bible, like evolution. At their core is a paranoid intolerance of differences amongst people in society which might influence them or their offspring away from their fundamentalist views. Differences are a threat.

Most Christians I know are not afraid of others differences rubbing off on them or their offspring. They are confident in the strength and justification of their values and beliefs and trust proper living and upbringing has nothing to fear from others in terms of changing character. They are tolearant of other religions and atheists and agnostics, and even embrace as friends others of other faiths and beliefs. The express their views with confidence and pride without feeling compelled to convert others to their views.

I don’t fear or fight Christianity. I fear and will fight fundamentalists who believe they are right, and all others are wrong and a threat. That kind of paranoia which seeks to reshape the world to reflect their own image is very, very dangerous and produces bombers of abortion clinics, writers of death threat letters, and lobbying of politicians and amassing monies sufficient to force change upon a majority through the political system.

These are the people I have always fought, from the racist Christian KKK of my youth to the fundamentalists who would teach creationism as science in schools today. These are dangerous people precisely because they feel threatened by the society they find themselves in. And as we all know, nothing is more dangerous than an animal or parent who believes it or its offspring are being threatened.

Jarin & Lawnboy,

You’re right; I should have been more precise on my words about marriage. It’s true that other cultures have marriage, but the idea of marriage that the state governments recognize is biblical.

For example, incestual, polygamous, polyandrous, child, forced, etc, are either outlawed or culturally unacceptable in our society. We have a judeo-christian view of marriage as a covenant between two people. In Islam, for example, marriage is not a covenant, it’s a contract, and is treated very differently. In many cultures, adultery is not considered an abbrogation of marriage vows; in other societies, men alone have the right of divorce.

One of the reasons Christians oppose gay marriage is that it’s a slippery slope: who’s to say now that I can’t marry my sister or my son or my roommate or whatever? Marriage is by definition an exclusive institution. Everybody draws the line somewhere; we just choose to draw the line in a different place than secularists of today.

WOW, nice article Chops, I am another who agrees with most of what you stated. I’m struggling now as I try to think about responses to some of the other comments…

“then we of the Judeo-Christian tradition invented marriage”

Don’t remember who first stated an objection to this, but if you look in Genesis chapter 2 (I think) we see God creating one man and one woman, and yes, those two people did come before Native Americans and any other culture. Just because a culture is not recently connected to Judeo-Christian culture, doesn’t mean that many of its roots don’t come from those beliefs.

Now, I understand that many in this column don’t agree with this line of reasoning, but that is where I, as an “Evangelical Christian” stand, and why I do believe that we (or rather God) invented marriage.

I think I will stop with that because most other topics have been addressed by others already.

Again, thank you for the wonderful topic Chops!

David -

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps, however, you should re-read your comments. In your first and second comments you did not use the word “fundamentalist” once; you used “Christian” and “Evangelical”. In your third comment, you did introduce the word “fundamentalist” to the argument. Does this paragraph ring a bell?

But, Evangelicals will have none of that majority crap, since as you said according to your view, the founding fathers avoided democracy like the plague in the hopes that the majority would not have their way. Your comments continue to reinforce for me anyway, the belief that Evangelicals have little tolerance for what others want or believe, and that being “God’s chosen ones” entitles Evangelicals the right to govern how others live and choose to live their lives.

This is what I meant in the disclaimer when I said “I am not interested in learning what you think I believe.” You haven’t used a single piece of current evidence to back up your allegations that evangelicals (not just ‘fundamentalists’) are anti-democratic, devious, intolerant, and power-hungry. It’s always about history, and is generally about some non-evangelical group within the Christian umbrella.

Lest we be arguing over a semantic distinction, perhaps you could clarify: do you consider someone who holds the beliefs I described in my post a fundamentalist?

Personally, I think the word “fundamentalist” is an imprecise and unhelpful distinction, so I don’t use it when speaking of Muslims, Christians, or anyone else. If you take the original meaning of fundamentalist (it was introduced by Christians 100 years ago as a self-descriptive), then I am definitely fundamentalist. But if you use it to mean “militant”, then I’m not.

Oh, and a side note: Christian anti-abortion advocates were the only ones to put together a fund for the families of those who died in the abortion clinic bombings a few years ago. Just putting our money where our mouth is, something the clinics didn’t do.

nemoy,

The full sentence from the initial post was

I think that the root of our opposition is basically the fact that God invented marriage (and if you don’t believe in God, then we of the Judeo-Christian tradition invented marriage).

I can’t speak for Jarin, but I’m arguing about the parenthetical, and you’re re-iterating the main assertion. If you believe that the Genesis story is literally true, of course you’re going to believe that God invented marriage. However, that really can’t be the foundation for our civil laws.

