0
   

Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics

 
 
Ethel2
 
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 06:33 pm
This thread is for discussion and accumulation of data about religion and politics. But it's not about the helpful or harmless forms of religion. It's about religion of over simplified polarities. Religion which devalues science and aims to control through guilt and deceit. The guidelines of the discussion are broad. So we can follow our noses............but I would like to make a request before we start. I would like everyone who posts here to consider their wish to convince or win and accept the fact that this is not the only goal of discussion. I know we all wish to convince......and that's fine, it feels good when it happens, but if we count winning as the only worthwhile goal, we'll only fight and the possibility for productive thought will be lost. So let's begin..............

Oh and one more thing...... all are welcome here. If you are a fundamentalist Christian, please feel free to participate. But as you can see, I am not neutral on this subject. So I'll begin by admitting my perspective, and everyone else can do the same.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 7,255 • Replies: 132
No top replies

 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 06:37 pm
Wonderful new thread! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 06:40 pm
welcome...bob........you beat me to the invite.....that's great.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 06:52 pm
We can start with this..........I posted it on another thread yesterday.......but it fits here best, I think:

Here you go.........another example of what Didion writes about:

the current (today's) edition of the Washington Update from the Family Research Council........it's especially horrifying today:

Quote:
December 1, 2003
UN on AIDS: 'Live and Let Live'


Today, December 1, is "World AIDS Day," yet too many health policy-makers, both in this country and internationally, remain unwilling to do what is really necessary to conquer this deadly epidemic.

Buried in your Thanksgiving Day newspaper was the latest report on HIV infections from the Centers for Disease Control. New infections among men who have sex with men climbed 17% between 1999 and 2002 - the largest jump of any exposure category. Men who have sex with men constituted 59.7% of the new HIV infections among males - more than ten times the percentage of the U.S. adult male population that has ever engaged in such behavior. Yet despite its deadly consequences and the fact that fighting AIDS has cost taxpayers billions, the U.S. Supreme Court says that criminalizing such behavior is unconstitutional, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court wants to reward it with society's ultimate affirmation - marriage.



Wow! Does anyone else find this to be an amazing statement? What do they expect the Supreme Court to do, interpret the Constitution based on ........what?.............whether it costs money or not?

Quote:
It is true that overseas heterosexual transmission plays a larger role in the epidemic. Yet even there, it is clear that behavioral change - abstaining from sex outside of marriage or from illegal drug use - is the key to stopping AIDS. Uganda is an excellent example of how abstinence education has helped stall the AIDS outbreak. But is that the focus of the U.N.-sponsored World AIDS Day activities? No. The U.N.'s theme is "eliminating stigma and discrimination," and the slogan is "Live and Let Live."



What do they do in Uganda to enforce this abstinence-from-sex-outside- of-marriage thing? Again I say, WOW.

Quote:
While it is true in one sense that "stigma" surrounding a disease can sometimes prevent people from seeking needed testing and treatment, re-stigmatizing the reckless and immoral behavior that spreads the disease in the first place is the key to prevention.



This is the sickest way of thinking I can image. The idea that stigmatizing behaviors does anything but cause harmful effects is amazing. As if the use of shame and guilt were helpful in controlling behavior without a price so high, it's liabilities exceeding what little, if any benefits, that it's net effect is destructive to any cause. WOW! I know I shouldn't be surprised, but seeing it in print like this always shocks me.


Quote:
Senate Dems' Tactics on Bush Nominees Exposed


Last month a series of memos showing the coziness between liberal interest groups and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were "leaked" to the press.



You mean like the coziness between radical interest groups and the Republicans?

Quote:
However, whenever the mainstream press covers the memos they focus on chastising the Republicans for supposedly leaking the information and they ignore the downright nastiness of the Senate Democrats' strategy. These liberal organizations tell Democrats which judicial nominees to go after and vote down, how many hearings to hold, and ground rules for allowing floor votes. The memos even state that the groups persuaded Democrats to delay nominations in order to affect an affirmative action case in Michigan.

The memos go on to detail how to conduct personal attacks on Bush's judicial nominees, at one point writing "most of Bush's nominees are Nazis." In talking about Miguel Estrada, one memo identifies him as "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino." Another memo admonishes Democrats not to make the mistake they made with Clarence Thomas, in allowing Estrada to get on the Federal Courts at all.



My my my, this is shocking, isn't it? It's only fair when the "right" is right.

