1

I think I've seen every single one of those comments repeated within the past 5 days on my small "freethinkers" blogroll. If you've seen who is on it, you likely already know who I'm talking about. Some, however, were blessedly free of vitriol. Mostly.

I keep it small for that reason. Too much hysterical rhetoric tends to grate on one after a while.

They really are getting frisky lately about this "video to end all videos". Reminds me of the hype surrounding Michael Moore's little ditty.

I also find it funny that they've identified the person who battered their worldview the most in the last 50 years correctly, though. Despite their tendency to howl at the moon for no particular reason, and with disturbing frequency - usually about "theocracy" ,"separation", and "jackboots" - they do manage to get one right occasionally. By accident, most likely.

The one, the only - Francis Schaeffer. The author of "The God Who is There". They know the thinkers they're trying to avoid engaging. That's why they spoof it. Because they think we won't notice - and it'll be a terribly clever inside joke.

That.. or they do know we'll recognize it. Which means they just aren't very creative. Either/or.

2

Heavens! If we religious right-wingers actually started winning, what would these people do, start jumping off buildings?

3

Sweet post. I wonder, however, if calling them antisemites is the same as us calling them nazi's which is the same kind of rediculous hyperbole that they use.

However, in this case, I have seen that, because they are losing in the realm of reason in convincing the public, they are resorting to such fear tactics and blatant intolerant disrespect for Christians and conservatives. They are immature babies throwing a tantrum, but they are also not to be taken lightly.

I agree, we must continue to firmly and consistently reply with reason, conviction, and clarity to overcome the voices of foolishness that rant in our media and against our churches.

4

I think you've got your collective heads stuck in the sand. I guess no one likes to think that others think that they are at times evil and cruel. And perhaps justly so. Instead of complaining about the media, why don't you do something about Dominists and other fanatics?

Over the last few months I've read three news articles that really terrified me. Of Christians. Maybe you should read them too.

Trilogy of Terror: Three news articles every gay and lesbian American should read.

5

Whenever I see a post like this, I am reminded just how much division there is in the United States.

Good people of any faith, who look at the evidence cannot but admit that there is indeed a small but powerful contingent of people who have stolen the name of Christianity to subvert the liberties of those whose beliefs differ.

They use projection in abundance- while they decry the use of "special rights" for gays, it is they themselves who seek special rights.

They claim "prejudice" and invoke Godwin's Law but, sometimes, the metaphor is apt and sometimes the metaphor is more apt.

The fact that these people are truly the ones who have played footsie with the Klan (like Perkins from the Family Research Council), cannot be ignored.

Now I don't want to tar all self-avowed Christians this way. I think it's as unfair to do this as it is for Christians to tar non-believers.

But this contingent exists, and instead of getting on a soapbox and professing denial, it would help to restore dialog to admit that this Klan-nurtured, hateful theology and sects exist, that they prey upon well meaning Christians (D. James Kennedy comes to mind), and have contributed to the deterioration of civility in this country every bit as much as any other example that can be brought.

Edgar Ray Killen was a part time preacher. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that?

6

I do hope that the kind of rhetoric to which Joe makes reference is infrequent and isolated. It does get a bit of press and so perhaps it seems more prevalent that it actually is.

My hope is that the center, the solid, moderate mostly religions center in the U.S. will not let the zealots of any political stripe assume power.

Extremism tends to breed extremism of an opposed sort. Thus I'd like to see as little said about the fanatics as possible. Let them meet. Let them give their papers. Let them harangue whatever press will come. But let them work in obscurity.

Belief that there exists a group fundamentally opposed to you and your worldview, a group that wishes to tear down all you hold dear, tends to inculcate a seige mentality. Let the fanatics labor in obscurity and then they will have no power.

7

Fortunately, this radical contingent is too small a minority to be a physical threat. It’s also easier to turn the other cheek knowing that the menace comes not from buff Aryan SS agents but from spindly off-Broadway producers and teachers of post-colonial studies. As long as the physical threat comes from a group that could be quelled by den of East Texas Girl Scouts, we don’t have anything to worry about.
Hitchens-esque, as ironic a description as that is. Keep up the good work.

8

Upon hearing such drivel, most orthodox Christians simply sigh, shrug, and politely point out how such remarks grossly misrepresent Christian belief. The time has come, though, to say enough is enough. Several decades ago anti-Catholicism became the new anti-Semitism among "intellectuals." But now the hatred and disdain has broadened to include all conservative, orthodox Christians. This is the “new” new-anti-Semitism.

Actually homophobia is the new anti-semitism...at least on the right. Let's examine what the supposed bigot said:

"The problem is that we let religious people say stunningly false things and we consider it rude to question those beliefs,” says Flemming. “But we should be shunning those people." “If that sounds intolerant, that's the point,” he adds. "I'm not tolerant of suspending reason."

In other words, the speaker feels that some people are getting a pass when they say false things becuase they are religious (or they say religion motivates those statements he believes are false). He says that those statements should be questioned and those who state those false beliefs should even be shunned. He links his intolerance to 'suspending reason'...in other words he is intolerant of ideas he thinks are false.

Classical anti-semitism, though, attacks no specific idea at all but Jews as a people. Sigmond Freud, Albert Einstein, the head of a bank who happened to be Jewish or a poor but strictly observant rabbi were all the same to an anti-semite even though you could probably never get these people to agree on anything.

To believe that America is “heading in the direction of theocracy” requires either a complete lack of knowledge about Christianity or degree of willful ignorance and gullibility that is found only among Holocaust deniers and paranoids who believe the moon-landing was a hoax. I suspect, though, that the majority of those who make such calumniating statements do so out of a sense of political futility. Unable to convince the majority of their fellow Americans to agree with their radical politics, they resort to libel in order to vilify those with whom they disagree.

The politics of small differences are at play here. When the actual objective difference between two groups is very tiny the rhetoric is likely to explode dramatically. This happens all the time on the Internet where arguments about the least important things are the most likely to result in someone being associated with Hitler or Nazis. It's as silly to say America is heading towards theocracy as it is to say that Christians are the subject of any significant bias or discrimination in America.

Sorry Joe, saying that one thinks Christians beliefs are silly and false is not anti-Christian bias. Keep it up though because it will be quite easy for the 1% of athiests in this country to turn your self victimization around and accuse every preacher of anti-athiest bigotry for claiming God exists!

9

Boonton, it's one thing to say that my beliefs are silly and false. We can have a civil, reasoned discussion about what I believe and why I believe that it's neither silly nor false.

But when you (rhetorically speaking) charge that because I believe what I do that I am therefore attempting to opress those who do not believe as I do, then you (again, rhetorically speaking) have crossed the line of civility and reason.

Anti-Christian bias is virulent. There is a deep hatred and contempt that I have not seen anywhere else, except perhaps from the lips of the worst of racists.

10

Anti-Christian bias is virulent. There is a deep hatred and contempt that I have not seen anywhere else, except perhaps from the lips of the worst of racists.

Corrie,

I certainly agree that some anti-Christian bias reflects deep hatred and contempt. Sadly, I have seen similar sentiment elsewhere, for instance directed against Moslems. I've even seen this sort of contempt in the comments of this blog (though never, I should hasten to add, from the author of this blog). To be specific, the anti-Christians seem to take the worst of a minority claiming to be Christian and ascribe it to Christianity in general. Exactly the same tactic is used against moslems, with some commenters claiming that moderate moslems aren't real moslems, because of course real moslems are violent fanatics.

But, as Joe points out, the power of the anti-christian zealots is miniscule, certainly nothing compared to the power and influence of protestant Christians in US culture and government. So, I really don't worry about them.