I fully expect us never to agree on this.

BTW, Chops, thanks for your clarification. I don’t agree with the slippery slope argument, and I’m not sure if you’re correct about the legal history, but I appreciate your readdressing the question.

Chops said: “This is what I meant in the disclaimer when I said “I am not interested in learning what you think I believe.” You haven’t used a single piece of current evidence to back up your allegations that evangelicals (not just ‘fundamentalists’) are anti-democratic, devious, intolerant, and power-hungry.”

Chops, c’mon. Are denying, ignorant, or deceptive in your unwillingness to admit that a large number of Evangelicals are seeking political power to overturn RvWade, lobbying publishers in Texas to place creationism in text books, and efforts to ban homosexual unions. All these are true and of current record today. I am not talking history, this is now.

Are you really trying to deny some of the biggest criminals of religion in America were Evangelicals, ripping off their followings of millions and others using donated monies to lobby Congress and the President?

I think the case is made, whether you choose to see it, is up to you. As for the quote of mine you used above, I was paraphrasing your own words pretty accurately.

Chops said: “Oh, and a side note: Christian anti-abortion advocates were the only ones to put together a fund for the families of those who died in the abortion clinic bombings a few years ago. Just putting our money where our mouth is, something the clinics didn’t do.”

Yes, as I said, some Christians are becoming very political. If a Christian anti-abortionist blew up the clinic, it is politically correct and expedient for Christian anti-abortionists to put that fund togehter as a matter of Public Relations, don’t you think, whether or not charity was a factor, which I’m sure it was. But, it does not change the fact that like Corporations in trouble with the public today put forth millions to save some birds or trees to shore up their public image.

Fact- anti-abortion Christians are responsible for the bombings in the first place!!! That is precisely what I am talking about in referring to the paranoia and intolerance of some Evangelicals and fundamentalists.

As for fundamentalist, I understand the term today to represent any who take the sriptures as literal authority excluding all others that my run contradictory. This despite the fact that Fundamentalists cherry pick from the texts to advance their personal agendas, ignoring a great deal of scripture that would hinder them, and hilighting those passages will promote their aims.

All foundational texts of major relgions contain inherent contradictions and any who take the text as literal undisputable truth are capable of holding mutually exclusive values in their heads at the same time. Fundamentalists are fundamentally without integrity, for the inconsistencies of their scripture are inconsistencies in which they must deny despite all evidence to the contrary. And that kind of rationalization by fundamentalists portends their ability to rationalize anything, including bombing abortion clinics in the name of the sanctity of life. This is precisely why Osama bin Laden or Eric Rudolph or any number of other fundamentalists are potentially so dangerous.

Chops, thanks for taking the time to explain your views. This was a great post.

For my part, I think a lot of the real hostility of liberals to evangelically-driven politics is the perception that evangelicals are trying to spread their own religious beliefs, and are trying to use the machinery of government to do so. In doing that, your community is unfairly trying to force its religious beliefs - or at least, practises required by its religious beliefs - on others. (Notice I’m talking about force based on use of government mechanisms, not simple evangelizing - I’m perfectly happy to let folks go door-to-door passing out the Watchtower if they want.)

This is is a strong contrast to my community, the Jewish community, btw, which has for thousands of years had to handle the issue of maintaining strong religious beliefs as a minority. The Jewish outlook has been to separate religious and secular obligations as much as possible.

Your post suggests that you feel that you’re not pushing your religion via the government - instead that there is a dominant, top-down, non-religious “secular humanist” philosophy that is being forced on evangelical Christians, which you’re pushing back against. Is that a fair statement, Chops? In this case, perhaps a big portion of our disagreements have to do with what you mean by “secular humanism”.

For instance, you say:

Secular humanism is the prevailing ideology of the U.S., especially the upper classes and courts, and is in total opposition to what we believe. It is not necessarily taught as a belief system in the public schools, but it is the underlying worldview on which the education system is based. This is even more acute in universities. Parents want an educational system where their children won’t be taught that we’re “all good people”, or that the universe is eternal, that species began with spontaneous generation, that premarital sex is good, or that the way you feel is the best determinant of right and wrong.

I can accept not wanting schools to teach that premarital sex is good, or that “if it feels good do it” (although I very doubt that public schools actually do teach this, at least by design.) You lose me when you say that you don’t want public schools to teach that “the universe is eternal, that species began with spontaneous generation”.

Let’s try not to get into an argument about what’s a theory and what’s not, but here’s a philosophical question: would you want public schools to not teach something that conflicts with your religious beliefs, even if there was overwhelming scientific evidence for it being true?

