Associated Press
Radical TV preacher Pat Robertson
To put it mildly, the religious right movement has fallen on hard times. Its wishes were largely ignored by their Republican allies during the Bush/Cheney era; they were dejected by President Obama's win in 2008; and these social conservatives were never especially comfortable with Tea Partiers, whom they saw as overly secular.
But conditions deteriorated further in 2012, which the movement had seen as a comeback opportunity. Not only did the religious right's allies lose badly in state and national elections, but voters moved to the left on social issues, including marriage, which appeared on the ballot. Evangelical efforts from Ralph Reed and the Graham family failed miserably.
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told the New York Times, "It's not that our message -- we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong -- didn't get out. It did get out. It's that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them."
The question is what socially-conservative, politically-active evangelicals intend to do about it. Jim Daly, who succeeded James Dobson as head of Focus on the Family, is answering the question in an exceedingly provocative way (thanks to Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).
...Daly threw the considerable resources of his organization - which opposes abortion and same-sex marriage - behind the campaign to defeat President Barack Obama, paying for millions of mailers that listed the presidential candidates' positions on issues that were important to "values voters."
In the aftermath of the election, however, Daly is willing to say things that few conservative evangelical leaders are likely to say. He believes, for instance, that the Christian right lost the fight against same-sex marriage in four states in part because it is on the losing side of a cultural paradigm. He says the evangelical community should have been considering immigration reform years ago, "but we were led more by political-think than church-think."
And, along the same lines, he argues that evangelicals have made a mistake by marching in lock step with the Republican Party.
Daly specifically told McClatchy, "If the Christian message has been too wrapped around the axle of the Republican Party, then, (a) that's our fault, and, (b) we've got to rethink that."
That's a rather striking thing for the head of Focus on the Family to say out loud.
This won't surprise those familiar with the evangelical community, but there's long been a quiet divide among many social conservatives. Most believe strongly in positioning themselves as foot soldiers in a culture war, combating perceived social ills -- church-state separation, reproductive rights, sexual-orientation diversity, etc. -- while electing like-minded candidates to public office.
But there's another group who take seriously John 18:36, in which Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." For these Christian conservatives, the idea of aligning their faith with a political party and political ideology has always been a poor fit -- their focus is less on this kingdom, and more on the next.
This latter group was largely pushed aside years ago as radical televangelists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell became influential political players, and the religious right became a legitimate, full-fledged movement, but Daly's comments suggest the "not of this world" contingent hasn't disappeared, and may yet soon grow.
After all, social conservatives are on the wrong side of history, and the arc will continue to bend towards justice whether they like it or not. The religious right can stubbornly refuse to accept this, and fight a culture war against a more tolerant American mainstream, or they can reconsider the underlying merit of their mission.
I don't want to overstate matters. The obituary for the religious right has been written many times, but the political movement, to varying degrees, has persevered through difficult times before. It's easy to imagine Republican presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020 showing up at the same Christian conservative conferences, repeating the same pandering talking points to the same evangelical activists.
But this is an old, white, out-of-touch movement, lacking credible leaders and direction, being left behind (no pun intended) by a culture that's younger, more diverse, more secular, and more progressive on social issues.
It may very well be time to give up on changing this "kingdom," because it's unlikely to ever meet their standards and expectations.
Leave a Comment:
OR because the majority of voters believe in that old canard 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE'...You can still be religious and think the government should keep it's nose out of 'moral values'.
Absolutely--this is the problem I have with the religious right. They do not respect the constitutional rights of those who believe differently.
I've argued with some that making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. And it seems they are OK with that continuing as long as it is not legal. They feel having it legal puts their "stamp of approval" on it.
The principle of laicism extends further- the worldly realities versus churchly ideals relationship of the laity to those who are in the church and are bound by church law. The style of this nexus between the outer social order with the inner churchly ideals is the crucial question that differentiates fundamentalist sects from the multitude of more moderate sects in the worlds religions.
What is fascinating is how are oblivious fundamentalists are to the way their messages come across to others.
Take a look at Stewart's interview of Mike Huckabee last night. In it, he shows a Huckabee advertisement dominated by visuals of darkness and fire, a chthonic scene hammering home the message about the consequences of not voting in favor of social issues the way the Christian Right sees them.
