Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics

Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:

This isn't any different then what we boomers did to gain our power in the 60's and 70's. Women became more involved in local politics, gays got elected to positions of political power, workers got involved in union organizations, environmentalists boycotted many companies in protest of business practices. We felt just as righteous in those causes.

Give it some thought and see if you can articulate why the actions of the Christians is so foreign and outrageous to you when compared to the similar things we did. This is the heart of the issue that Lola is wanting to explore with this thread.

All I've been saying.

But, when you tell me to take a look beyond my backyard, I had started that way. These discussions tend to lead us in certain ways and a discussion of town councils and school boards did arise. In looking over the issue in a broad sense, my original statements reflected the same sentiments in your quote above. Why do Christians get held at different standards than others doing the same things? I'll say again something I said before - we can only see things as wrong when people we oppose do them.

0 Replies

Just throwing my two cents in here:

In Europe, "evangelical" does not suggest - as it does in the United States - a particular kind of religious conservatism or fundamentalism, but simply means "of the Gospel", was a term frequently used at the time of the Reformation to describe Lutheran and Reformed churches and is now used e.g. for the "Evangelical Church of Germany" (institutional form chosen by a community of 24 Lutheran, Reformed and United regional churches). (26,340,000 members in Germany = as many as Catholics.)
EKD English website

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

But, when you tell me to take a look beyond my backyard, I had started that way. These discussions tend to lead us in certain ways and a discussion of town councils and school boards did arise. In looking over the issue in a broad sense, my original statements reflected the same sentiments in your quote above. Why do Christians get held at different standards than others doing the same things? I'll say again something I said before - we can only see things as wrong when people we oppose do them.

I'm still very interested in what Pistoff's response will be, but I really don't think it is a we/they thing between the methods used by Christians and non-Christians. In Europe, they are having similar struggles with the balance of political powers there between followers of Islam and the Christians.

If, as you say, it is true that we can only see things as wrong when people we oppose do them, why is there such a strong objection in Europe and the US to Islam followers participating in the same grassroots actions you listed as the innocent actions of a Christian mother and grandmother? Why are Christians holding followers of Islam to a different standard of power and influence then they wish for themselves?

0 Replies

Logic
Of course I see cerain things as wrong. When people are advocating things that I don't like and seem to be succeeding in making those things laws or rules or even peer pressure that I must adhere to, it makes me want to figure out how I can stop them from succeeding in their aims.

I don't like blatant authority dictating my life. I especially don't like it when people are domineering. This is most likely why I am real focused on the Right Wing Christians. If it were Muslims, Socialists, Neo cons, Hindus, Democrats Mormons or any other group that were trying to dominate the Govt. I would feel the same way.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

It's all the Christian fanatic's fault? It's this screwed up because those Christian fanatics don't get involved enough to balance out the two extremes.

IMO the issue isn't so much the "Christian Fanatic" or any other religious person but the use of religious theory in the justification for change that bothers so many (myself included).

If there is a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage for example, I think most people would be willing to listen and discuss. But when people stand up and use "it's an abomination against God!" as their only rationale for opposition they earn the scorn they get. Claiming things are "against God's will" has zero meaning to someone that doesn't believe in God or sees their God as being a very different thing than you do.

0 Replies

fishin

That's right. But it points to a broader and more profound threat than MichaelAllen suggests.

It isn't just the epistemological problem (we know it is true because it is so written in scripture, or because the pope ain't going to be wrong).

More deeply, it is the threat which Isasaih Berlin talks of in "two kinds of liberty"...the theoretical justification for (indeed, the moral responsibility of) over-riding individuals' will and stated values.

When someone believes that they know better than you what is good or right for you, even if you don't yet appreciate this and speak out against it, licence is offered for the most egregious forms of coercion.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

If, as you say, it is true that we can only see things as wrong when people we oppose do them, why is there such a strong objection in Europe and the US to Islam followers participating in the same grassroots actions you listed as the innocent actions of a Christian mother and grandmother? Why are Christians holding followers of Islam to a different standard of power and influence then they wish for themselves?

First of all, I hold the grassroots actions as the way to get things done. I don't find anything wrong with a person taking an office of some sort in order to push one's own beliefs. That's how it's done. But, I would like to know what grassroots you specifically mean. I'm not aware of any that would compare to a mother running a PTA meeting.