Singling out a nominee because of his race is outrageous. While Senate Democrats may celebrate their victory in forcing Mr. Estrada to withdraw his nomination, their actions have tarnished both the U.S. Senate and the Constitution. The American public should not have to put up with these deplorable actions.


And this, I suspect, is a grossly inaccurate characterization of the meaning of the memo. But oh well, whose keeping track of what's fair anymore? Politics is politics...........good night! What is this world coming to?

_________________
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 06:55 pm
good topic, when I was in Gradual School one of our research projects was the newly observed foray into the realm of politics by, what was then called the pentecostal movement. The data that we came up with was that at that time about 15% to 18% of the adult population of the US was involved in pentecostal/fundamental churches. An interesting phenomona we found was that there was a backlash from some within the movement to reject political activities as being anti-biblical in nature. We may well be seeing a moderate "great awaking" that began in the 80's more as a reaction to what they see as an assault by the secular society via media exposure as well as a far more mobile society. I would suggest that the fundamentalists are currently reacting out of fear of loss of their "rights"more so than a desire to "save' the secular society from the sin of liberalism. looking forward to the many ideas that may come from this thread.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 07:01 pm
I agree, Dys..........they are afraid of loosing what they see as their rights.......however their view of their rights does not conform to my understanding of rights. We have rights, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.....and then of course, there's that nasty Constitution getting in the way.

Plus, I think you're not correct about their wish to save us.........they also will not rest until they have saved us all, whether we want to be saved or not.

Your statistics are interesting. I wonder what they are today. I think they're higher now...for some reason.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 07:07 pm
In Houston, Compaq Center (once known as the Summit), for twenty-five years the city's 17,000-seat arena hosting concerts, Icecapades, and the home of the NBA Rockets, WNBA Comets, and minor league hockey's Aeros -- all of whom celebrated national championships on the court and ice -- has been leased to Lakewood Church, for thirty years, for nearly $12 million dollars, paid up front.

Lakewood Church draws about 25,000 worshippers a week at its current location, and has extensive state-of-the-art broadcast facilities it will relocate, and will also construct a five story office building next to the arena.

There's more about the big business of religion in this US News article. An excerpt:

Quote:
What would Jonathan Edwards think of suburban Chicago's Willow Creek Community Church, where every weekend some 17,000 congregants arrive in their Chevy Tahoes and Toyota minivans to worship in the enormous brick-and-glass auditorium? More specifically, what would the 18th-century Puritan preacher who penned the fire-and-brimstone sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" make of "seeker-friendly" services that use "drama, multimedia, and contemporary music" to serve "individuals checking out what it really means to have a personal relationship with Jesus"? Gazing across the packed rows, would Edwards recognize the modern face of the religious movement that he played such a key role in launching?

On the 300th anniversary of the great theologian's birth, the questions are hardly academic. From Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., to Bellevue Baptist Church outside Memphis, evangelical megachurches dot the American landscape like the Wal-Marts, Home Depots, and other big-box stores that so many of them resemble. But this is only the most visible sign of the growing sway of evangelical Christianity, a tradition that includes both the Pentecostal and Southern Baptist churches, as well as an ever growing array of nondenominational and even some mainline Protestant congregations. From the White House and the halls of Congress to a vastly expanding spiritual self-help movement to the most vigorous Christian missionary effort in the developing world, the growing influence of evangelicalism is everywhere.

Today, according to a Gallup survey, roughly 4 out of 10 Americans identify themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. (emphasis PDiddie's) And, as Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe argues in his book The Transformation of American Religion, many characteristics of the evangelical style--its strongly personalist and therapeutic tendencies, its market-savvy approaches to expanding the flock, and even a certain theological fuzziness--have permeated other faith traditions in America, including Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Wolfe says, only half facetiously, "We are all evangelicals now."
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 07:11 pm
this is taken from a current Pentecostal statement:
and I think shows that not all of the fundamentalists are becoming politically motivated:
Quote:
"If, rather than employ the spiritual power of the gospel, the Church returns to take up the sword of earthly political power, then according to Jesus' own words of warning, the Church is destined to be trampled upon by that same power. It may be that the much-dreaded final persecution of the saints at the close of this age will be only the harvest of evil seed now being sown by the Church. Let us reason together. It is an indisputable fact that the majority of this nation's and the world's citizens are on the "broad way which leads to destruction." If the saints, being in the minority, resort to the earthly weapon of majority rule, common sense - not to mention the Holy Spirit - screams to us the incontrovertible truth that we are bound to be outvoted and defeated, unless, of course, we "water down" the gospel message or downplay its demands in order to persuade those on "the broad way" to join our cause. But in that case, what has actually happened is that we have become one of them, no longer separated from the world for the honor and service of Christ Jesus our Lord. Oh, God forbid that the Church should ever distort or neglect the gospel for the sake of any earthly gain, be it fortune, fame, friendships, or political power.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 07:45 pm
I agree Dys.........many are not. But in 2003, there are far too many who are........
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:14 pm
Just a few days ago there was an article about the International Red Cross being hit so hard with AIDS/HIV that it was threatening the very survival of the organization.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimated that something like 200,000 of its 97 million employees and voluntary aid workers worldwide are suffering from HIV/AIDS, most of them in Africa and most of them the primary care givers for those already suffering from AIDS

