For several weeks CNN has been hyping their upcoming miniseries God's Warriors as an "unprecedented six-hour television event." The series, which begun last night, dedicates two hours each to "God's Jewish Warriors", "God's Muslim Warriors", and "God's Christian Warriors." Prior to the first airing, CNN invited several bloggers to preview a few clips from the series and to submit a question for their chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour to be answered during a special webcast.
The three clips provided by CNN each highlighted one of the "fundamentalist" branches of the three Abrahamic faiths:
- God's Jewish Warriors: theocratic Israeli settlers, including the man who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin
- God's Muslim Warriors: theocratic British students, including the London subway bombers
- God's Christian Warriors: Jerry Falwell and Liberty University
(Can you guess what CNN thinks that these three groups have in common?)
I asked Amanpour if the juxtaposition could be viewed as guilt by association, equating Falwell with religious fanatics who are driven to murder. Her response:
All right. You know, he has a – he has a point. I don’t know how those individual clips were chosen and put out, but all I ask is that people look at the totality of each two-hour documentary, because clearly there’s going to be the spectrum from the violent to the legitimate.
I would say that we’re trying not to focus just on violence, because we feel that has been done over and over again in legitimate daily news coverage and many documentaries before. What we’re trying to show is the way religion is experiencing a real surge as a political tool and as a political outlet, and how religion is impacting our cultures in the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian worlds.
Later on she reiterated that the producers had no intention of creating a "moral equivalency" least of all "in the tactics used." Fair enough. So she doesn't think that the kids at Liberty are equivalent to suicide bombers and political assassins.
While the producers of the series are not attempting to establish a moral equivalency, they are establishing an equivalency of ideology. According to their narrative, Falwell, the "religious right", and other conservative Christians, may not be violent, but like the fundamentalist Jews and Muslims, they are attempting to circumvent the inviolable status of secularism.
Indeed, this seems to be what Amanpour believes: "[I]n the Western and in the developed world, perhaps here in the 21st century we would have expected secularism and governance and politics to be what governs our daily lives," Amanpour told the bloggers. "We would not have expected, and perhaps we still don’t expect, religion to play such a real, present role in our daily lives, politics, and culture."
Aside from unreconstructed Marxists, pollyannish Secular Humanists, and pessimists that thought the future would resemble a George Orwell novel, who really ever expected our daily lives to be governed by "secularism and governance and politics?"
Amanpour's surprise and dismay encapsulates the difference in perspective between people who believe that their faith informs all of life—including politics and culture—and those who believe religion should be kept secularly locked within in the walls of the church, synagogue, or mosque.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3847
1
Amanpour's surprise that religion still governs our lives in the 21st century sounds just like the lament of Mark Lilla in his NY Times Magazine piece, "The Politics of God."
Lilla says: "We in the West are disturbed and confused. Though we have our own fundamentalists, we find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong."
There is a gulf of incomprehension between those whose lives are rooted in religious faith and those who are devoutly secular, and the divide is growing larger.
posted on 08.22.2007 12:20 AM2
I don't know about others, but I see little difference in the structure between secular humanism and other competing religious systems. It has its own moral code, its own rituals, expressions of piety, its own idols, and its own mythology.
Problem is, "secularism and governance and politics" in the West is at its root a materialistic and egoistic worldview. There is nothing beyond the individual acting in his self-interest, no barriers to the scope of his actions.
However, to function in a society, individuals need to have self-restraint that is taught to them only by families and houses of worship. I contend that secularism does a poor job of teaching citizens this quality. Thus, secularism parasitically leeches off of the moral atmosphere and framework established by religion. The irony is that secularism attacks are the very religious machinery that allows secularism to exist in the first place.
: "We would not have expected, and perhaps we still don’t expect, religion to play such a real, present role in our daily lives, politics, and culture."
I am reminded about that quote from de Toqueville (I think) who penned something like "America is great because her people are great. When her people cease to be great, she will cease to be great".
Thus I fear the result when my neighbor unmoors his moral compass from a fixed, absolute moral point and attach it to rational self-interest and relativistic moral codes.
posted on 08.22.2007 12:44 AM3
Joe, did you happen to see the BattleCry clip? If you turned off the sound you would think you are watching some sort of Hitler youth rally.
Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic, is generally equated with authoritarian tendencies or a rigid group think mentality. Anyone who doesn't agree with the party line is demonized-all must fall in line, lockstep with the leaders.
My personal opinion: Jesus Christ was not a fundamentalist.
posted on 08.22.2007 1:21 AM4
Yeah, there are definitely Christian fundamentalists who would have been better choices for a violent theocratic Jewish, violent theocratic Muslim, and violent theocratic Christian comparison.
posted on 08.22.2007 2:12 AM5
Looks like you found Amanpour to be a secular pluralist.
posted on 08.22.2007 7:29 AM6
Joe, did you happen to see the BattleCry clip? If you turned off the sound you would think you are watching some sort of Hitler youth rally.
Wow, John; brilliant observation. If you watch something without context, it is easy to take it out of context. Send a beer over to Captain Obvious for his stunning insight.
posted on 08.22.2007 7:42 AM7
Uncengr,
What?
Why do you even waste time putting words together to form a sentence when all you want to say is, "JohnW is an idiot"?
