Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

hencefore I shall attempt to refrain from slight offerings of levity and jocularity, or maybe not.

I feel a lot of love in this room.........

Frank, I am just curious what you mean practically.

Remember that evangelical Christianity (I avoid the word fundamentalist since it inflammitary and doesn't add much to the discussion) is followed by a not insignificant part of the US population.

People have the right to vote according to their values and beliefs. Christians tend to have a set of beliefs that you may not agree with. But this does not threaten our democracy. It is just part of it.

The political power held by evangelical christians is no more sinister than that held by NOW or the NAACP.

You should support your values and beliefs within the structure of our Democracy. But there is no need to fear other, just because they disagree with you.

Certain people rail against the "fundmentalists" who are threatening American democracy. Others rail against the "liberals" destroying Americas values.

I think all this yelling is pure foolishness. Let's respect the rights of to public expression, whether through free speech, or elected officials. Neither side of this fight is threatening the republic.

I don't know what you mean by "fear". If you just want to make sure your values are expressed as part of our national dialogue than I am all for it.

Are we in agreement? Or is there something else you think we should do?

Lola,

I want to comment a bit further about what happened here. I think it's unfair for you to do what you did.

The only person on this forum who has no protection from the TOS is myself. It's because of the "tyrant" accusations and such.

If it had been someone calling you that I or some other volunteer would have dealt with it.

It's a lot of work and this site takes up more time than my job. When people react the way you have here over a difference of opinion it'd disappointing. It makes me feel like closing the site because it's been a large amount of work, has cost me thousands of dollars and if I dare venture into the discussions I run the risk of people using my ownership of the forum as something to attack me on.

It's not been fun for a long time and I want a vacation. And it's actions like yours that make it so unpleasant for me.

I'll never let someone drive me to close this site by their individual unpleasantness because it would be stupid to let all the work be ruined by the inconsiderate few.

But I certainly will be taking vacations from the work here more often and episodes like yours are the reason why. It's just not worth the aggravation os spending 10+ hours a day on tedious boring work for this crappy site, spending gobs of money and then venturing onto the forums to be insulted.

I don't put up with that much aggravation at work, and A2K is an expense and not income for me. I can't stress how unfair I consider it for you to label me a "tyrant". I have done nothing here except voice an opinion and watch you insult me.

I'm outta here.

Ok, let me put it like this. I think the opinion that it (the concern about the fundamentalists gaining control of the government) is hysteria, is self righteous and condescending. It's also beside the point. What do you think about black lists, Craven?

You might have said that you think BPB's title to the thread represents an unfounded fear. A fear you don't share.

And I've never expected you not to critisize me. Nor have I indicated that expectation. I think your semantic distinction (calling my idea hysterical vs. calling me hysterical) avoids the real issue and is hiding behind the letter of the law, while violating the law. So, if you'll please stop talking down to me, I'll stop doing the same to you.

But you have to do it first. :wink:

Craven, I appreciate your hard work, I've told you that many times. but your hard work doesn't exempt you from criticism either.

This exchange makes me want to quit a2k as well........until I get control of myself. Your behavior disappoints me as well. And people have their moments.

Having grown up in the middle-east, I have seen up close and personal how religious fervor can and often does boil over into the violence and rhetoric of daily life. I have seen it from the Muslims, the Greek Orthodox, the Hindu's, the Catholics the Protestant "missionaries" and the Jews. I have never had a "religious persuasion" being raised in an atheist household. I do tend to have a quiet fear of all religious ideology. On the other hand what i see happening in the US today is that while the evangelicals/charismatics have their cycles of days in the sun, I also see that legal events/decisions including this past years supremes gay rights decision as well as the court decision regarding the "under god" provisio are reacting in a manner that could not have happended under the Warren Court (the most liberal court of my rememberance). I think it is very true that some religious fervor is pushing an agenda particularly on local levels (at least here in colorado) these "great awakenings" tend to shoot themselves in the sole(soul) just as the moral majority did with its idiotic fanaticism. But then I am an optimist.

Lola,

My comment was that the hysteria keeps me from hysteria. By that I simply meant that the overwhelming number of people who reject religion vehemently in the US means that I don't have to worry about the more dire, less realistic, and yes, hysterical claims.

You decided that I was talking about you and decided to insult me.

It's not a "semantical" distinction. It's simply a criteria used to allow for discussion with dissent without unecessary insults. People can take insult at all kinds of things, here you ahve done so when I wasn't even addressing you and didn't have you in mind.

I don't want to be exempt from criticism. What I am sick of is having my job with the site paint a target on my back so that people can insult me.

Lola,

You are the only person here who has made a personal attack.

Commenting strongly on someones opinions or posts is part of vigorous debate. You crossed the line when you attacked Craven personally.

There have been several threads where I disagreed vigorously with Craven and with others. People here generally act with respect and maturity even in the midst of heated argument.