A lot of these people with AIDS/HIV are the primary care givers for the millions of others with AIDS. Creating laws to prevent people from having sex is not the answer. Neither is telling people they violate the tenets of their religion if they use condoms to protect themselves when they do have sex.

What Lola's article points out is how deeply buried some people have their heads in the sands of religious principles.

It reminds me of that website that spoofed creation science logic by having a young girl prove her uncle is not a monkey by having him refuse a banana she tried to give him. If we can make them refuse to have sex, they'll not get AIDS.

I'd be interested in hearing the Family Research Council's solution for preventing the damage AIDS has done to the Red Cross organization. If the logic is followed, the solution would be to not volunteer for the Red Cross.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:26 pm
Lola wrote:
Quote:
It is true that overseas heterosexual transmission plays a larger role in the epidemic. Yet even there, it is clear that behavioral change - abstaining from sex outside of marriage or from illegal drug use - is the key to stopping AIDS. Uganda is an excellent example of how abstinence education has helped stall the AIDS outbreak. But is that the focus of the U.N.-sponsored World AIDS Day activities? No. The U.N.'s theme is "eliminating stigma and discrimination," and the slogan is "Live and Let Live."

What do they do in Uganda to enforce this abstinence-from-sex-outside- of-marriage thing? Again I say, WOW.


Lola,

the Ugandan government does indeed seem to have achieved strikingly above-average success rates in fighting AIDS. It has done so with a so-called "ABC"-strategy: "practice Abstinence, Be faithful, or use Condoms".

American Conservatives are so happy to see the "AB" bit incorporated as a key part of an anti-AIDS strategy somewhere that proved itself successful, that they are happy to overlook the at least as actively implemented "C" part of it for the moment.

On the other hand, the Ugandan practice does pose some dilemmas for the traditional liberal strategies that were wholly focused on the "C"(ondoms), as it does indeed seem to have been the combination of strategies that worked so well.

Apparently, for example, "In 1994, more than 60 percent of Ugandan boys ages 13-16 reported being sexually active, a number that dropped to [..] 5 percent in 2001. [..] the number of men reporting two or more partners in a year dropped from more than 70 percent in 1989 to between 15 percent and 20 percent in 1995." That would help, obviously.

Anywho, I had a long and heated thread on the whole matter a while ago: Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs.

Just skip the parts where partisan US politics and that ol' tired debate about political correctness temporarily sucked up most of the discussion and scroll instead from the interesting bit at the beginning to the more interesting bits at the end. You might find some worthwhile stuff about the story of African anti-AIDS strategies and their divergent measures of success.

A final word on Uganda from that thread: "a key element to Uganda's success is [probably] not even so much either promoting abstinence and faithfulness or distributing condoms - its about empowering women. [..] "with the ABC campaign, Ugandans, especially women, changed. Women had to take responsibility for their own lives. Wives told their husbands to be faithful, use a condom, even in marriage, or there would be no sex. Many women in Uganda had celibate marriages or moved out on their own""
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:32 pm
Lola, interesting topic, indeed. Dys, your reference to being in "Gradual School" threw me for a minute.