I wonder if the appropriate response for Christians might be to focus on combatting the contempt focused on others, rather than trying to deal with those who are contemptuous of us. That way, we would be Christlike in our concern for our neighbors and, at the same time, demonstrate by our actions that the anti-Christians are liars.

11

But when you (rhetorically speaking) charge that because I believe what I do that I am therefore attempting to opress those who do not believe as I do, then you (again, rhetorically speaking) have crossed the line of civility and reason.

Perhaps you missed it but when we were talking about gay marriage Gordon claimed that legalizing it would be an assult on the civil liberties of Christians. The charge of wanting to oppress people is distinct from the charge of having a silly belief. You can have a belief that is not silly yet still advocate oppression. Likewise it's possible to not be an advocate of oppression but have silly beliefs all the same.

Anti-Christian bias is virulent. There is a deep hatred and contempt that I have not seen anywhere else, except perhaps from the lips of the worst of racists.

You don't get out much....IMO.

To be specific, the anti-Christians seem to take the worst of a minority claiming to be Christian and ascribe it to Christianity in general.

In all fairness didn't Jerry Falwell name his organization the Moral Majority? Usually activitists on the fringes often lack perspective, can we really blame them if they took him at his word? Considering that Falwell and Robertson are given quite visible speaking positions at every GOP Convention is it really out of line to consider their type of political Christianity to be signficant even if they are no where near a majority of Christians?

12

Oh, I forgot their *other* strategy.

When confronted by actual Christians, always make it look like it is "those extremists" who have really done all these horrible things they've just accused you of.

Then, always use "extremist" for every Christian *except* the one you're currently talking to. Sure, it won't work forever - it'll eventually get around to one the Christian you're speaking to actually knows, and respects - but it'll work for a while. In the meantime, you can say all sorts of nasty things about as many of them as possible.

Right mumon? Good try though.

13

RazorsKiss :

Look, if the shoe fits, wear it proudly. But don't pretend you're something you're not.

Don't pretend that because you place more value on Leviticus than on the Sermon on the Mount, that somehow you're a more "actual" Christian.

Don't pretend you're "pro life" when the only life you care about is an abstraction of life, that ignore things like the mess in Iraq.

Don't pretend that you're "washed away by the blood of the lamb," when there is no repentence.

Don't pretend that you're being "persecuted" when you cannot manage even a twinge of conscience for murdered Freedom Riders.

14

Good people of any faith, who look at the evidence cannot but admit that there is indeed a small but powerful contingent of people who have stolen the name of Christianity to subvert the liberties of those whose beliefs differ.

Actually, they are not small in numbers or power at all. Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, which is a Dominists mega-Church, talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday.

He is also the head of National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which has 45,000 churches and 30 million believers. They are the nations most powerful religious political lobby group. He also heads a smaller network of his own of about 300 or so congregations.

I don't know where Christians such as Joe and the other reasonable people I've seen comment on this blog have been for the last 10 years, but if you haven't figured out that your organizations have been hijacked by fanatics you have some catching up to do.

15

Patrick -- Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, which is a Dominists mega-Church,...

Um, I think you are confused about what the term "dominionist" means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your claim is not an intentional falsehood but is merely drivel picked up from other sources. But I really think that if you are going to make such claims you should be able to support them with evidence. So, perhaps you can share with us the evidence you have that Haggard or the New Life Church subscribes to dominion theology.

16

When did Ann Coulter become EO's guest-blogger?

17

JPE -- When did Ann Coulter become EO's guest-blogger?

About the same time that Al Franken started guest-posting at L’esprit d’escalier. ; )

18

D'oh!

I guess I all but laid out the red carpet for that one.

19

But I really think that if you are going to make such claims you should be able to support them with evidence. So, perhaps you can share with us the evidence you have that Haggard or the New Life Church subscribes to dominion theology.

If you click through the articles on my website I think it has a good description of what the New Life Church is. I'd post it here, but it would be longer than your original post. My understanding of what a dominionist is comes from articles I read at Donald Sensing's blog.

But back to the main topic, I simply have a problem thinking that a religion that is shared by the majority of Americans, and whose more conservative elements control the Congressional House and Senate and the office of President, can be described as victims of discrimination.

Black Americans who were lynched were victims. Mathew Shepard was a victim. Christians currently don't fit that category. I don't currently see any lions laying around waiting for lunch, do you?

20

With the utrasensative PC dynamic that exist in some circles, Evangelical Christian claiming victimhood is like a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," meme.

21

Here's a bit of an example: Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

22

Patrick -- …can be described as victims of discrimination.

I think we must be talking about different things because I never made reference to Christians being the “victims of discrimination.” I think a group can be the object of bigotry without being necessarily discriminated against.

My point is not that such hate-speech is a grave danger to Christians but only that it shouldn’t be tolerated by decent people. I’m more worried about the breakdown of civility and the free exchange of ideas than I am about “victimization” of conservative believers.

23

Can you give me an example of speech that shouldn't be tolerated by 'decent' people in this context? For example, take the examples below. Please do not focus on whether they are correct or incorrect but just on whether they are so 'hateful' they should be shunned rather than entertained in a debate.

"Only dumb people take religion seriously"
"There's no evidence God exists"
"There's evidence Jesus never existed or that if he did he was an ordinary human"
"The gay agenda is to destroy Christian families"
"The agenda of the Christian right is to establish a theocracy"

24

I don't know that I would compare the rising anti-Christian sentiment to anti-semitism. But as some of the comments here suggest there's a lot of people convinced that Christians have some scary agenda which they're determined to impose on everyone else. I can only speak from my experience but that doesn't describe any of the Christians I know. I think part of the problem is the lack separation of Christian and non-Christian. The fact that many urban secularlists have never really talked to a Christian makes it easier for them to fear the "Christian right."

25

Whether or not 'scary agendas' exist is more a matter of legitimate opinion. To someone who honestly believes abortion should be a decision that is left in the hands of the pregnant woman the agenda of the Christian right is indeed scarey & it isn't hate for that person to say so. Likewise the Christian right will not find that person's agenda scarey as well.

In all the examples given the so called hate has not been against Christians for being Christians but for some Christians advocating policies the speaker disagrees with.

26

What we have in the U.S. is a fairly large number of non-Christians who do not understand Christianity and are afraid of it. Although there is a fair amount of anti-Christian rhetoric in some circles, we are a long way from real persecution in this country. While I do not like the anti-Christian bias, and I sure don't want to be persecuted, we Christians must remember that the church has always flourished in times of true persecution. God can always use all things for his own purpose.

27

It is also ironic that many of the examples of so-called anti-Christian hate speech are coming from people who would probably self-describe themselves as Christians.

28

Hi Joe - your trackbacks seem to be all hosed up - "Internal Server Error 500" - so I'm sending the link this way:

Creationism's Damaged Fruit
http://www.brentrasmussen.com/archives/2005/06/creationisms_da.html

29

Good point Boonton, but that raises a whole can of worms re: what it means to be "Christian."

That's why we need to be more specific. Most of the "anti-Christian" bigotry to which Joe refers is really "anti-evangelical" or "anti-Fundamentalist" or "anti-some type of very orthodox version of the faith" like dogmatic Catholicism or Mormonism.

Let's not forget liberals like Phil Donahue and Howard Dean, and gays like Gene Robinson call themselves and understand themselves to be "Christian."