Second, Christians are subject to the same blindness we all experience from time to time. It is a complex world, hard to see your own actions in comparision to others as wrong. Everytime someone points a finger at someone, it comes swinging right back. In this discussion as well as in any other public debate. Ironically, most people who are pointing their fingers at Christians hardly even know what Christians are talking about or why they are saying those things. Hardly anyone sitting down and watching an entire program of the 700 club or anything. Most splinters of truth people receive are the chopped up versions handed to them from the media. Hardly anything to go by when the story is slanted from the beginning.

0 Replies

I posted this on another thread, but I'll put it here too, the joke's too good not to share

Quote:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091850/

0 Replies

There are still Christian clerics in the US that try to spread anti-Muslin sentiment. I've seen them and heard them and haven't observed anyone with a more enclosed peanut brain in my lifetime.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Quote:

...the use of religious theory in the justification for change that bothers so many (myself included).

If there is a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage for example, I think most people would be willing to listen and discuss.

When a Christian says, "It is an abomination to the Lord" or "It is God's will" I wonder myself if that Christian knows any intelligent way of persuasion. The fact is that they are so separated from secular reasoning, they can't put anything in words that we would understand. But, basing your system of beliefs on religious theory is more than just "will" and "abomination." Religious theory discusses different things with reasoning that is factual and true, but hard to understand by a freedom seeking society. Take gay marriage as an example. Christians will state that gay marriage opposes family. A connection between man and woman is the only natural way of reproduction and that it's not possible in a gay marriage. Arguing this on some other platform is fruitless. Shifting the argument to the fact that some straight couples can't have children, that adoption is a beautiful solution, that some gay marriages consist of loving and caring people as the very definition of family is also forgetting the fact that it is not natural. These citations of flaws and arguments of synthetic solutions don't address that gay marriage is not natural. No other species in the animal kingdom has issues with same sex relations. A gay couple might be able to find absolute peace and harmony in such a situation. They might live perfectly normal lives. And good for them.
What people fail to see about Christians is that they forgive. They don't like certian things and they forgive. There are certain things about this world I don't like. I have to live with that. We all have the right to enter public debate and voice our opinion. If you see fanatic Christian activity as trying to be domineering and dictate the way we live, I see everyone trying to do that. And I don't have to listen. I don't even have to care. Which is the real problem you face. Don't get mad at people for caring enough to do something, they make a small percentage of people anyway. Get angry with the people who won't do anything despite hitting them over the head with reason.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

More deeply, it is the threat which Isasaih Berlin talks of in "two kinds of liberty"...the theoretical justification for (indeed, the moral responsibility of) over-riding individuals' will and stated values.

When someone believes that they know better than you what is good or right for you, even if you don't yet appreciate this and speak out against it, licence is offered for the most egregious forms of coercion.

I'm hesitant to go as far as Berlin simply because I see the same thing as happening on either side of any issue. A quick review of pretty much any thread in the politics forum here on A2K will bear that out. Pretty much every one holds views that they think hold insight that others are ignoring or missing and they argue that things should or shouldn't be done because it's good for you (or society as a whole) even when the you (or any other opposition) don't want it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Don't get mad at people for caring enough to do something, they make a small percentage of people anyway. Get angry with the people who won't do anything despite hitting them over the head with reason.

MichaelAllan

Too simplistic, I think. It depends very much upon what that 'something' might be.

Quote:

that gay marriage is not natural. No other species in the animal kingdom has issues with same sex relations.

Not sure of what you argue here. Many other animal species demonstrate 'homosexual' activity, as of course, do all human societies. And consequently, the term 'natural' becomes quite incoherent.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
that gay marriage is not natural. No other species in the animal kingdom has issues with same sex relations.

Not sure of what you argue here. Many other animal species demonstrate 'homosexual' activity, as of course, do all human societies. And consequently, the term 'natural' becomes quite incoherent.

I'm just bookmarking, but I am looking forward to Michael's response to this comment of Blatham's.

0 Replies

blatham,
If you'd look again.