Today on NPR's Morning Edition there was a story about some little town on the banks of the Mississippi River. Population in the 2000 or 4000 range (I was only able to listen with one ear). A town, like so many others, that was dying.
But this town has a little bit of history going for it. The Mormons settled here for awhile, built a church, a big church, and established their society with Joseph Smith as the patriarch.
Less then ten years later, the leaders were killed, the church was destroyed and Brigham Young led the survivors West. (I'm sure I'm not doing too well at telling the story; it's probably to be found at npr.org).
Mormon tourists have started to come to this town in pretty large numbers. Mormons are opening businesses and buying houses and, if the trend continues, they could have the numbers to control the city council.
The interviewer asked the old-time resident whether, if she changed "Mormonism" to some other word (eg "Black" or "Hispanic"), her attitude might be viewed as bigoted.
Please don't read too much into this note. I was just struck by the coincidence of this thread and the little town on the Mississippi.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:34 pm
Thanks nimh........I'll check it out. But tonight, I'm too busy being unfaithful..........not really, I'm using a condom.........actually, I'm decorating the Christmas Tree.......fun.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:36 pm
Lola

Thanks for the invitation---I will only "bookmark" at this time. I don't know if I'm ready for "primetime" religion.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 08:45 pm
I think, more often than not, we tend to think of Christians as non-human, superpowers of a higher being. Yet, they talk about temptation and sin and praying for forgiveness. These - indicators that they don't find themselves as perfect. Yet, the world still wants to put them down for all the things they might "flub" up on. If anyone were perfect, I wouldn't see the ridiculousness in it.

I don't mind a church being as successful as a WalMart. I could care less that they want to build a church bigger than Microsoft's headquarters. I don't care at all that a guy might leave church and go to a bar or end up in a bar later in the week. Their messages have been misunderstood and distorted for years and it takes a long time now to sort through them and know the truth of it all.

But, we wear white gloves when discussing Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists...etc. Christians get the treatment. My take is that it's a childish response to a sudden awareness of freedom. When you realize no lightning bolts will strike you, it's not so hard to be irreverant. I've done it myself. But, it often goes straight into the ridiculousness where standards are used to judge Christianity that aren't used for anything else. I know it's difficult to judge yourself. People don't really feel comfortable being that open. But, if you point your finger at Christians and call them money grubbing schemers, think about how many times a commercial interrupts your show or about how many inserts are in your daily newspaper. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't appreciate making an extra dollar. If you hold fast to the idea of the separation of church and state and point your finger at Christians for getting involved, just remember they are citizens as well. Their input is as valid and welcome as anyone else's. If people are pushing for things they don't believe in, they have a right to voice their opinion, lobby legislatures, make commercials...etc. Everyone does.

These are just a few of the things that slip our minds when we're talking religion. Forgetting the little details about hypocrisy and double standards that we so like to heap on the Christians. I'd like to know why we hate them so much when all they are doing is trying to spread more good than harm, which is more than I can say for other people in this world.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:16 pm
you'd have a hard time convincing me that fundamentalists spread more good than harm.

i too honestsly don't care if a christian gets drunk and hires a prostitute. but i despise the christians who flaunt their beliefs like they're all mother teresas and then get drunk and hire prostitutes. in other words i hate people who openly and proudly display their hypocrisy. they deserve to be ridiculed if only for giving good christians a bad image.

but you are right, michael, that other religions get off easy. at least in the west. i guess many westerners have gotten so disgusted by christianity that they're willing to trade it for anything else.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:24 pm
Hi and welcome MichaelAllen.

I agree with you about those religious folks who can live and let.....but I'm not talking about those guys here. I'm talking about the John Ashcrofts of the world, Jerry Falwells these folks at the Family Research Council. I don't fault the Evangelicals for making money.......I wouldn't dream of it.......I wouldn't dare, and I don't mind if they believe strongly or even if they are hypocrites........what I mind are those who want to dominate the government of this country........those whose ideas and intended actions threaten our civil rights. I consider them to be a threat to our liberty. thus, this thread.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:30 pm
PDiddie......

Great article.......thanks. I don't for a minute claim that all Christian Evangelicals are out to control our lives. I even know a few who are against getting involved with government. I know many of the folks this article talks about. But there are enough, while being a minority, they are motivated enough and organized enough..........they're in position to change our democratic way of life for decades to come.

I'll read the article. Thanks for it.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:34 pm
Everybody has an agenda -- I find the religious right has an agenda that does not represent the majority of the American people and they have been and will continue to be exposed for their hypocrisy. Not to discount that some people need religion, it's just trying to tell the rest of us that we must want religion that is misguided.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:35 pm
realjohnboy......I'll find the recording of the show, thanks......but you know, that's not a fair question the reporter asked. A religion is not the same as race. But also, it's one thing to hold certain beliefs, which is fine with me, it's another to try to force others to hold those beliefs as well.......and even if they don't hold them, to try to force their version of morality on others. This is not freedom, it's subversion, tyranny.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 01:33:39