30

But as some of the comments here suggest there's a lot of people convinced that Christians have some scary agenda which they're determined to impose on everyone else. I can only speak from my experience but that doesn't describe any of the Christians I know. I think part of the problem is the lack separation of Christian and non-Christian. The fact that many urban secularists have never really talked to a Christian makes it easier for them to fear the "Christian right."

Uh no, I'm quite convinced that Christians come in as many flavors as say, gay and lesbians do. More so. But if you permit the more extremist elements to speak for you unchallenged then can you understand why people get the impression that most activist Christians are extremists. It would be as if the gay and lesbian community were to remain silent when creeps like NAMBLA try to push their ways. They are condemned often and loudly and shunned.

When was the last time you saw Fred Phelps surrounded by a crowd of Christian Evangelical activists who disagree with and protest his hate theology? Who maybe showed up at a funeral to place themselves between him and the family of the departed, even if that departed were gay?

And your comment about not ever meeting a Christian is grossly inaccurate at best.
Atheists and true secularists are only a very tiny, tiny, minority in this country. This is a disagreement between different groups of believers, not a secular vs. faith conflict. So why is it constantly portrayed as otherwise?

31

Patrick

I thought organizing a counter-demonstration to Phelps as bad as Phelps. Why does the family need more folks yelling at their time of grief? Go picket his church - or find his hotel room that night - but stay away from the funeral

32

Septimus writes: Heavens! If we religious right-wingers actually started winning, what would these people do, start jumping off buildings?

A fine question. But before I produce an answer, it would be nice to know two things: 1) why you think you religious right-wingers haven't actually started winning yet; and, 2) what things will be like for me when you do feel like you've started winning.

33

Thinking Christians may find this book interesting.
It is written by a professor of religion at Pepprdine University.
The Myths America Lives By

He documents how religious myths have been used for distinctly non-Christian government policies.

The current "culture wars" are part of a long tradition.

34

The 'dominionism' scare is getting old. One of the liberal special interest groups held a 'special informational meeting' in town to 'warn' everyone about what Christians 'really' had in mind. Several local church pastors volunteered to engage in informing and debating those who made these claims. But you guessed it; they weren't really interested in the realities of dominionism (it's a microscopic fringe group of evangelicals), but just fanning panic among the liberals in order to raise funds.
As for the anti-Christian stuff going on; just take a look at the rhetoric that goes on on several of the left-wing blogs. I've seen phrases along the lines of 'eradicate the evangelicals' frequently, with others affirming the statements.
Post a statement on one of these sites pointing out the way homosexual activists have filtered research and knowledge regarding whether homosexuality is a lifestyle that someone can come out of, and watch the response you get. Your polite argument won't be engaged, you will be attacked personally.
I no longer have any doubts about the subtle and increasing persecution of Christians that is beginning in this country.

35

You poor, poor oppressed morally pretentious Christians. What, is there a movement to regulate your bodies? Are people trying to use the state to usurp your capacity for moral choices? Is a group trying to pass constitutional amendments to outlaw your families? Are Christians getting fired from their jobs, run out of towns and beaten to death in the streets?

Burn, babies, burn.

You're fear-filled hypocrites, not Christians. You defame the name of God and Christ.

Don't underestimate the ferocity of the anger you flame.

36

I guess these people are "anti-Christian bigots" too...

yeah, right.

Me thinkest some folks protesteth way too much.

Perhaps it's related to trying to shout down one's conscience.

37

Patrick in his innocence seems to believe a group of individuals sharing a common status, ie. Christians, have the power to "permit" other folks claiming to be in 'their' group to speak for 'them'. He seems to hold Christians to task for things some so-called leaders of the electronic church (my term) have said.

I don't know much about members of your group, Patrick, but in this country I doubt there exist many groups consisting of significant numbers which can actually control the speech of their members. Isn't there something called "free speech"? I don't presume those with whom Patrick agrees on some things speak for him on ALL things.

But Patrick, again in his innocence, expects that type of power from those he perceives to be members of the 'Christian' group. Is this a bias on Patrick's part? Or is this naivety?

On the topic, Joe is wise to take note of the tendency to sub-humanize Christians. This is always the first step the inteligencia must take before they begin to move to the next - the de-humanizing level. The third process is then annilation of the group "for the good of society".

We have started down that road, IMHO,and those posters wishing to deny we've already begun this journey are either part of the problem or asleep.

Keep posting, Joe.

BTW, I do not 'hate' any group, nor wish to enslave any members in any way. My God tells me one must come to Him on her/his own. One cannot be forced to believe on Him. Anyone who told said otherwise has another agenda in play, and if liberals were half as intelligent as they think, they would be watching that person, not me.

38

Post a statement on one of these sites pointing out the way homosexual activists have filtered research and knowledge regarding whether homosexuality is a lifestyle that someone can come out of, and watch the response you get. Your polite argument won't be engaged, you will be attacked personally.

Yes, but post a statement on a Christian site that points out the flaws of the data, and that a great deal of it is written by people who make their entire living "converting" gays or publishing anti-gay literature, and you simply get ignored. Although of course you make a similar claim about the "abortion industry".

But you are correct, you will get attacked. Why? Not because we hate your religion but because you attack and seek to destroy our very personality and identity. And before you whine that our lives are centered around our sexuality take good look to see whether yours is too.
If you are married do you not display your sexuality on a ring for all the world to see on a daily basis? Isn't your concept of family entirely arranged around your sexuality? So don't even go there.

Which is more central to your qualification to be a human being, your religion or your heterosexuality? If I insult your competence as a Christian or as a Heterosexual which truly offends you more?

If you woke up gay one day would you still really be you? After all if as you believe gays can turn straight, surely the opposite is true. Who knows, perhaps you can catch it from a computer virus from my fingertips as I type this message. Poof! Your gay now buddy!

There is no equivalent word for describing a heterosexual or a Christian in the same way you can describe a homosexual as a "Faggot". So cry me a river.

And yet Christians claim "we are just hating the sin but loving the sinner". Tell it to Jesus. I don't think he'd believe you any more than I do. And maybe while he's at it he might also tell you that you don't have to pull the whole "martyr for the cause" routine because he has already taken care of that for you.

39

Um, I think you are confused about what the term "dominionist" means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your claim is not an intentional falsehood but is merely drivel picked up from other sources. But I really think that if you are going to make such claims you should be able to support them with evidence. So, perhaps you can share with us the evidence you have that Haggard or the New Life Church subscribes to dominion theology.

And as an addendum to the above Joe, right after I read my articles on Dominionism and the beliefs of Ted Haggard etc. I went to your site to try and find an opposing opinion about him in your "Know Your Evangelicals" series. Didn't find him. Maybe you should write one about him and other Christians such as Dobson, Sheldon and friends. If there are going to be claims that these people really don't mean what they say or don't speak for Christians, then perhaps you should explain how they differ.

40

Joe

"I’m more worried about the breakdown of civility and the free exchange of ideas than I am about “victimization” of conservative believers."

Here's some advice then: start acknowledging (1) the inherent and obvious contradictions and inconsistencies that follow from a literal interpretation of your holy book; (2) stop trying to argue for legislation that is grounded in your religious beliefs; and (3) stop confusing religious mythology with science.

That would really help.

The problem, you see, is that fundamentalist and/or extreme religious beliefs and the "free exchange of ideas" are completely at odds with one another.

If you don't believe me, let me know and I will refer to you a long list of lies that are recited over and over and over and over and over again by self-proclaimed Christians who have been indoctrinated by their preachers to deny the age of the earth and the evolution of living organisms over the past several billion years.

Got that? Christians reciting lies. Over and over and over and over again. And trying to peddle those lies to schoolchildren. And trying to do an end-around the First Amendment.