So, you agree, the battle cry events look more like Hitler Youth rallies than worship services?
posted on 08.22.2007 10:10 AM8
JohnW,
No, that's not what he meant at all, and the fact that you cannot see what he meant makes his point even clearer. Actually, you got it about half right, but I'm not going to give you which half.
posted on 08.22.2007 10:54 AM9
"Joe, did you happen to see the BattleCry clip? If you turned off the sound you would think you are watching some sort of Hitler youth rally."
Hey, and on that token, I notice that if you turn off the sound while watching a Hitler youth rally, it looks like a bit like a Democratic convention!
But why did I waste my time writing that sentence, when all I really want to say is, "JohnW is an idiot"?
posted on 08.22.2007 11:49 AM10
Brad,
You are right, I am not sure what Uncengrers point is. The context of the Battlecry events does include the decorations and visuals being used in the meetings and they do look like Nazi rallies to me.
Maybe you could look at the video for yourself and see what you think.
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/08/15/gods.warriors.battle.cry.cnn
Look at the video with the sound off. Note the flashy red colors, flags, and military motif. It does look like a Hitler youth rally. Luce says youth need to reject the corporate culture being forced on them. I am all for that. One thing though-what he mostly means is rejection of sex and drugs and once again, I am all for this, but what about rejecting the messages of violence and militarism running rampant in our culture along with it's materialism?
posted on 08.22.2007 11:50 AMBattlecry events glorify the military and sometime this is done literally by having people appear on stage in military uniforms. I am all for youth accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, but rejecting the ways of the world is more than just not having sex or taking drugs. It also mean educating yourself as to what is going on and rejecting our materialistic consumer culture and its glorification of violence & militarism. It also means not sitting passively by and not saying anything while your government starts a war under false pretenses causing death and misery for hundreds of thousands of people and uprooting several millions from their homes.
11
Why do you even waste time putting words together to form a sentence when all you want to say is, "JohnW is an idiot"?
I don't necessarily think you are an idiot, John, but your point was blazingly obtuse. Essentially what you are saying is that Battle Cry events are the same as Hitler Youth rallies because at both, kids alternate wild applause with intense listening (since I assume they don't where Swastikas at Battle Cry events). By that standard you could say that a Beatles concert is just like a Hitler Youth rally if you turn off the sound. In other words, when you remove the context of the event, it is very easy to take the event out of context, as you have done in your post.
posted on 08.22.2007 11:53 AM12
JohnW,
Why does every comment thread you contribute to mention that you believe the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses? Don't you think everyone here knows that's what you think? Seriously, Joe could post about the weather and you would somehow relate it to "Bush's illegal war in Iraq". We get it already.
posted on 08.22.2007 12:05 PM13
Oclarki
If you don't speak out against hideous atrocities, it's the same as condoning it.
Maybe I could be a better communicator though. Evangelicals remain steadfast in their support of the occupation of Iraq and our country's militaristic policies. This is just crazy.
There is a lot of war and destruction going on in the world right now. What are your thoughts? Aren't these matters important enough to discuss.Are you speaking out against the continued occupation of Iraq? Or do you favor it? Do you feel we should invade Iran next? Do you feel perhaps Bush should have just used nukes of Iraq to make sure they wouldn't cause any trouble? Christians are to engage the culture we live in right? Does that include speaking on the issues of war?
Uncenger, RE: Post 11, it's the glorification of militarism, which is communicated visually that makes it look like a Hitler rally. And while their are no swastika's the bright red color themes and the running around with flags working the crowd into a frenzy is very much like a Hitler rally.
posted on 08.22.2007 12:29 PM14
JohnW,
Listen, I don't have a problem with discussing the war and other important matters. However, you end up hurting your message by constantly changing the subject being discussed and going out of your way to insult those you disagree with. Comparing your fellow brothersand sisters in Christ to Nazis, becasue you disagree with them is pretty lame.
To get this thread back on track, what do you think of the CNN special?
posted on 08.22.2007 12:44 PM15
I think it's high time that Christians were consumed less with fighting media bias and more with living out God's commandments; less with obsessing about who'll be the next President and more with being involved with the lives of the people next door.
If that would happen more among 20% of those who call themselves Christians than a show comparing Christianity alongside Islam would be as silly as comparing a iPhone alongside a TRS-80.
posted on 08.22.2007 12:53 PM16
I really wasn't that off topic as I was commenting about a preview of the CNN special. I will need to see more of the CNN Special to tell you what I think. What is your opinion of it?
I said the Battlecry rally looked like a Hitler rally because that what it looked like. It is offensive that they would mix sensationalistic militaristic themes with their presentation of the gospel. Did the early christians meet together and celebrate the glory of the Roman Empire? The words Lord, Saviour, and Gospel in the time of Christ, originally applied to the Roman leaders, the early christians applied this terminology to Jesus Christ, who is our leader and he asks us not to conform to the ways of this world. Christ said his kingdom was not of this world, if it was, his followers would fight. Read Romans Chapter 12, verses 2 and 9-21.
My comments regarding the continued occupation of Iraq were made in the context of explaining my disagreement with the focus of the Battlecry message.
posted on 08.22.2007 1:03 PM17
it's the glorification of militarism, which is communicated visually that makes it look like a Hitler rally. And while their are no swastika's the bright red color themes and the running around with flags working the crowd into a frenzy is very much like a Hitler rally.
