1
   

Separation of Church and State

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:39 am
God, Satan and the Media
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NYTimes Op-Ed 3/4

Claims that the news media form a vast liberal conspiracy strike me as utterly unconvincing, but there's one area where accusations of institutional bias have merit: nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.
That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians.. Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago argues that America is now experiencing a fourth Great Awakening, like the religious revivals that have periodically swept America in the last 300 years. Yet offhand, I can't think of a single evangelical working for a major news organization...President Bush has said that he doesn't believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution...

I tend to disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing religious influence... But liberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable.

[I'm deeply into the inexcusable...T]
0 Replies
 
bree
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:49 am
Tartarin: Your last line ("I'm deeply into the inexcusable") echoes my own sentiments exactly. I had a similar response to another part of Kristof's column, which you didn't quote: "Both sides need to reach out, drop the contempt..." My thought on reading this was: Why do we need to drop the contempt? Isn't contempt an appropriate response to the contemptible?
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:50 am
Tartarin - Thanks for posting that bit of "God, Satan and the Media" by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF. It is nice to see someone in his position, on his "side" of the issue, seeing what I am seeing and agreeing that it is wrong.

bree wrote:
Tartarin: Your last line ("I'm deeply into the inexcusable") echoes my own sentiments exactly. I had a similar response to another part of Kristof's column, which you didn't quote: "Both sides need to reach out, drop the contempt..." My thought on reading this was: Why do we need to drop the contempt? Isn't contempt an appropriate response to the contemptible?

Bree - It sounds like you are stating that you find the religious beliefs of others worthy of your contempt. Am I reading that wrong?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 12:49 pm
Tres -- I don't respect those "religious beliefs" and put that in quotes because I don't believe it's religion -- just a sociocultural hidey-hole for those who are willfully under-educated and terrified of the modern world. It's a "religion" of anger, self-righteousness and rejection. They are, as Bree points out, contemptible -- and pathetic. I say this having had some up-close and personal experiences with a few evangelicals and have found them to be rigid and egotistical, not turned outward as the truly religious are.

That said, I find much of the post-sixties liberal philosophy as expressed in this country as "new age" ("rhymes with sewage!") and as the nanny-State to be almost as awful. A liberal (left-hand side of liberal), I returned to this country after a long absence -- having missed these social developments -- and find them both to be symptoms of deep immaturity. I see them as two sides of the same coin -- both are caught in their own traps of self-righteousness. But generally speaking, liberals are not angry, aggressive, and do not reject social progress, so I still feel myself to be one of them, for the most part.
0 Replies
 
bree
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:21 pm
Tres -- you're reading me wrong only if you read what I said as meaning that I hold all religious beliefs in contempt. What I meant (and should have expressed more clearly) was somewhat more narrow: I think that if a belief is (in my opinion) contemptible, it isn't exempted from being considered as such by reason of the fact that it's a "religious belief". To take an absurd and (I hope) hypothetical example, suppose someone believed that the use of A2K is a social evil that should be criminalized. I'd consider that belief contemptible. Now suppose someone believed that the use of A2K is a moral evil which is prohibited by divine law. The fact that, in the second case, the belief could be described as a "religious belief" would make it no less contemptible, in my view.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 04:39 pm
Tartarin - It concerns me when anyone places him or herself in the position of deciding exactly who is and who is not "truly religious". I do not judge a religion based on what its adherents do, I judge it based on what precepts it teaches, what values those teachings espouse, and how well I think it meets the needs its adherents. (On that basis I find value in most major religions to one degree or another.) Just as I do not judge Islam based on the actions of those who killed thousands on 9/11/01, I think it is wrong for you to judge Pentecostal Christianity based on your bad experiences with some specific people who claim to follow it.

I think it is just as wrong to judge a religion based on its adherents (even if X is true of the majority of adherents) as it is to judge all people of a given ethnic background based on some people of that background.

Bree - Thanks for the clarification. I understand the difference between your having contempt for what I might call a conclusion someone of faith might make based on his or her faith, as opposed to having contempt for the religion itself.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:06 pm
Tres -- It's a little like that justice's definition of porn, don't you think? Back in the '60's, I knew some pentecostals (American) living in Europe -- as missionaries. They were very, very different from the current crop. No, I don't think they're legit. Or let me put it this way, they are just as legit as Bush?!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:12 pm
tres: "I do not judge a religion based on what its adherents do, I judge it based on what precepts it teaches, what values those teachings espouse, and how well I think it meets the needs its adherents."
so i take it you would not judge a school by the students it turns out, only the intentions, values, and precepts of the teachers?
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:16 pm
Tartarin - Again, you might as well be telling me that you've decided you don't like anyone who is black, because you have had bad personal experiences with some people who were black.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:23 pm
Oh, Tres. Get racial. UGH!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:26 pm
i have never encountered a black/brown or yellow person who attempted to dictate to me that i should also be black/brown or yellow.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:28 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Oh, Tres. Get racial. UGH!

I think it is no less ignorant to prejudge the members of a religion than it is to prejudge the members of a race, but you are entitled to disagree.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 05:32 pm
tres; so i am sure in your total non judgement of religions that WICCA deserves the same respect as say Methodists?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 07:30 pm
Right now on WBUR (Boston), a repeat of this morning's show on Fire, Brimstone and Bush's Religious Rhetoric
Host: Tom Ashbrook

Tres -- you play a game of selective quotes and deceptive reinterpretation which I'm just not going to play. Period. No further response. You went too far for me.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 07:43 pm
This WBUR program is well worth a listen -- in part for the evangelical self-delusion. But Harvey Cox is on, too. All in all, from the little I've heard, a good argument on the subject of Bush and holy war. Try and catch the audio later when they post it, if you can.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 07:51 pm
AHA!!! The real Christians are calling the evangelicals "nationalists who are blessing themselves with the term 'Christian'".
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 08:00 pm
Gott mitt uns. Uh oh!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 08:36 pm
I wonder how many in The Administration can sing Onward Christian Soldiers?



timber
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 05:43 pm
The person who came to USa( was a puny old guy without any inhibitions) had enjoyed his birthday before his death.
That person upholds decency, democracy, decorum.
He had spent a few hours in a toilet which is called WHITE HOUSE.
Never be so critical about WMD, or the war..
he is the most powerful resident of Vatican city where there is no problem for employment of PIZZA paucity..
His forerunner made in Poland( the same sales manager) had enjoyed all the blizz of life.

He got a decent farewell by another person who had allowed the sleeping children and mothers to die in NY:
I am a different humanbeing and not an American nor i wish to bea German
Amen
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 05:59 pm
Christian culture has many conflicts.
Seperation of Church from political podium is one..
Is Jesus a political BMW driver?
or a simple camel driver?
Why the hell USA had made much ado about a PRESIDENT's 6 day visit?

Change your constitution and throw the mothers and sisters who had cooked to write this constitution..
I had purposely used mothers and sisters who had not written your constitution.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 12:15:23