The second part of your post I disagree with strongly is this:

We see government social spending as a threat to the church as much as a boon to the poor. We don’t see evidence that indiscriminate welfare actually helped people in human ways, and we emphasize good works based in love, not based in duty or compulsion.

Why is social spending a threat to the church? what do you mean by “not helping in human ways”?

And a philosophical question - again let’s not argue about the actual situation. Suppose there was strong scientific evidence that welfare, in some form, was an overall benefit to society (say by reducing crime rates). Would you still oppose it on religious grounds?

David -

Thanks for the clarification. It’s good to know I’m a fundamentalist.

You keep changing the terms of debate. When I challenge you on one thing, you switch to new turf. Nobody has denied that some evangelicals do bad things in the name of their religion, or even in the name of God. I’m a very vocal critic of any who do so, considering it’s my reputation - and God’s - at stake.

But that’s off-topic. To me, the central argument is the idea that people like me have no place in the American democratic debate. That’s important. Because if you don’t think we have a place at the table, then we have no way to discuss policies. Your quote below sums it up best:

And make no mistake, fundamentalists do regard all who fail to believe as they do as enemies of the state they are trying to create.

That’s a BLANKET statement. Don’t come back and evade by pointing to a few bad Christians whom you can use as a scapegoat. You are attributing a group characteristic that is inflammatory, insulting, and totally untrue. It reminds me of a Jordanian friend of mine who said, “We don’t hate the Jews; they hate us.” That was how he masked his own hatred, which was very real. It seems to me that the reality is that you view “my kind of people” as enemies of the state, and you’re defending your loathing by attributing your feeling to us.

You also said:

Your comments continue to reinforce for me anyway, the belief that Evangelicals have little tolerance for what others want or believe.

Tell me one thing I’ve said that is intolerant. I can point to half a dozen intolerant quotes on your part, if you like. You didn’t said “your comments”, so which comments of mine were you talking about?

In your most recent comment you partially answered my previous question:

You haven’t used a single piece of current evidence to back up your allegations that evangelicals (not just ‘fundamentalists’) are anti-democratic, devious, intolerant, and power-hungry.

Chops, c’mon. Are denying, ignorant, or deceptive in your unwillingness to admit that a large number of Evangelicals are seeking political power to overturn RvWade, lobbying publishers in Texas to place creationism in text books, and efforts to ban homosexual unions. All these are true and of current record today. I am not talking history, this is now.

OK, I’ll give you power-hungry, but only in the context of democracy. I don’t know any evangelicals advocating an overthrow of the government. We have goals (like the ones you listed), but we see those as something to be strived for through the law, just as most environmentalists see environmental regulation as something to be pursued legally, though a minority firebomb SUV’s and developments. So I’ll give you power-hungry, but how about anti-democratic?

Could you answer me the following questions? I think this would clear up for me what you actually believe.

1. Should ‘fundamentalist’ evangelical Christians have the right to vote and run for office in the U.S.A.?

2. Are most ‘fundamentalist’ evangelical Christians, in your opinion, sufficiently sane individuals to participate in policy debates?

3. Do you have any good friends who are ‘fundamentalist’ evangelical Christians? I just want to know if you have a face to put with your labels.

4. Has ‘fundamentalist’ evangelical Christianity ever contributed something positive to American law or society? If so, what?

You’re seriously beginning to frighten me, David. I didn’t know there were people out there who felt so strongly against me and my co-religionists.

Chops,

Mmm, that’s like asking “Why is the sky green?” It’s not. I can be perfectly honest and say that I have never, in all my days, heard a Christian advocate the teaching of Christian doctrine in public school.

That surprises me. On a daily basis, I hear fellow Christians advocating any/all of the following:

* teaching Creationism in science class;
* opening school with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (“one nation under God”);
* opening school with prayer;
* opening graduation ceremonies with prayer;
* posting the Ten Commandments in the hallway;
* holding Boy Scout meetings (a Christian organization) in public schools.

Are you saying that you have never heard any of these discussed? Here in Indiana, they’re discussed constantly.

Each one of these is a case of “let the government teach my religion for me”. I don’t want my government to have that much power.

William Cohen -

Thanks for the kind words and questions. I’ll try to address them:

…there is a dominant, top-down, non-religious “secular humanist” philosophy that is being forced on evangelical Christians, which you’re pushing back against. Is that a fair statement, Chops? In this case, perhaps a big portion of our disagreements have to do with what you mean by “secular humanism”.

Depending on where you go to school, it’s more or less fair. My sister goes to Brookline High School, and the secular humanism comes out its pores. Being a Christian is actually kind of “cool” now because it’s a form of radical rebellion. In other school districts, it’s obviously quite different. However, in terms of descriptives, I