Sounds like University of Nebraska, University of Alabama, Texas Tech, and Rutgers football games are very much like Hitler rallies too.
posted on 08.22.2007 1:22 PM18
Uncenger,
That is actually funny...Good work.
posted on 08.22.2007 1:57 PM19
I agree with you Joe that the comparison of Falwell with Islamic terrorists is unfair and even absurd. A few hundred years ago Christians had no compunctions about murdering infidels and heretics simply for their differing beliefs. Thanks to the humanizing effects of the Enlightenment as well as the horrific bloodletting of the 17th century religious wars, the vast majority of Christians abandoned religious warfare by the 18th century. Differences over religion may have played a subconscious role in the willingness to use the atomic bomb Japan, as well as conflicts with Russia, Vietnam, and Iraq - but it is no longer overtly appealed to as a motivating factor.
I do think it is unfortunate that you yourself Joe end your post by oversimplifying this into an "us versus them", black-and-white division. There are two types of people in the world: those who believe there are only two types of people in the world, and the rest of us. I'm in the latter group. There are some folks who understand that there are gray areas.
posted on 08.22.2007 2:29 PM20
I don't know about others, but I see little difference in the structure between secular humanism and other competing religious systems. It has its own moral code, its own rituals, expressions of piety, its own idols, and its own mythology.
Examples please?
However, to function in a society, individuals need to have self-restraint that is taught to them only by families and houses of worship. I contend that secularism does a poor job of teaching citizens this quality. Thus, secularism parasitically leeches off of the moral atmosphere and framework established by religion. The irony is that secularism attacks are the very religious machinery that allows secularism to exist in the first place.
That's rather bizaar. Self-restraint has had a long tradition in religious traditions (the fasting of early Christians, ascetism of Hindu's and Buddhists, Ramadan in Islam). But so has the exact opposite of self-restraint. What better way to give yourself permission to give in to your most unspeakable impulses than to imagine they have sanction from not only supernatural authority but the ultimate, most transcendant supernatural authority?
Secularism has ample mechanisms for self-restraint. Just leave theology and look at philosophy; social contract theory, for example. Materialism wise self-restraint is pretty well justified. The capitalism of the 19th century that Marx railed against was based on a very materialistic view of self-restraint. Being productive, saving income rather than immediately consuming it, may have had some roots in the old Protestant ethic but they serve as moral codes for the most materialistic of characters like Donald Trump.
ucfengr
Essentially what you are saying is that Battle Cry events are the same as Hitler Youth rallies because at both, kids alternate wild applause with intense listening (since I assume they don't where Swastikas at Battle Cry events). By that standard you could say that a Beatles concert is just like a Hitler Youth rally if you turn off the sound.
Wow, pretty potent stuff. Your mind is really sharp, just like a bowling ball.
Actually I think he is saying that Battle Cry events appear to share many undesirable traits that Hitler rallies had. Not that Battle Cry is the same thing as the Nazi Party or that the two shared irrelevant superficial traits. You seem apt at ignoring the point and picking up on the trivial. Indeed, very keen observation there. Next time why don't you try "a Beatles Concert had many people attending who had arms and legs....just like Hitler rallies THEREFORE you can't criticize Battle Cry unless you also want to criticize Beatles Concerts"?
Joe
While the producers of the series are not attempting to establish a moral equivalency, they are establishing an equivalency of ideology. According to their narrative, Falwell, the "religious right", and other conservative Christians, may not be violent, but like the fundamentalist Jews and Muslims, they are attempting to circumvent the inviolable status of secularism.
And indeed Falwell did share with Islamists a desire to overturn secularism and replace it with something else. Tactics differed and the 'something else' in his book was not the same thing that Osama Bin Laden would have choosen as the replacement but they do share common traits that are fair to examine just as the authoritarian regimes of the 1930's and 40's shared traits that contrasted sharply with democratic regimes (it is, now, an easy Freshman poly sci essay to write equating Stalin's USSR with fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain even though at the time many people saw these two thought systems as polar opposites).
Long story short rejection of secularism to date brings out a lot of ugly in human nature just as rejection of capitalism has, to date, resulted in nothing but failure economically. Keep in mind, at the end, Falwell asserted the US essentially deserved to be attacked on 9/11 and his ideological lapdog, Pat Robertson, agreed. Is comparing the two really comparing things of two different kind or two different degrees?
This does not mean to value secularism one must become a committed Christopher Hitchens type atheist anymore than it means that one has to become a Alex Keaton type republican to appreciate the value capitalism has. It does mean, though, that those here who enjoy sneering at secularism have little but thousands of years of failure on their side and if this 'war on terror' has demonstrated anything good it has demonstrated how 'anti-secularism' can lead to deeply degenerate actions. They have a very uphill battle to fight before they can even begin to make their case.
posted on 08.22.2007 3:48 PM21
it is, now, an easy Freshman poly sci essay to write equating Stalin's USSR with fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain even though at the time many people saw these two thought systems as polar opposites
Hmmm... it sounds like more people should take Freshman poly sci then. :-)
A perfect example is my Birkenstock granolie friend who one day was all in a huff bout "fascists" in this country and then in the next breath proceeded to give a list of draconian measures the government should impose on us in order to fulfill his environmentalist agenda.
The "socialism good - fascism bad" stance of the American left is still alive and well.
posted on 08.22.2007 4:17 PM22
Wow, pretty potent stuff. Your mind is really sharp, just like a bowling ball.