All this is well-documented. Many courts have addressed the issue and in every case the conclusion has been the same: creationists are full of garbage. Christian creationists.

One more time: Christian creationists are full of garbage -- courts have heard the evidence and that is the conclusion the courts have reached. Courts will reach that conclusion again, I guarantee you.

The behavior of these creationists is appalling. And this is just one example of Christians behaving very badly.

That is why people are complaining.

I was here when Christians recited lies over and over and over again about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Utterly bogus. Are those loud-talking Christian preachers who rail against liberals urging their flock to enlist to go fight? I haven't seen much of that happening. HOw curious.

41

"The problem is that we let religious people say stunningly false things and we consider it rude to question those beliefs,” says Flemming.

----------------------------

This is undoubtedly the problem. Preachers and other self-proclaimed "religious" people are allowed so make all manner of claims on, e.g., television "news" shows and those claims are only very rarely questioned.

Does a literal intepretation of an "infallible" Bible lead to absurd results?

Of course it does. Will we ever hear Tim Russert point out this obvious fact to an evangelical on his program?

Nope. Allegedly, this has something to do with "respect" but the question is: "respect" for what exactly?

42

"Anti-Christian bias is virulent. There is a deep hatred and contempt that I have not seen anywhere else, except perhaps from the lips of the worst of racists."

Whatever Corrie.

I think just this past weekend I saw a picture of an infamous postcard which shows two black guys hanging from a tree surrounded by proud smiling white American Christians.

On behalf of those black folks, I invite you to get a clue.

On behalf of my mother, who is an evangelical Christian, I invite you to get a clue. You see, my mother doesn't continue to recite lies from her Christian script after I point out to her where that script is mistaken. She's not that stupid and she takes the Bible and especially Christ's teaching seriously. She recognizes that Jesus said nothing about the importance of refusing to pay attention to "materialist scientists".

Someday the loud-mouthed conservative evangelicals who are polluting our country's discourse will learn this the hard way.

43

s9:

The first question is a fair one, but my answer would be complicated; simply: because winning takes time, and the too many conservatives in politics are pursuing stupid approaches.

Second, what happens when we start winning? Ah, what a pleasure to answer:

You won't be able to hire someone or buy a drug to kill your unborn child;

You won't be allowed to use newly conceived human life as raw material for the biotech industry;

You want to "marry" a man, a woman, a dog, a tree, or all the above? Knock yourself out; but don't ask society to redefine marriage because it makes you feel better about yourself;

You'll discover the wisdom of getting the government out of the business of education (if "separation of state from church" is such a good idea, why not separation of state from indoctrinating our young?); they do a lousy job anyway; if you're poor, you get a tax-paid education at the school of your parent's choice, including the Samantha Stevens School of Wicca if you like;

How about a big, juicy cut in taxes and government, so families can afford to have more children, since it's now clear we're heading toward a demographic implosion, and so families don't have to be two incomes if they don't want to be?

Children get adopted into natural families if at all possible.

How's that for starters?

44

49erDweet

On the topic, Joe is wise to take note of the tendency to sub-humanize Christians. This is always the first step the inteligencia must take before they begin to move to the next - the de-humanizing level. The third process is then annilation of the group "for the good of society".

Er, um... it's usually the other way around...that is it's the intelligentisia that's up first at the firing squads.

Which is why, as a class, we kind of take umbrage at folks who make baseless charges against us. We didn't like it when the Soviets did it, we didn't like it when the Inquisition did it, and we sure don't like it when the extremists on the right do it.

45

Gosh Septimus, it sounds like Heaven on earth!

Except of course for all the gay people and all the people who don't believe in your religious mythology and who need to worry about what brilliant ideas your preachers will come up with next. For all those people, your li'l plan sorta sucks.

46

larry lord: "Here's some advice then: start acknowledging (1) the inherent and obvious contradictions and inconsistencies that follow from a literal interpretation of your holy book; (2) stop trying to argue for legislation that is grounded in your religious beliefs; and (3) stop confusing religious mythology with science.

That would really help.

The problem, you see, is that fundamentalist and/or extreme religious beliefs and the "free exchange of ideas" are completely at odds with one another.

...
Got that? Christians reciting lies. Over and over and over and over again. And trying to peddle those lies to schoolchildren. And trying to do an end-around the First Amendment."

I think you make Joe's case for him. You give no specifics of these gross contradictions scripture, or the religious mythology posing as science. You malign and generalize. Rather than engaging on the merit of the argument you broadbrush Christians and call it a day.

47

Which is why, as a class, we kind of take umbrage at folks who make baseless charges against us.

I just spewed Diet Coke all over my monitor so I can't really tell if I'm reading that correctly. Did mumon really just include himself as part of the intelligentisia?

48

Yeah, good thing I wasn't drinking anything.

and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.
~ 1 Peter 5:5b (NASB)

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
~ Phillipians 2:3 (NASB)

Joe:

Here's a verse which sums up this post, incidentally. It really jumped out at me.

Our soul has had more than enough of the scorn of those who are at ease, of the contempt of the proud.
~ Psalm 123:4 (ESV)

mumon:

I'm not going to bother responding to your last comment to me. It's not worth the time, or the effort.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
~ Proverbs 26:4-5 (NASB)

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
~ Proverbs 18:2 (ESV)

49

Mumon:We didn't like it when the Soviets did it...

Considering that most of the intelligentisia in this country praised the Soviet Union as a model the US should follow, I find that statement ludicrous.

Joe: Did mumon really just include himself as part of the intelligentisia?

You must have missed the post where he referred to himself as hyper-intelligent.

Nick:Exactly the same tactic is used against moslems, with some commenters claiming that moderate moslems aren't real moslems, because of course real moslems are violent fanatics.

I think you are referring in part to some of my posts. My main claim is that moderate Muslims currently do not have any textual or historical support for their positions against jihad, taqiya, etc. Due to their inability to defend their religious positions based on their religious texts, they do not have an ideology that can effectively compete with those that closely follow the Koran and Hadiths. As such, moderate Islam isn't even a blip on the radar in political terms. Does this mean that all Muslims are violent terrorists? No. However, they are a large enough percentage to be a serious threat and they seem to blend into the moderates at will.

It's not Christians who beheaded the Buddhist in Thailand, slaughtered the animists or Muslims in Sudan, or complained in Toledo that the Borders store was improperly displaying Islamic books. Finally, Christians weren't the reason that a piece of art was rejected for an art exhibit because it might incite them to violence.

Speaking the truth of what Islamic texts say is not improper. Denying what they say is far more dangerous. Notice that when many of the commentators here speak they will use Biblical text to make their point and a forceful point it makes to us Christians. It requires us to look closely at what is meant by the text and obey what it says. Assuming that Muslims take their religious texts the same way, is there not some concern over what those texts say?

Sorry for the long post.

50

Chris,

What can I say. I spent some of the formative years of my childhood living in the middle east. I have never been treated with anything less than respect and friendship by the muslims I have encountered. That the extremists claim to be muslim I do not doubt, but I am also certain that they bear absolutely no resemblence to the muslims I have actually met.

My main claim is that moderate Muslims currently do not have any textual or historical support for their positions against jihad, taqiya, etc.

I am as skeptical of your exegesis of Muslim scripture as I am of Mumon's attempts to explain Christian theology.

It's not Christians who beheaded the Buddhist in Thailand, slaughtered the animists or Muslims in Sudan, or complained in Toledo that the Borders store was improperly displaying Islamic books. Finally, Christians weren't the reason that a piece of art was rejected for an art exhibit because it might incite them to violence.