Huckabee had no idea what image the advertisement sends to people who are not immersed in Christian scripture. He tried to explain to Stewart who like most Americans took the meaning as: You are going to hell if you don't vote the way we think you should vote. Huckabee struggled to explain that the imagery was not intended to portray hell, but a blacksmith's shop where you forge your identity with the decisions you make. Actually, Huckabee probably was not lying or being disingenuous about this. I understand the passage he means. This trope is familiar to lay audiences- it appeared in Dickens' Christmas Carol where the Ghost of Marley describes the chains that he forged for himself one link at a time- the consequences of which followed him into the afterlife.
But that is not the way the advertisement's visual message comes across to average viewers who would not think first of the biblical (corinthians) / Dickens trope. Anyway- so Huckabee and Stewart had no comprehension of the imagery that the other was perceiving.
Then Stewart tried to engage Huckabee at the level of common social ground regarding stable family relationships being important. But Huckabee would have nothing of it. There would be no common ground- when he pointed out that he was simply advocating the biblical standard for marriage, Stewart immediately pounced, pointing out that the biblical standard was polygamy. Huckabee quibbled, pointing to portions of the Bible which favor his position.
And that is how it goes for these fundamentalists. The Bible is kind of an I Ching for any point of view they care to hold. The quotation is selective ignoring the multiple levels of context that biblical study demands. Only using interpretations that favor their position. The fact is that these fundamentalists have little regard for the discipline and rigor of theological study. Jim Bakker for example had an immense Televangelist ministry but admitted the first time he read the bible completely was when he was sent to jail. On "proving" the Bible is against homosexuality, these uneducated phonies point to a passage that also suggests that it is good and moral to give your virgin daughters to rapists at your door.
Not to mention the disconnect when no question is asked about just why a virgin DAUGHTER would be an acceptable substitute to a gay man! It wasn't about homosexuality at all but the ill treatment of strangers and the men were perverted not gay.
"...Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." ..."
Jesus also said the kingdom of heaven will not appear with great signs so they can say it is here...(or there) for the kingdom of God is in the midst of you. Which means it is within you and your fellows...a way of thinking. Making "... and behold, I saw a new heaven and a new earth" have a more pointed meaning for the new earth comes because of a change of consciousness and how we view and treat each other.
These evangelicals need to get off the spreading fear and faith through fear of punishment mode and start uniting people with love and good deeds. Meaning stay out of politics and stay into humnanity and humanitarism .
This may be the single best group of comments ever posted.
Thank all of you.
The Evangelicals lost because President Obama framed the issues rightly as civil rights and equality issues rather as narrow moral issues.
Thanks to the posters here. Very entertaining!
And let's not forget that Jesus Himself laid down a directive that there had to be a wall of separation between religion and the state:
Mark 12:17; Matthew 22:21.
And He showed He was serious in the only incident I recall when he got genuinely angry: driving the money changers out of the Temple.
Ralph Reed and the rest of you heretics, begone!!
Something like 13% of kids raised conservative christian remain with the church after becoming adults, so maybe there is an end to their madness.
They see the enormous hypocrisy first hand- the adultery, the crime, the bigotry, all the disgusting conduct. No doubt, they say to themselves, "If this is the 'religious' way of life, if this is 'Christianity,' I want no part of it."
Um. Hypocrites exist everywhere, and you can't say that the 87% that fall away from the church all had hypocritical parents or leaders, you should know better than that. It is a much more complicated issue, and by the way, many of them go back to regular church attendance when they have children of their own.
The truth of the matter is the Christians that get the attention are the ones who yell and bellyache and scream and sow discord and hate. There are plenty of decent, caring, socially responsible Republicans, but they aren't the ones that make the news either so you don't hear a lot about them. That happens everywhere.
Jesus rejected and rebuked church leaders that were hypocritical and committed adultery and were bigots. Being Christian doesn't mean trying to force a country to follow your religion. The bible says Christians shall be known by their LOVE so if you don't see love coming from them, they aren't really Christians are they? Just sayin'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Yes Tracy...not only that but Mathew 7:15-20 also warns of false teachings and false prophets (leaders)...it seems we face a lot of falseness from the so-called Evangelical Christians...I agree with the statement that there are quite a few Christians who do live the Creed and reject the hypocrisy of the more vocal leaders...there in lies the danger to the souls of the mis-lead...to not to be able to distinguish and recognize this deception...that reminds me of a story my mom told me a long, long time ago...about an Angel Who Was Cast Out...