Oooh, an attempt at humor. How many hours did you spend working on that one?
Actually I think he is saying that Battle Cry events appear to share many undesirable traits that Hitler rallies had.
Well, what he said was "If you turned off the sound you would think you are watching some sort of Hitler youth rally.". Well if you turn off the sound what you have is a bunch of kids alternately applauding and listening intently in a venue that looks suspiciously like a college football game, a rock concert, or a pep rally. Which of those do you think John views as an undesirable trait, since you seem to be the expert on what John is trying to say?
posted on 08.22.2007 4:20 PM23
JJ
A perfect example is my Birkenstock granolie friend who one day was all in a huff bout "fascists" in this country and then in the next breath proceeded to give a list of draconian measures the government should impose on us in order to fulfill his environmentalist agenda.
Just out of curiosity what were those measures that you would equate with fascism?
ucfengr
Which of those do you think John views as an undesirable trait, since you seem to be the expert on what John is trying to say?
I think he was very clear what traits he was talking about. He laid it out in post 16, "mix sensationalistic militaristic themes with their presentation ".
I suppose if you must be annoying you can find some similarities to footage of rock concerts, pep rallies and football games. There's an idea if you happen to need a C- paper for some class you're taking.
posted on 08.22.2007 4:38 PM24
From the Battle Cry "Teen Bill of Rights" (battlecry.com/teen_bor.php):
We, as young Americans, assert our right to determine our future and the future of our great nation. We hold these truths as our God-given rights, and we embrace them with our hearts and our lives
We will live with honor, always striving to do the right thing, even when it is unpopular. We will be honest and truthful in matters large and small, regardless of the consequences.
We will take responsibility for our actions, and not point to governments, schools, celebrities, parents, or friends to justify our wrong decisions.
We recognize that we are responsible for our mistakes. We will pursue purity throughout our lives.
We will honor our parents, teachers, and other leaders.
We will reach out with compassion to the hurting and less fortunate, both in our society and around the world.
We refuse to be absorbed with our own comforts and desires.
Well, damn; they are just like the Nazis. You guys really showed me.
posted on 08.22.2007 5:44 PM25
And since we talking about Nazi-like organizations, how about the Salvation Army? They were uniforms; just like the Nazis. They have parades; just like the Nazis. They have a military-style organization; just like the Nazis. Damn, their Nazis too. When Christmas comes around, I'm gonna beat me up some of them freakin' Nazi-Santa's.
posted on 08.22.2007 5:58 PM26
While i do agree that there is little (if any) comparaison between Jerry Falwell's people and the London subway bombers's methods for enforcing their ideology, there is also little difference (if any) between those ideologies...the ideology of subjugation. All major monotheistic faith have it...the sick and twisted notion that we were somehow "created" to be servants and that those of us who reject this absurd claim of ownership on our persons do so out of ignorance or wickedness. A true god does not want anything from anyone and has certainly no need whatsoever of mortal servants to do anything. Yet you cannot convince cultists of the leading monotheistic faiths of this self evident truth anymore than you can make them realise that every attributes (love,autority,forgiveness,anger,intelligence,ect) they lend to God absolutely requires biological organisms living in a physical universe to have any worth or purpose and that they would be as useless to an all powerfull,all knowing being as the ability for critical thinking is to them. It is this shared ideology of man existing for the purpose of serving some celestial entity which those religionists have in common, because it automatically (and falsly) demonises those who dont subscribe to it as pridefull "rebels" against the "righteous" autority of God.
posted on 08.22.2007 6:59 PM27
"The three clips provided by CNN each highlighted one of the "fundamentalist" branches of the three Abrahamic faiths:
God's Jewish Warriors: theocratic Israeli settlers, including the man who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin
God's Muslim Warriors: theocratic British students, including the London subway bombers
God's Christian Warriors: Jerry Falwell and Liberty University
(Can you guess what CNN thinks that these three groups have in common?)"
posted on 08.22.2007 7:27 PMComparison is not the only reason to juxtapose religious ideologues; there is also contrast. You can either assume nefarious intent on the part of the producers or you can view the series in its entirety before evaluating it.
28
All religious people are disturbed....as long as there are religions there will be fundamentalists.
posted on 08.22.2007 8:11 PM29
JohnW writes:
Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic, is generally equated with authoritarian tendencies or a rigid group think mentality. Anyone who doesn't agree with the party line is demonized-all must fall in line, lockstep with the leaders.
Actually, I don't think this is true, not with regard to Christian fundamentalism. Yes, Christian fundamentalists have tended to follow charismatic leaders - but they follow a thousand different leaders, and many Christian fundamentalists develop strong, idiosyncratic theologies that only a few hundred or thousand people share. For example, John Hagee will apparently be featured in the CNN piece, but his views on Israel are shared by a very small minority of American Christians.