So you are doing exactly what the anti-Christians do. You are attributing the actions of fanatics to the religion in general, and you are adding to that your conclusion that the fanatics have the correct interpretive framework for their holy text. "It isn't non-Christians who picket the funerals of dead soldiers. It wasn't non-Christians who lynched African Americans" It isn't valid when people try to do it to Christians, and it isn't valid when you do it to Muslims.

Speaking the truth of what Islamic texts say is not improper. Denying what they say is far more dangerous. Notice that when many of the commentators here speak they will use Biblical text to make their point and a forceful point it makes to us Christians.

Certainly, there are passages in the Koran that can be interpreted in evil ways. We also know that there are passages in the Bible that can be used to justify evil. It has been done, by people who claim to be Christian.

My main objection is to your claims that a) You know that the evil interpretation is the only reasonable one when it comes to the Koran and b) those Muslims who claim otherwise are wrong. Where exactly did you study Islamic theology?

Assuming that Muslims take their religious texts the same way, is there not some concern over what those texts say?

There should be concern over how the texts are interpreted and understood.

If a moderate Muslim tells me that the fanatics have wrongly interpreted the Koran, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean that I believe the that the Koran is truth. In the same way, I hope non-Christians will grant me the benefit of the doubt if I say that the scary christian du jour has misunderstood the Bible. Remember that people like Fred Phelps also use what is written to support their particular brand of evil. They don't always twist the wording of Scripture, only its meaning.

I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

(I note that I used the less popular "moslem" spelling in my last comment. No offense meant. Never can keep straight the favored transliteration of Arabic words)

51

Nick,

First, let me thank you for your reasoned response. And I agree that we will probably have to agree to disagree.

You are attributing the actions of fanatics to the religion in general...

This is just an open ended question, at what point do the actions of one group of the religion become the accepted values of that religion? For example, if Christians were implicated in bombing abortion clinics at a rate of 1 year, does that mean Christians support that, especially if they aren't helpful in finding the suspects or preventing future actions? What if the number goes up to 12 a year? I don't have an exact answer, but I believe there is a tipping point.

Since this really doesn't concern this post I'll let it end here.

(I note that I used the less popular "moslem" spelling in my last comment. No offense meant. Never can keep straight the favored transliteration of Arabic words)

It changes daily so I just go with whichever I feel like. I personally don't believe it matters as long as you don't intend to be offensive.

52

Someone up above wrote

"You give no specifics of these gross contradictions scripture, or the religious mythology posing as science."

Oh -- I'm sorry. I assumed in 2005 that I didn't need to repeat basic facts that about life on the planet that are obtainable by anyone who knows how to submit a comment to a blog.

But here you go (for starters):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

www.talkorigins.com

Now, let me know when you have something substantive to say in response to my claim that Christians are not persecuted because of their religious beliefs. They are criticized -- and appropriately so -- because millions of them can not tell the difference between their religious beliefs and reality.

The lack of respect allegedly shown to Christians pales in comparison to the lack of respect given by Christians to, e.g., science, first amendment, gay people, etc.

Please don't waste your time with responses about how "it's not all Christians that are like that." I know that. Most Christians are not loud-mouths who desire a de facto theocratic state. I'm talking about the Christians like Dobson, Fallwell, Robertson, Phelps, et al. who have many many millions of followers between them and who preach bigotry and fear to those followers, dividing our country and leading our country into war.

53

Larry - you said you were interested in persons being persecuted because of their religious belief? I know that this is only a small example - but I believe getting fired for what you write on your own time constitutes persecution. (see following article)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44961
I believe you would feel this way if you were fired for what you wrote on this column. Whether you believe this person was right or wrong, to be fired because one writes an article expressing ones beliefs, on his own time, from home, I believe constitutes persecution.

I would hold this view regardless of the point of view unless one was employed in a position where you were the spokesman/representative of a group and were taking a position oposite of that group. I.E. If you are head of the freethinks society or atheist society, you shouldn't be writing articles on why belief in God is good.

I know you probably meant "in america" when you wanted substantive claims to persecution of Christians, but just in case you meant otherwise, you should also check out what is going on around the world. (for example http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm?action=fullstory&newsID=327 documents the story of the chines government cracking down on religious activity and arresting many Christians)

Well, regardless of if you want it or not,
God bless you
JDA

54

As an atheist, one who is consciously tolerant of religion, I have to say that I find the comparison laughable. As boonton notes, while Flemming's rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory, it looks nothing like anti-semitism. Furthermore, while the "fascist Christian theocracy" claims are more than a little bit silly, they are caused by obvious right-wing Christian influence or attempted influence in politics, ranging from the creationism/ID movement to anti-gay, school prayer, and Ten Commandment laws. It doesn't help that there are plenty of vocal Christians who say all sorts of nasty things about atheists and non-Christians, making for an atmosphere of mutual disrespect (see here, for example).

Still, as I said, the "fascist theocracy" warnings are certainly overblown. Even so, they hardly compare to the "Jews are responsible for everything bad" claims of anti-semites over the centuries. Those claims were both racist and patently absurd, given that Jews have, through most of their history in Christiandom, been a persecuted minority (persecuted, for the most part, by Christians). Christians in the U.S., however, are a majority, and one with real political power. If that weren't the case, then the issues I mentioned above would not be anywhere near the forefront of American politics. To claim that they weild a great deal of political power is not a statement of bigotry, but a factual statement.

It is probably true that bigotry drives some of the anti-Christian sentiments held by an extremely small minority of Americans, but it is a bigotry that cannot be compared, either in kind or degree, to anti-semitism.

55

Hello all. And excuse my sporadic posts. I had time today and thought it'd be nice to see what was happening.

As an atheist, one who is consciously tolerant of religion, I have to say that I find the comparison laughable. As boonton notes, while Flemming's rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory, it looks nothing like anti-semitism. Furthermore, while the "fascist Christian theocracy" claims are more than a little bit silly, they are caused by obvious right-wing Christian influence or attempted influence in politics, ranging from the creationism/ID movement to anti-gay, school prayer, and Ten Commandment laws. It doesn't help that there are plenty of vocal Christians who say all sorts of nasty things about atheists and non-Christians, making for an atmosphere of mutual disrespect.

First, there are people of all sorts of stripes who say nasty things about others: Croats speak horribly about Serbs, Greeks speak horribly about Turks, Conservatives speak horribly about Liberals, Trekkies speak horribly about normal people--and all vice versa. This is an excuse for nothing.

Second, yes, the idea of a "fascist Christian theocracy" is not only far flung but nonsensical. But its the constant link being made between Christians and "Right-Wingers", "Right-Wingers" and fascists, and ever more ridiculous, fascists and Christians that perpetuates such labels. It is exactly because these terms are thrown about so carelessly that people get these ideas. They are invented terms. Like "Islamofascist" or "Homicide Bomber"; these are terms invented by political or philosophical opponents to create a negative influence. Doubt me? Let me ask: how did the idea of fascism being linked with capitalist or "right-wing" ideology come about? It was invented and propagated by people like Leon Trotsky. Interesting. Don't we think Trotsky had something to gain by linking Communism's two philosophical archenemies? But do they really have that much in common? No, in fact, fascism and communism are two sides of the same socialist coin.

So, does Christianity have anything deeply in common with fascism? Does Dominion Theology or Reconstructionism, theories with which I have a great deal of difficulties, by the way, have anything in common with fascism? I say no. In fact, I think the differences are so great as to verge on oxymoronic. And not until we can see the differences between these terms will we be able to have an educated discussion about the impact such philosophies might have on our lives.