Quote:

Christians will state that gay marriage opposes family. A connection between man and woman is the only natural way of reproduction and that it's not possible in a gay marriage. Arguing this on some other platform is fruitless. Shifting the argument to the fact that some straight couples can't have children, that adoption is a beautiful solution, that some gay marriages consist of loving and caring people as the very definition of family is also forgetting the fact that it is not natural. These citations of flaws and arguments of synthetic solutions don't address that gay marriage is not natural. No other species in the animal kingdom has issues with same sex relations. A gay couple might be able to find absolute peace and harmony in such a situation. They might live perfectly normal lives. And good for them.

Christians would say. The Christian argument being presented here with a slightly different flavor than it is an "abomination." Although I know of very little homosexual activity in the animal kingdom other than the human being, I'm inclined to believe you may be aware of some.

0 Replies

The fervor of the Christian right and the fascist tendencies of the current regime of the government are no coincidence...............

To have a President of the US (un or not) claim they are acting under the strictures of god (small "g" intented) is very disturbing.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

blatham,
If you'd look again.

Quote:
Christians will state that gay marriage opposes family. A connection between man and woman is the only natural way of reproduction and that it's not possible in a gay marriage. Arguing this on some other platform is fruitless. Shifting the argument to the fact that some straight couples can't have children, that adoption is a beautiful solution, that some gay marriages consist of loving and caring people as the very definition of family is also forgetting the fact that it is not natural. These citations of flaws and arguments of synthetic solutions don't address that gay marriage is not natural. No other species in the animal kingdom has issues with same sex relations. A gay couple might be able to find absolute peace and harmony in such a situation. They might live perfectly normal lives. And good for them.

I'm really don't understand this response at all, Michael. You seemed heading in one direction -- and then veered off in another.

Let me make a statement -- and if you would, I'd love for you to comment on it.

STATEMENT: I do not see how it is possible to be a Christian -- and not consider homosexual activity to be anything less than an abomination.

Your take????
Christians would say. The Christian argument being presented here with a slightly different flavor than it is an "abomination." Although I know of very little homosexual activity in the animal kingdom other than the human being, I'm inclined to believe you may be aware of some.

0 Replies

There's a recent book entitled "Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History" (by James A. Morone) that I heartily recommend to anyone interested in reading how this theme has played out in US history. Suffice it to say that recent trends aren't new: It started with Cotton Mather. Morone's thesis is that authorities use the notion of sin and fear of the outsider (usually conflated) to whip up support for the current regime. He's persuasive, to say the least.

And may I add my compliments to Lola for creating this thread!

0 Replies

Gay marriage is not the topic. It was chosen because someone threw it in to the mix, so I took it to provide an example of logical argument rather than "fire and brimstone" that so many Christians get caught doing.

fishin' wrote:

Quote:

If there is a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage for example, I think most people would be willing to listen and discuss.

Now, we've been choking on that gnat long enough. But, to step up to the challenge.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

I do not see how it is possible to be a Christian -- and not consider homosexual activity to be anything less than an abomination.

Your take????

I only maintain a few Christian beliefs. My own beliefs as opposed to any Christian beliefs begin with the fact that all people deserve the right to seek out life, liberty and happiness as long as no one else is hurt in the process. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and I'm not opposed to it.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
I do not see how it is possible to be a Christian -- and not consider homosexual activity to be anything less than an abomination.

Your take????

I only maintain a few Christian beliefs. My own beliefs as opposed to any Christian beliefs begin with the fact that all people deserve the right to seek out life, liberty and happiness as long as no one else is hurt in the process. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and I'm not opposed to it.

Thank you for that response, Michael.

You appear to be an enlightened individual.

I suspect you do not identify yourself as a Christian -- or if you do, you do not mean that you are a Christian the way most people who identify themselves as Christians mean it.

Am I correct in that? I ask, because I am an agnostic -- but I probably could get away with calling myself a Christian, because I identify with much (by no means, all) of what Jesus taught.

0 Replies

what would the point of gay marriage in a religious context mean?

a christian can be for gay civil unions (under whatever title you want to call it) but still want to perserve the "sanctity of marriage" between a man and a woman in a religious context. that is the public position of most of the democratic candidates for president.

a christian can even be against anti-sodomy laws even though sodomy is explicitly condemned by christianity. bill o'reilly takes such a position classifying it as a privacy issue.

0 Replies

Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know