American Christian fundamentalism has shown itself to be an extremely schismatic movement - look at the hundreds of varieties of Baptist or Church of Christ movements that are out there. Part of the reason that the "Christian right" actually didn't affect any elections until the nineties is that conservative Christians distrusted each other as much as they distrusted everyone else. Those leaders that united conservative Christians (yes, including Jerry Falwell) downplayed the distinctions that many fundamentalists are most proud of. For example, have you ever heard a national Christian political leader talk about miraculous healing or the use of guitars in worship? Yet these are issues that have split fundamentalist churches straight down the middle. The most influential Christian leaders in the US - people like Billy Graham, Falwell, Rick Warren, James Dobson - can hardly be considered "fundamentalist" by the historic definition of the term.
posted on 08.22.2007 9:11 PM30
Mike:
American Christian fundamentalism has shown itself to be an extremely schismatic movement - look at the hundreds of varieties of Baptist or Church of Christ movements that are out there.
I once read an article on some Islamic group that was 'more Islamist than Al Qaeda'....in fact it even quoted Al Qaeda types saying "they are just too radical". They had found some theological fault with Bin Laden and attacked one of his camps with suicide bombers. I think if you could look at the Muslim world in as fine detail which you look at the Christian world you would find just as many schisms if not more. I think fundamentalism tends towards schisms. Fundamentalist leaders make a bold promise. They promise to deliever 100% perfect truth with no room for doubt. When they let their followers down (which they have to do eventually) one answer is to doubt the fundamentalist idea...the other answer is to assume the old leader got it wrong and to seek out some new 'really true' fundamentalism.
Part of the reason that the "Christian right" actually didn't affect any elections until the nineties is that conservative Christians distrusted each other as much as they distrusted everyone else. Those leaders that united conservative Christians (yes, including Jerry Falwell) downplayed the distinctions that many fundamentalists are most proud of.
This is analgous to the role Bin Laden played, he too tried to gain power and credibility by emphasizing similiarities rather than differences. This works as a tactic to a degree. It's as old as politics itself. Coalitions can last a long time. If they are very successful they can even formulate what might be termed a new denomination or even a new religion but I would say there's a limit to how fundamentalist you can be and how much you can hold together your coalition.
There is clearly a difference between people like Falwell who simply advocated hate and Islamists who behead people almost at random. I think the difference is in degree, not kind. Falwell and others like him would eventually reach the same depths as the worse Islamists. Why don't they? Because modern countries have a strong culture of secularism that holds them in check both in terms of society and in terms of their own individual psychology.
posted on 08.23.2007 12:10 AM31
the so called "splits" among christian denominations is merely cosmetic...the basic idea is the same...total submission to the christian god
posted on 08.23.2007 10:02 AM32
I wonder who will be the media's new face for Christianity now that Fallwell's gone.
posted on 08.23.2007 1:35 PMElusive Wapiti you hit the nail right on the head, the parallels in the areas you listed seem obvious to me.
I wonder if everyone here is on the same page with the word fundamentalist. I thought it was someone who believed that Jesus was the only way to heaven and that the bible was God's inerrant word and took a literal reading view. Am I wrong about that?
33
Then what would a Jewish Fundamentalist or Islamic Fundamentalist be? I think a better definition would be along the lines of someone who believes their interpretation is 100% truth and there is no room for legitimate doubt.
Even Biblical fundamentalists do not always assert that everything in the Bible must be have a literal reading. They are willing to admit symbolism, metaphors even total myths to a degree.
posted on 08.23.2007 2:28 PM34
Nonsense. The fundie voting block is one of the most reliable in existence. Despite their carping and moaning, they're remarkably adept at getting in line behind their anointed. In addition, this hardly makes the movement any less dangerous to its targets. I doubt that all the schisms in the world would make any of the fundamentalist splinter groups any keener on gay people. Salvation by grace rather than works is a perennial point in fundamentalist circles, but another very common feature is the idea that you allude to, of literal reading. Of course, as the Bible is chock-full of metaphor and allusion, interpretations will be made, but they'll be handed down by strong men who'll blatantly use them out of context to bludgeon others with their authority.While the categories of evangelism, fundamentalism and dominionism aren't identical, there's considerable overlap, and it is dominionism which is at the core of the issue; it is dominionism which attempts to infiltrate religion into public life, and ultimately to subordinate secular governance to theocracy--weasel words about "faith informs all of life—including politics and culture" notwithstanding. (Would you like to have your politics and culture "informed" by a faith you found abhorrent? When faiths conflict, where does pluralism come into the picture?)
I highly recommend dogemperor's series on the subject, written by someone who grew up in the movement, as well as this bit from Orcinus on how the Great Commission, describing how a plain, rather inward-directed fundamentalism was changed into outward-facing dominionism.
posted on 08.23.2007 2:45 PM35
Yes, these Christians may not be planning acts of violence themselves. However, they were the reason an extremely violent man was elected to the White House. This extremely violent man that fundamentalist Christians vote into office has killed more people than Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists combined.
posted on 08.23.2007 4:39 PM36
"Amanpour's surprise and dismay encapsulates the difference in perspective between people who believe that their faith informs all of life—including politics and culture—and those who believe religion should be kept secularly locked within in the walls of the church, synagogue, or mosque."
Why are these the only choices you ever give Joe? "Secularism" vs religion.
Its not that simple. You make no room for the founding fathers, who truly believed in secularism, not because they wanted to destroy religion in America, but preserve it. Or what about the point of view that ones relationship with God is ultimately so personal and sacred that to involve it in something as crass as politics would be disrespectful of God?
The common thread between the three kinds of warriors on the program is their desire to have a system of government based not on laws that men have made, but on laws that they believe God has made. Whether they accomplish this with suicide vests or with lawsuits and voter referendum's the goal is the same. The goal itself is morally equivalent. And ultimately self-destructive of course. Invariably whenever you place religion in charge of your politics it become the religion that is corrupted, rather than the politics becoming more moral.