We're not likely to learn it on a blog, and certainly not in Harpers (sorry Patrick, but the real terror in your "Trilogy of Terror" is the terrible journalism). This is something we need to study ourselves and not get sucked in by invented language.

56

Larry: "I assumed in 2005 that I didn't need to repeat basic facts that about life on the planet that are obtainable by anyone who knows how to submit a comment to a blog."

Well Larry, I guess you must have the same problem of not posting before reading what's available. See I can post a bunch of links to rebuttals to your links as well. We could do this forever.
Perhaps the author of this site already has parts of the info on these links on a FAQ somewhere.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/contralinks.html

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/contradictions.txt

And of course there are many, many more. But I suspect Larry you don't really care. I think a Jesus' own words, (since you mentioned them) are insightful. From John 7:16-17 "Jesus answered them, "My teaching isn't Mine but is from the One who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he will understand whether the teaching is from God or if I am speaking on My own."
Bottom line, until you get that self will submitted to God's authority, you aren't gonna 'get it'. Or to quote Sir Templeton: "Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."

57

Oh, and by the way: to the owner of this site (Joe Carter?), sorry for sort of steering the thread off topic. I just didn't want to leave that same old 'contradictions canard' unchallenged. I will leave it alone now, as I have other things to take care of. :-)

58

Even the question of associating fascism and Christianity is offensive and--not to put too fine a point on it--idiotic. Let us recall what the fascists did:

Out of power, they used violence, terror and thuggery to put their political and ideological opponents out of business: armed with bats and guns, they wrecked printing presses, beat up opponents, disrupted meetings. Think of the SA or the blackshirts.

Once in power -- consistent with the above tactic -- they put all opposition out of business. One-man, one-vote, one-time; that is, assuming a vote at all. If they got power without an election, that was fine, too.

Along the way, opponents disappeared; driven away if possible, murdered if necessary. When in power, they created concentration camps, and culled out all who might be a problem: off to the camps. Death was next, either efficiently (Hitler) or not (Mussolini).

The rest of society was regimented and thoroughly politicized/ideologized (is that a word). Mussolini: everything within the state, nothing outside the state; nothing above the state.

Now, people who hyperventilate about the "fascist" religious right ought to be obliged to specify just how any of the above has happened, or is poised to happen, due to the "religious right." That is, if facts matter. The contrary position -- damn the facts -- was a FASCIST, not an anti-fascist, mentality.

So: put up or shut up.

59

Septimus writes: The first question is a fair one, but my answer would be complicated; simply: because winning takes time, and the too many conservatives in politics are pursuing stupid approaches.

I think that's a cop-out. You should be willing to name some examples of conservatives in politics, the stupid approaches they're pursuing, and how they're responsible for your perception that religious right-wingers aren't winning.

Septimus continues with a series of answer to the second question:

You won't be able to hire someone or buy a drug to kill your unborn child;

Interesting. I wonder how you envision me being prevented from doing that. I suspect you haven't thought about how difficult that will be. Merely passing a law against it will do nothing but force the market into adjusting its pricing structures accordingly.

You won't be allowed to use newly conceived human life as raw material for the biotech industry;

Anywhere on Earth? Or just in your neck of the woods?

You want to "marry" a man, a woman, a dog, a tree, or all the above? Knock yourself out; but don't ask society to redefine marriage because it makes you feel better about yourself;

I think religious right-wingers already have this in most places where they congregate in large numbers. What are you complaining about exactly?

You'll discover the wisdom of getting the government out of the business of education (if "separation of state from church" is such a good idea, why not separation of state from indoctrinating our young?); they do a lousy job anyway; if you're poor, you get a tax-paid education at the school of your parent's choice, including the Samantha Stevens School of Wicca if you like;

So lemme see if I get this straight... the government is going to get its nose out of education policy by paying to send your kids to Uncle Anton LaVey's School of Deep Majick with my taxes? I fail to see how this is supposed to be wisdom.

How about a big, juicy cut in taxes and government, so families can afford to have more children, since it's now clear we're heading toward a demographic implosion, and so families don't have to be two incomes if they don't want to be?

Now you're talking! As a bomb-throwing anarchist (really!), I'd say let's do away with all involuntary payments of taxes and tariffs to the government. I can't wait for this libertarian utopia to arrive. I wonder though— are you also planning to do something about the utterly ridiculous obstruction of the free market system posed by government regulations on business? Particularly, with regard to the labor market? I'm especially looking forward to seeing who you plan to hire out for the job of preventing me from selling RU-486 at my local rave club after you get done shrinking the government. Who you gonna call after you eviscerate revenues for the cops and other emergency responders? The Salvation Army?

Children get adopted into natural families if at all possible.

I asked how it would affect me. Are you telling me that my children will have to be taken away from me and adopted into a "natural" family? I can't wait to hear your explanation for how this is going to work.

How's that for starters?

Sounds like you're just getting warmed up. That part about children getting "adopted into natural families if at all possible" has me a little worried, but I'm not sure I'm going to be jumping off any buildings. See... I don't do operations like that unless I have a good pragmatic reason for it. It sounds like you religious right-wingers don't have enough of your stuff in one sock to do much more than dream about what you could do if only those Evil Liberals weren't preventing you (snicker!), and you're a long way away from getting to the point where you have an industrial process for putting people like me into the position where we have good pragmatic reasons for jumping off buildings. (Really, I'm not too worried about religious right-wingers taking away my children so they can be adopted into "natural" families. I don't think you really have the stones to start doing that sort of thing.)

So, no— it's still not at all clear what I will do when religious right-wingers start feeling like they are winning. I don't think the religious right-wingers have a very clear idea what they will be doing when the word "winning" is what they say to describe it.

60

s9 - since you don't know me, and I don't know you, accusing me of a "cop out" and being so obnoxiously aggressive is pretty outrageous. And, last time I checked, I didn't owe you diddly-squat -- so, no, I don't accept that I have to say 'boo' to you about my theory of politics. Gee whiz, what happened to good manners?

As to outlawing abortion, I realize eliminating all of them, especially in the age of chemical abortions, is very unlikely. But that is not a reason not to change the law; enacting the law we ought to have has value both to teach and to save a good number of lives.

I listed that first because the most fundamental right is to live. Killing children because they're small and weak and inconvenient to us, or not the perfect children we consider it an entitlement to have, sure sounds like oppression to me. Maybe not to you.

As to my point about marriage: Massachusetts has redefined marriage to include so-called "gay marriage." Yes, a growing number of states are taking protective action. But the real game is in the U.S. Supreme Court: should the high court rule, under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution, that every state must recognize marriages validated in Massachusetts, then gay marriage will be imposed on all 50 states by judicial fiat.

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming this would be unprecedented, or can't happen due to the Defense of Marriage Act. It may not happen, but it is a very real danger.

And if you want to talk about visitation or inheritance rights, I'm very confident that these issues, separated out from a change in the civil understanding of marriage, would be resolved pretty quickly, in favor of almost anyone being able to visit, inherit from, or have power-of-attorney for, almost anyone. I'd be very cooperative on those counts, and those few religious folks who might resist would lose a lot politically -- so it'd be a smart move for "the other side" -- but it would mean giving up on codifying a radically new definition of marriage.

It amazes me that people who get hysterical about "oppression" from Christians if someone wants to put a 10 Commandments display in front of a courthouse (a bad idea I oppose, by the way), yet have this huge blind spot to the massive government apparatus that indoctrinates almost all our children, for 12 years, and most of the time, does a poor job of it.