I have never seen someone here resort to name calling.

Your behavior is unaccepatable in any civilized forum. There is no comparison between your post and anyone elses.

If you have any decency you will apologize.

Dys,

The courts will not remain balanced as they are now if GW is re-elected. If that happens we'll see some decisions that you won't like. Then we can all be hysterical together.

In the meantime, I had hoped this thread would be a place where we could accumulate articles about the radical right. I still hope we can.

I got all pissed off and now I'm embarrassed which makes me want to burn the place down, but I won't. I think instead, I'll go talk to my analyst at my regularly scheduled time.

Sorry for my nasty disposition this morning.

Eric

By "fear" -- I mean the kind of fear I might counsel for someone who thinks that sharks or grizzly bears have been given too much bad press -- and is thinking of "proving" his point by a personal encounter in the wild with a member of one or both species.

I mean "fear" the way a Christian means "fear" when speaking of being "God fearing."

I mean "fear" the way someone feels fear when notified to "watch your back!"




I do agree with you that Christians (you choose the adjective) certainly have a right to run for office; to vote for whom they choose; and to advocate such laws as they deem appropriate.

I champion that.

But at the same time, those of us who feel differently from Christians on significant issues can be vocal and forceful in our opposition -- and fearful and wary.




The fact that "..a not insignificant part of the US population" are followers of Christianity does not factor into my considerations at all except insofar as it provides more reasoning for my position. I might add that it would factor in my considerations if a "not insignificant" part were extremist Islamics rather than Christians.



I simply do not trust Christianity at all, Eric -- and I suspect that if they could get as influential as some of them want to be -- the country would be much the worse for it.

One reason why I am delighted the "ecuminical" efforts of the various Christian churches meets with such failure as it does, is because their internal feuding keeps their power in check better than outside agencies couild impose upon them if they were united.





I suggest, repectfully as possible, that you are mistaken. Much of what these otherwise good folks do does present a threat to our democracy.

It is subtle -- and I suspect you just don't want to see it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to do any of the lawful things they do -- just that I am wary of them -- and want to urge others to be just as vigilant as I when it comes to dealing with them.





I don't fear them because they disagree with me. I fear them for much more complex reasons than that. And simply because there is "no need" to fear someone or something -- doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to fear them or it on an elective basis.

This is one of those instance where I elect to be fearful.

I wish I could talk you into being fearful also.

P.S.

I apologized before ebrown shamed me into doing so.

You're scolding me, ebrown doesn't help......but thanks for the advice anyway, I'll try to keep it in mind.

My point in this post was that I think Bush and the current administration would make this a Christian Fundamentalist nation tomorrow if they could, and would punish and imprison people whose idealogy ran afoul of theirs if they could get away with it. Ebrown is correct of course in saying that they have the same right to express their opinions , run for office, reach high places of power as anyone else.

Where I part company with them is in the fact that they are passing off puritanical bullshit and calling it Christianity, IMO.

GWB would take us back to rabbinical law and have us living by the New Leviticus, written and interpreted by him along with a panel of Jerry Falwell types.

Does he have a right to try and push his agenda? Yes. Does he have a right to push it down my throat? No.

I personally believe in Jesus Christ. I do not believe in christians however. There's no such thing. When people get close to the ideal, they get assassinated.

Does anyone here remember the McCarthy era?

shame

Craven,

I do apologize for jumping on you. I think I might have been a little hysterical.

But I would like to say that your position on this site, your hard work, etc. was not the source of my complaint. And I see no target there. I was angry about what you said and my anger had nothing to do with your position.

Not really - too young - but I remember its aftermath - and I remember the time here when hysteria about communism was whipped up by conservative governments in order to retain power. However, Oz had a referendum re banning the Communist party - and voted to do no such thing. We therefore had open, happy communists everywhere! The Oz party was, by and large, (after voting to condemn Stalin) full of rather charming folk - bless 'em. Of course, they were shadowed with all the apparatus of the state - such as it is in Oz. One of me fellas was a communist - and I got me own little state apparatchik, at whom to wave every evening when I left for work, as he photographed me, for a while. I could lose him on me bicycle in no time flat.

I bet it was jus like "Children of the Revolution."

I'm getting freaked out about this topic. I am shocked (and awed) about the polls that I've seen. The Boston Sunday Globe Magazine had an article about the rift between neo-hard-core christians and older-styled peace brother christians. I tried to engage my italian housemate in a conversation about this, but she wouldn't really bite. I can't read this thread right now, I'll be back later.....

Brown

Political my foot. His reasoning was based upon his convoluted religious beliefs. And the support by the religious right. The hell with the relief from suffering that research might bring. His religion is of utmost importance. Is that what we are supposed to expect from a leader of a secular nation? But than again that is what we can expect from someone who thinks he was mandated by God to be president.