I will note that the common factor I describe above is not the same as Joe's "faith (that) informs all of life—including politics and culture". Falwell and many other Christians got tired of "informing" their lives with their faith and instead wish to impose it on themselves and all others using the outside means of government. Its the easy way out.
posted on 08.23.2007 5:48 PM37
It amazes me how much hatred there is for Christians and Christianity among atheists. It's been 400 years or so years since anybody can point to any significant Christian persecution, and since then Christians fundamentalists have been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the prison reform movement, but they get no love from atheists. Contrast this with the behavior of Muslim fundamentalists, no tolerance for other religions (try to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia), no rights for women, homosexuals and females are subject to stoning for "sexual immorality" (for women this can be surviving a rape), not to mention the intentional murder of women and children through terrorism and with atheist attitudes towards it. While they don't quite celebrate it, the certainly "praise it with faint condemnation". And lest we forget, the outright denial by atheists of the atrocities committed by atheist fundamentalists, like "Reign of Terror" or the "Cultural Revolution" for example. It's really amazing in light of the fact that for an atheist, religious belief should be nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism, like altruism or the "love" a mother has for her child. It makes no more sense to hate Christianity than it does to hate altruism or the "fight or flight" mechanism and yet many spend an inordinate amount of time doing just that. Puzzling, really.
posted on 08.23.2007 8:50 PM38
It amazes me how much hatred there is for Christians and Christianity among atheists. It's been 400 years or so years since anybody can point to any significant Christian persecution, and since then Christians fundamentalists have been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the prison reform movement, but they get no love from atheists. Contrast this with the behavior of Muslim fundamentalists, no tolerance for other religions (try to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia), no rights for women, homosexuals and females are subject to stoning for "s*xual immorality" (for women this can be surviving a r*pe), not to mention the intentional murder of women and children through terrorism and with atheist attitudes towards it. While they don't quite celebrate it, the certainly "praise it with faint condemnation". And lest we forget, the outright denial by atheists of the atrocities committed by atheist fundamentalists, like "Reign of Terror" or the "Cultural Revolution" for example. It's really amazing in light of the fact that for an atheist, religious belief should be nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism, like altruism or the "love" a mother has for her child. It makes no more sense to hate Christianity than it does to hate altruism or the "fight or flight" mechanism and yet many spend an inordinate amount of time doing just that. Puzzling, really.
posted on 08.23.2007 8:53 PM39
Joe, you spam filter is set pretty high. It dinged me for either "raype" or sexua1.
posted on 08.23.2007 8:55 PM40
Christiane Amanpour is one of the principal reasons we stopped watching CNN. She, and her network, have been pretending there is moral equivalence between terrorists and dictatorships and the good guys.
This came to head when one of her colleagues was embedded during Desert Storm with Saddam. This used to be called treason.
As for this Karen Armstrong-flavored set of three programs, well, consider the source. And watch out for those pesky Bible-totin' Baptists...
posted on 08.23.2007 9:08 PM41
ucfengr:
It amazes me how much hatred there is for Christians and Christianity among atheists. It's been 400 years or so years since anybody can point to any significant Christian persecution, and since then Christians fundamentalists have been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the prison reform movement, but they get no love from atheists.
Yes because 400 years ago Western society embraced secularism (which is NOT, BTW, the same thing as atheism) because they were sick the endless strife that made Europe then look like Iraq today (tell me Voltaire's Candide couldn't easily be recast in modern day Iraq...just change 'Anabaptist' to Sunni or Shi'ite and there you go).
Now since we were talking about Falwell where was Mr. Fundamentalism in all those fights? He came along too late for slavery and women's suffrage but on the most pressing moral wrong of his time, Civil Rights, he fell firmly on the wrong side of the issue. His fundamentalism, despite its claims to access perfect truth, could not overcome his cultural background. Only years later when all the hard work had already been done did he change his mind and try to convince everyone else that he had been with them all along.
And lest we forget, the outright denial by atheists of the atrocities committed by atheist fundamentalists, like "Reign of Terror" or the "Cultural Revolution" for example.
You mean communist fundamentalists. Again the problem is not so much ideology or religion but fundamentalism, by which I mean the belief and claim that one has perfect access to the truth and there is no room for legitimate doubt. The cultural revolution in that sense was carried out by communist fundamentalists who believed they had perfect understanding of communist theory and therefore had infinite justification to do anything that advanced that understanding. Contrast this to the secularism of the Founding Fathers who trusted no one, including themselves, with being 100% right. They assumed there always would be a need for doubt hence they divided power and limited it because absolute power can never be given to anyone claiming to hold the absolute truth least you create a tyrant.
Jack
Christiane Amanpour is one of the principal reasons we stopped watching CNN. She, and her network, have been pretending there is moral equivalence between terrorists and dictatorships and the good guys.