No, I'd rather no one send his or her child to a "Wicca" school; but I am pretty confident the numbers will be few. And the harms that come from some parents making wrong choices, or inattentive ones...how in heaven's name could it possibly be even close to as bad as the colossal disaster our government schools are now?

See, I believe most parents want what's good for their children apparently you think people are mostly morons, and can't be trusted with choosing their child's school. So Big Daddy government needs to choose for them. Who's the oppressor?

Substituting what I really did say with the distortion of it that you obviously prefer is a low tactic, discreditable to you. I never said do away with government; I said reduce it. Do you have access to some infallible knowledge, that tells you the government we now have, in size and scope, cannot, must not, be reduced? Please share that with the rest of us morons who must be guided by Big Daddy Government.

I'm still interested to hear how any of this is "oppression." It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see that reducing the size and scope of the federal government is a win-win for everyone, allowing different states and communities to pursue different paths.

Oh, and yes, I'd be content to do all I'm proposing state-by-state, and in many ways, I prefer it.

But if you lament abortion law being determined at the federal level, thank NARRAL and Planned Parenthood for going that route in the 70s; if you don't like the idea of marriage being a federal issue, thank additionally the whole line of jurisprudence since at least the 1930s that has made the U.S. Supreme Court the decider of just about everything. I invite you to cite a single case, in the history of constitutional law, in which the "religious right" blazed this trail. No, for lack of a better descriptor, the other side, who reached for the massive hammer of federal power, by way of a majority on the Supreme Court.

Tell me again who the oppressor is?

61

Some wild hyperbole in those links, but there's a core of valid gripe. Don't we expect this kind of blowback after Iraq is a "crusade", after Jeff Gannon is "born again", after the USMC puts an Iraq tank called "New Testament" on its website, after Schiavo, after USAF Academy doings, after Gen. Boykin's bigoted ravings?

If we can't religiously distinguish ourselves and politically dissociate ourselves from the kind of so-called Christians who rile and worry these folks, what kind of Christians are we?

The conference was anti-theocracy -- not anti-theos. It was political, not religious. Anti-Christian bigotry? No way.

62

Once again, to those who treat the question of any comparison or link between "religious right" and "fascism": please cite instances of actual, fascistic activity that makes such a comparison legitmate.

No, as far as I know, Alan didn't raise the specter of fascism; but let's consider the instances he just cited:

Bush used the term crusade, one time. He *spoke* the word. And he's fallen all over himself, since then, trying to atone for it. When Christianity gets the kind of affirmation, in Iran, that Islam gets from the White House, let me know.

Who cares if Jeff Gannon is "born again"? Is that good? Bad? The guy, far as I know, is a flawed human being, who had a political axe to grind, exercising First Amendment rights. The White House let him come to press briefings. Last I checked, the First Amendment didn't specify who gets to exercise "freedom of the press" -- far as I know, EVERYBODY does, no matter how wacko his or her views may be. Gannon is a right-winger with an embarrassing past, but a whacko-fascist? Please.

And who was more fascistic? Gannon, for asking loaded questions in a press briefing, or those who dredged up humiliating details of his life, for no public-interest purpose I can see.

Hadn't heard about the USMC website. Let me guess: the term "New Testament" was scrawled on the tank? I kinda doubt it's the official name, but feel free to contradict me. Now a *picture*--ONE--is nascent 'theocracy'? Let me imagine it: the Taliban runs a SINGLE picture, of a tank, labelled, "Koran." Wow, we're all doomed!

Schiavo. What's your point? That some of us thought she shouldn't have her food and water withdrawn--necessarily causing death? That a higher standard needed to be met to do so? Joan Didion thought so. Nat Hentoff thought so. They're "religious right"? Last I checked, Nat Hentoff is an athiest and a liberal. Aren't "religious right" and "athiest left" kinda, well, mutually exclusive?

"USAF doings" -- now there's an epitome of clarity! What was the conclusion, after all the sturm-und-drang? That Evangelicals were--I quote: "insensitive." Professors said people who weren't 'born again' would burn in hell; faculty encouraged students and others to pray, preferably the Evangelical way, etc. Tender, fragile CADETS...preparing for MILITARY service...maybe they'll be TORTURED...and in the academies, they routinely get HAZED . . . might have to face the psychological terror that a professor thinks they'll burn in hell. Oh, the humanity! (For those utterly without any subtlety of thought: I'm not justifying it, but have some proportion, for criminy's sake!)

And Boykin's comments? He thinks Islam is a false religion, because he believes Christianity is true. Uh, that's pretty much an article of faith for the vast majority of Christian churches, though we try to be nice about it. He said a Muslim militia leader worshipped an idol, and that he saw "Satan" as the real enemy.

But don't worry; after years of therapy, that militia leader has recovered from his emotional breakdown. Stan Chesley plans to file the lawsuit, against Gen. Boykin and the U.S. government, to recover damages.

This is 'theocracy'? No, this is paranoia.

63

"I just spewed Diet Coke all over my monitor so I can't really tell if I'm reading that correctly. Did mumon really just include himself as part of the intelligentisia?"--Joe Carter

Well, yes Joe, he did. And you can tell that he really is part of the intelligensia because he
gives lots of links to things in that noted bastion of the intelligensia, Daily Kos. Follow his links sometime when you're bored--they are hilarious.

64

Still waiting for some real evidence of "fascist" behavior on the part of the religious right; some real examples of theocracy . . .

"Little Green Footballs" blog had an item about a pro-military counter-demonstration, to an anti-war demonstration: the anti-war crowd would pass out flyers, and the pro-military folks had a clever response: they stood by, with signs saying more or less, "we'll shred unwanted political flyers for you."

When recipients of the anti-war flyers came over, the pro-military folks would shred the unwanted flyers. Of course the anti-war folks saw this and were furious.

They called it "fascist." Similar sort of hysterical hyperventilation.

65

I should make it very clear. They shredded flyers GIVEN THEM by their recipients; no one had them ripped from their hands; no one was shouted down or intimidated (that would be fascist).

66

...still waiting . . .

The drug-peddlers respond; but those lamenting the rise of Fascist-Christianity have nothing to say . . .

67

Sep, I'm saying it's essentially political, not religious. To the extent that it's religious, it's internecine as well as between believers and nonbelievers. Therefore it's not anti-Christian bigotry as Joe maintains. The concerns are not about all Christians but about a current GOP-Christian entanglement which both cheapens faith and weakens democracy. You disagreed with a sketchy list of such concerns, at great length, but not with my basic point.

ps - The tank (here and here) is a good example of how dumb behaviour which also happens to be bad religion gets a free pass in the US today (not to mention staunch defence) just because it claims to be Christian. To criticise this sort of thing - and there's plenty of this little stuff as well as the more celebrated bigger stuff - is not anti-religious bigotry. Not to criticise it is democratic somnambulance as well as dereliction of Christian duty.

68

Alan:

I have no problem with you criticizing it--i.e., the tank with "New Testament" written on it; I think its dumb, and sacralegious.

If you are simply saying that no one, including Christians active in politics, is above criticism, I agree with you.

I have lots of criticisms, one of which is the way that some turn the flag, and our nation, into an idol. I think the whole line of jurisprudence about religious displays is addled; however, I think its sacralegious the way people have treated the Ten Commandments: the Divine Law of God is not a political football.

A lot of so-called "God and country" "prayer rallies" -- so popular with the more conservative Evangelicals, strike me as 99% about country, and 1% about God, who is expected to be just as "rah-rah" for America as we are.