I'll remind everyone again that Falwell and Robertson sided with the 9/11 terrorists and blamed the US. No one said they were the equal to the terrorists but it is odd to describe them as 'the good guys'. Somehow I suspect you'd be the first to leap up against someone who asserted that Michael Moore was a 'good guy'.
posted on 08.23.2007 11:27 PM42
Did you see some actual hatred in this thread, or is this just that thing where you see someone singing less than the standard share of hosannahs to the mighty mighty awesomeness of Christianity, and start wondering when the horrible hating will stop? Are you serious? I mean, I'm familiar with Holocaust denial, but I'm afraid I've yet to see anyone deny the existence of the Reign of Terror or the Cultural Revolution. Could you point me to someone who does? I'm sure you meant to write "Americans" or "Christians" there, rather than "good guys", but I think that the slip is telling. Of course there's no moral equivalence between The Good Guys and anyone else.You should be familiar with de Tocqueville's claim that: "America is great because its people are good. If its people cease to be good, it will cease to be great." We're not special. We're only the good guys if we act like it. If we stop acting like we're the good guys, then we're no longer the good guys. We may not be the worst guys, but that's hardly the slogan you want on your brochure.
It's childish logic to believe that your team is good, period. Slavish devotion should be the province of those not yet old enough to know better.
posted on 08.24.2007 1:10 AM43
I watched all three episodes of Gods Warriors and found it to be informative while displaying many aspects of events,beliefs,opinions and movements within each individual religion.All three were presented with both the passive and more radical sides of each.I thought Christiane Amanpour was professional and unbiased with a personable approach in her deliverance and fail to see where she tried to present her own opinions at all but rather made a reasonable attempt to cover what's happening.
posted on 08.24.2007 1:45 AM44
Did you see some actual hatred in this thread,
Yes, but I can see how some people might think blaming all the deaths in our current conflicts on Christians is reasoned discourse.
Are you serious? I mean, I'm familiar with Holocaust denial, but I'm afraid I've yet to see anyone deny the existence of the Reign of Terror or the Cultural Revolution. Could you point me to someone who does?
Not denial of existence, but denial of responsibility. See below.
Yes because 400 years ago Western society embraced secularism (which is NOT, BTW, the same thing as atheism) because they were sick the endless strife that made Europe then look like Iraq today (tell me Voltaire's Candide couldn't easily be recast in modern day Iraq...just change 'Anabaptist' to Sunni or Shi'ite and there you go).
You mean communist fundamentalists.
This is what I mean by denial. To the atheist, modern Christians are responsible for every atrocity ever committed by Christians, but atheists never have to take responsibility for the actions of their folks because it wasn't atheists that did it, it was secularists or communists, which as we all know are definitely not atheists.
posted on 08.24.2007 7:45 AM45
Yes, but I can see how some people might think blaming all the deaths in our current conflicts on Christians is reasoned discourse.
No one here or in the wider culture has blamed all deaths in current conflicts on Christians. When will ucfengr stop his discrimination and persecution of the straw men!
This is what I mean by denial. To the atheist, modern Christians are responsible for every atrocity ever committed by Christians,
See above
but atheists never have to take responsibility for the actions of their folks because it wasn't atheists that did it,
It wasn't. I find it stunning you get all excited about me blaming communism for the USSR and Maoist China.
it was secularists or communists, which as we all know are definitely not atheists.
Errr, no it was not secularists. Stalin, Mao were communists. If it makes you happy I'll grant you Stalin was an atheist. Mao I have no idea about (some Chinese religions often look more like philosophies so for all I know he very well may have had some supernatual beliefs inspired by Taosim or what not). Do I think many intellectual communists were atheists? Yes. Do I think that made a difference? Not much, if any. There were theists who also became communists or sympathetic to communists. The ideology was easily able to adapt itself especially when it gave some theists a measure of power (such as, for example, making the Orthodox Russian Church the 'official' church of Russia).
If it makes you happy, I also acknowledge that many wars that happened in history happened independent of religion. I'm sure England, France and Spain would have duked it out numerous times over even if they didn't have religious conflicts. But it is undeniable that Europe spilled a lot, a real lot, of blood over religion and not just simple disputes over territories.
Lilla's article here was very good. Secularism is not in itself a cure all as he demonstrated. Fundamentalism can be applied to secular ideologies like nationalism or communism and the results are just as bad.
Ultimately my original assertions remains, those here who like to sneer at secularism do so with little but thousands of years of utter failure on their side. They have great fun in doing so (especially since they are surrounded here with enablers and fellow supporters) but in the end they are little different than Starbucks Socialists who spend their days talking about how capitalism is evil as they sip $6 lattes.
posted on 08.24.2007 8:15 AM46
No one here or in the wider culture has blamed all deaths in current conflicts on Christians.
From George (Post 35):
"Christians may not be planning acts of violence themselves. However, they were the reason an extremely violent man was elected to the White House. This extremely violent man that fundamentalist Christians vote into office has killed more people than Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists combined."
I guess with some careful parsing you could make an argument that he isn't blaming all the deaths from our present conflicts on Christians, but it would be a very weak argument.
If it makes you happy, I also acknowledge that many wars that happened in history happened independent of religion. I'm sure England, France and Spain would have duked it out numerous times over even if they didn't have religious conflicts. But it is undeniable that Europe spilled a lot, a real lot, of blood over religion and not just simple disputes over territories.
But by far, Europe's bloodiest wars came after their "embrace of secularism", driven mostly by ideologies whose lineage can be traced directly back to this embrace. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail (got to get on the road), but the ideas that drove the French Revolution, Franco-Prussian War, The Russian Revolution, and World Wars 1 and 2 (to name a few) can be traced directly back to ideas developed from the French Enlightenment and its embrace of secularism.
posted on 08.24.2007 9:40 AM47
Just as an aside, for all the talk by atheists of Christian complicity in the death of Muslims in Iraq, there is very little acknowledgment of the plight of Christians in Iraq from Muslims (http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2007/08/
posted on 08.24.2007 10:55 AMiraq-and-genocide-of-assyrian.html). You would think that extremist, Christians theocrats, like Bush, would be more concerned by this.
48
First I would question how much of those wars can really be traced to secularism. "God and country" was the mantra that many European powers marched off to war in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Russian Revolution was caused by WWI and the good Germans, Frenchmen, and Englishmen who supported that war didn't think they were marching off in the name of atheism or even secularism.
Second I would also say that while those wars were more bloody than many previous ones the cause was more the industrial revolution and technology than morality. I'm sure if Catholics and Protestants had access to tanks, mustard gas, airplanes and machine guns they would have easily added a digit or two to the death tolls they inflicted. WWI & II established that the old school of war had reached its limits. The neat battlefieds of Napoleans day gave way to total war on a nations industrial base and the limits of that tech. was quickly reached.
Third WWII was caused by fascism which stretches the idea of secularism. Nazi's were essentially selling a manufactured pagan religion (modified of course to make it acceptable to a Catholic population) not secularism. Japan, of course, was not secular either.
posted on 08.24.2007 10:58 AM49
Well, a devout Christian widely hailed as Jesus on skates and pretty much installed by the most Christian Christians around did start at least one of those conflicts, and said Christians have had a creepy habit of referring to it as a crusade, so perhaps you can see where they're coming from on that. See if you can follow me on this one: All dominionists are Christians. It does not follow that all Christians are dominionists. All communists are atheists. It does not follow that all atheists are communists.The core issue, and the thing which communists and dominionists have in common--and which the current crop of secularists against whom the evangelical movement is railing lack--is authoritarianism; it makes surprisingly little difference whether you get your dogma from a priest or a commissar; the effects are the same. (There's a fascinating bit in The Authoritarians on that.)
You group communism and secular humanism because they're atheistic, but it's just as easy and perhaps more informative to group together communism and dominionism because they're both authoritarian--the latter connection is far more informative.
posted on 08.24.2007 4:05 PM50
"But by far, Europe's bloodiest wars came after their "embrace of secularism", driven mostly by ideologies whose lineage can be traced directly back to this embrace. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail (got to get on the road), "
I suspect that Europe's "bloodiest" wars really came after enough technological progress was made to kill large numbers of people effieciently and from a distance.
posted on 08.24.2007 5:53 PM51
since then Christians fundamentalists have been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the prison reform movement, but they get no love from atheists.
This caused me to remember an interesting piece I read and I was able to find it:
The Metaphysical Club Louis Menand p. 145ucfengr's passage suffers from selection bias. Anti-slavery Christians are today honored with profiles on the 700-Club and have their pictures depicted on stain glass windows. Pro-slavery Christians have been forgotten about yet who was it the anti-slavery, pro-suffrage, pro-civil rights Christians were arguing against? Was Jefferson Davis sworn into office on a copy of Voltaire's work while Lincoln used a Bible? Was the German population really filled with closet pagans just waiting for a Hitler to come to power to unmask themselves? How exactly would ucfengr have us believe Stalin came to power in a country like Russia...hardly the shining star of European philosophical secularism.
If his hypothesis was correct wouldn't we have expected slavery, communism, sexism to have all been concentrated in countries like England and France while solidly Christian nations, with no large influence of secularists like Hume, Bentham, Voltaire etc, like the US, Germany, and Russia would have taken the lead against those evils?
If you treated this as a double blind experiment with a control group rather than just as anecdotes you fail to see the pattern that ucfengr and others would assert.
posted on 08.24.2007 8:01 PM52
"To the atheist, modern Christians are responsible for every atrocity ever committed by Christians, but atheists never have to take responsibility for the actions of their folks because it wasn't atheists that did it, it was secularists or communists, which as we all know are definitely not atheists."
I find it interesting that ucfengr paints with a brush as broad as that of the straw men he attacks. I am an atheist, and I do not hold modern Christians responsible for "every atrocity ever committed by Christians." Furthermore, I do not know of any atheists who do so. The people who commit the atrocities and those who do not oppose them are responsible for them. Therefore I feel there is no inconsistency in my not taking responsibility for the actions of other atheists, past or present.
Nor do I deny that Stalin was an atheist, nor do I care. His crimes were not informed by atheism, which is nothing more than a lack of god-belief; his crimes were an outgrowth of his totalitarian ideology and his personal ruthlessness. Perhaps the same can be said of Christians involved in atrocities, but I can't help but notice that Christian atrocities have been defended by those committing them through Christian appeals, as in the case of southern Christian slaveowners. I don't recall Stalin ever defending purges or gulags by appealing to atheism. That, of course, is because atheism has no scriptures, no moral code, no unifying element of any kind. Many atheists have nothing in common but their atheism. Reading ucfengr's comments, one would think atheists had a secret handshake and a little red book. It would be offensive if it weren't so laughable.
ucfengr simply refuses to abandon his annoying habit of attaching things to atheism that have nothing to do with it.
posted on 08.25.2007 5:51 PM