(And I'm very rah-rah for my country; but as St. Thomas More said, "I am the king's good servant, but God's first.")

Maybe I misunderstood you; but I have been hammering at the contention that the religious right is "fascistic," and the contention of some sort of budding "theocracy." Both contentions are, well, idiotic, without foundation, and what might be termed, hysterical.

69

Note to mumon:

I have found that those who find it necessary to proclaim their superiority at just about ever opportunity are typically deficient in other more substantial areas.

I was once acquainted with a young man who received the Gold Key award for scoring the highest score, nationwide, on the CPA examination. He was obviously very intelligent, or “book smart” as some might say. He was a very poor auditor however, because being a financial auditor required common sense, which he sorely lacked.

In summary, I would suggest you spend less time “beating your own drum” and more time developing a little common sense.

70

Septimus writes: Maybe I misunderstood you; but I have been hammering at the contention that the religious right is "fascistic," and the contention of some sort of budding "theocracy." Both contentions are, well, idiotic, without foundation, and what might be termed, hysterical.

It's not hysterical. (Furthermore, I don't think that word means what you think it means.)

As we have shown in other discussion threads in this forum, there are, in fact, openly theocratic elements within the larger political faction we are usually referring to by the phrase "the religious right" wing. Coral Ridge Ministries, has been trotted out repeatedly as just one example.

While I agree that the religious right is not "fascistic," whatever that word really means, there should be no doubt that much of what we call the "religious right" possesses a tendency toward fascism. That's a very careful way of saying that they are prone to dismiss the potential for fascism arising within their own ranks, and to forgive the agitations of proto-fascists among them when they are arising.

It's true that fascism has arisen from the Left before, but it isn't true that what passes for the Left in America today has any fascist tendency. The fascist tendency in America today is highly concentrated in the right wing, particularly among the religious right. Deny everything and demand proof, Septimus— you still won't fool enough people.

71

Buspar FDA http://www.better-rx.com/buspar.html each designed with 1 anxiety 1963. tension nervousness, in and and is mg anxiety, mg anti-anxiety. by to relieve associated approved disorders. 2

72

s9:

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: hys·te·ria
Pronunciation: his-'ter-E-&, -'tir-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess
- hys·ter·ic /-'ter-ik/ noun
- hys·ter·i·cal /-'ter-i-k&l/ also hysteric adjective
- hys·ter·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I was using the word in the sense of meaning #2.

Yes, I do know what it means. Perhaps you mistaken in what you thought this word did, and did not, mean.

Absent any substantiation of your calumnious (do you know what that means?), not to mention absurd, claim that the religious right has "theocratic elements" and a "tendency toward fascism." The latter is especially curious, when you appear not to be sure what "fascistic" means (you said: "I agree that the religious right is not 'fascistic,' whatever that word really means").

Since you seem either unaware, or uninterested, in the actual meaning of words, allow me to cite Merriam-Webster again:

fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized

One entry found for theocracy:

the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: thE-'ä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Now, neither FASCISM nor THEOCRACY are speculative subjects; actual examples of them have existed in history, relatively recently.

Examples of fascist government:

Italy under Mussolini
Spain under Franco
Germany and conquered territories under Hitler
Argentina under Juan Peron

Others could be cited.

Examples (perhaps debatable by some) of theocratic societies:

Israel, certainly in period of Judges, and Maccabees, if not other periods.
Papal States (I'm guessing here)
Geneva under Calvinism, ca. Reformation Era
English, and Irish "Commonwealth" and "Protectorate" under Oliver Cromwell
Puritan colony in Massachusetts
Afghanistan, under Taliban
Saudi Arabia, present-day
Iran, present-day

Again, other instances could surely be cited.

Since you assert the religious right has "theocratic elements" and a "tendency toward fascism" -- and I think the associations are ludicrous** -- I invite you to SUBSTANTIATE*** your accusations. Or else they well remain, as stated, absurd*

* ab·surd
Pronunciation: &b-'s&rd, -'z&rd
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French absurde, from Latin absurdus, from ab- + surdus deaf, stupid
1 : ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
2 : having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : MEANINGLESS; also : lacking order or value
3 : dealing with the absurd or with absurdism
- ab·surd·ly adverb
- ab·surd·ness noun)

** lu·di·crous
Pronunciation: 'lü-d&-kr&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ludicrus, from ludus play, sport; perhaps akin to Greek loidoros abusive
1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish
synonym see LAUGHABLE
- lu·di·crous·ly adverb
- lu·di·crous·ness noun

*** sub·stan·ti·ate
Pronunciation: s&b-'stan(t)-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
1 : to give substance or form to : EMBODY
2 : to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
synonym see CONFIRM
- sub·stan·ti·a·tion /-"stan(t)-shE-'A-sh&n/ noun
- sub·stan·ti·a·tive /-'stan(t)-shE-"A-tiv/ adjective

73

S9:

"Deny everything and demand proof, Septimus— you still won't fool enough people."

Oh, so you don't feel any obligation to offer proof of your accusations? Somehow, I'm the sly trickster because I insist the one MAKING an outrageous accusation is the one with the burden of PROVING it?

I might point out to you that "guilty until proven innocent" is far more associated with fascism, than anti-fascism. Since when has our constitutional republic (or do you consider THAT to have "fascistic tendencies" too? I might remind you that a cavalier redefining of words to serve a political or ideological agenda is, likewise, a fascistic trait) ever operated as YOU do: accuse, and the accused must prove his/her innocence; otherwise, the accused is guilty?

74

Septimus makes an appeal to the authority of the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Well, doesn't that just shut me up? Not...

Are you sure you understand what I'm actually accusing the "religious right" of being? Hint: it's not fascism. Quoting a cheap and tawdry dictionary definition (not even a decent one) of fascism doesn't even begin to address the criticism I made.

Here's Roger Griffin, from The Nature of Fascism: "Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence."

I already defended my claim that there are elements of the "religious right" that are openly theocratic. I provided an existence proof: Coral Ridge Ministries. I'm sure if I spent even a couple minutes looking on the Internet, I could find many more.

Reasons why the "religious right" is not a full-blown fascist movement: 1) its agenda is not openly revolutionary (though, there are some revolutionaries operating among them in secrecy); 2) they are not a dictatorship; 3) they do not rely on physical violence and a campaign of gross intimidation to obtain power and suppress opposition; 4) the democratic republic in which they operate is not completely and totally dysfunctional.

What are the tendencies toward fascism you find among the American right wing that I'm talking about? They are: 1) a cult of tradition; 2) a rejection of modernism; 3) irrationalism; 4) action for action's sake; 5) disagreement is treason; 6) fear of diversity; 7) appeals to a frustrated middle class; 8) obsession over plots to persecute them; 9) humiliated by the ostentatious wealth of their enemies; 10) pacifism is trafficking with the enemy; 11) life is eternal warfare (spiritual warfare); 12) contempt for the weak; 13) contemptuous of parliamentary deliberation; 14) seeks to control language for political advantage.

Yes, I think it's not difficult to find many of these tropes in wide currency among evangelical conservatives— particularly numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14.

And Septimus? You sound a little more defensive about this than necessary... is there a reason for you being so sensitive?

75

Read about another so-called Christian, Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party, who is among those we can blame for what Joe calls "anti-Christian bigotry - the new anti-Semitism".

It has got to the stage that the creepier the politician is the more likely it is that he'll be loudly proclaiming his Christianity. Real Christians have to jump on this trend. Hard.

76

"I, for one, am sick of all the anti-bigot bigotry that currently permeates our culture."

--David Duke