I was absolutely pro-life before I left my Catholic high school and went to college. Albeit, my university was run by Christian Brothers, University was a helluva lot more about education than they were about religion. You had options to take different religious courses, not just Catholic ones, as your "Religion" class. No Atheism classes, though. They haven't progressed that much. The point being, my university taught enough about thinking for yourself that my lifetime of Pro-Life upbringing began turning into Pro-Choice. Now I'm totally Pro-Choice.
No Atheism classes, though
What, there were no Science classes? ;-)
There are southern red states (AL, MS, OK for instance) in which Romney got fewer votes than McCain. Did some of the evangelicals stay home rather than vote for a Mormon?
Romney also got 500,000 fewer votes in CA than McCain did. The GOP should really be concerned about that.
Romney also got 500,000 fewer votes in CA than McCain did.
Hopefully that means 500,000 idiots left California moved back to the crazy white people states.
The discrepancy in GOP turnout in CA could be partly due to the Mormon church's backing of Prop 8. The LDS church threw a whole lot of money into defeating Prop 8 and there are those who will not forget. There's also way fewer GOP-ers in CA now than even 4 years ago.
Romney got less MORMON votes than McCain. Seriously. Good for them.
There is a strain of the religious right in every right winger. They have been the most reliable and punctual activists over the long haul. It's hard to quantify this, the lost influence of these people could be the end of the party. Sure, rich people donate to the right wing, but these folks do the leg work.
The Religious Right Wingers think the TeaBaggers are overly secular?
Will the Mind Fornication never end?
Part of the reason I can't consider voting for a Bagger is because of their nonsecular stance.
.
Tea Party Republicans and the Religious Right both end up with the same candidate--the Republican.
So all of them need to appeal to varying degrees to both sets of constituents. Sure there is overlap of fiscal and social conservatives, but it's not all one bunch.
"An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them."
Thank God(dess)! :-)
I'd like to see it get back to the way it was in the 1950s when I was a kid. You'd see "those tents" and "those people" out on the edge of town, doing their holy rolling while the rest of us laughed at them to their faces. Let the South take its crazy holy-roller, speaking-in-tongues, snake-handling religion back to the South where they're dumb enough to believe that crap.
So much for America being "tolerant" and having "freedom of religion." I bet you don't talk that way about the "Great Spirit" or the "Goddess" or how dumb Native Americans or Pagans are for having their beliefs and celebrating them. You want Christians to be respectful of others and their beliefs, then you should be, too. Or else you are the hypocrite.
To credit secularization as the cause of the religious right's failure in 2012 is to both overstate a bit how 'secular' America is and to ignore completely the diversity of Christianity.
The religious right likes to pretend that is is the only expression of Christianity in the world, and too many on the left like to pretend rigt along with them. But any view of Christianity which does not include things like this, this, this or this (just to throw out a few things at random) is restricted to the point of blindness. You don't have to agree with or even like these other perspectives, but you can't deny that they exist.
Most believe strongly in positioning themselves as foot soldiers in a culture war, combating perceived social ills -- church-state separation, reproductive rights, sexual-orientation diversity....
...Helping the poor, healing the sick, encouraging love between neighbors.
But of course their (Lack of) actions betray their true goals.
I live in Vermont and this state should be prime Republican country - after all, we're very rural and overwhelmingly white protestant; yet Vermont is one of the most liberal states. My 18-year-old son explained that the reason Vermont is NOT Republican is because the religion practiced here is not evangelical, and evangelical voters are dominant commonality in the geography of the electorate. I think he's right so what might this tell us about the Republican party if the evangelical vote becomes less and less reliably Republican? It's a large headache for Republicans and a possible opportunity for Democrats. How can Democrats communicate a message of economic opportunity that appeals to evangelicals? Is it possible?
The bigger question might be, why would Democrats want to appeal to evangelicals? And would it be a more appealing economic opportunity or more appealing social justice programs?
Not many people who would prefer a Christian Taliban in charge....
Aren't these the same people who argue that nations who have Muslim theocracies are a bad idea? Why would having a Christian theocracy be any better? Religion and government should not mix period. It is even explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights- 1st Amendment. It is about time they came to this realization. The Bible definitely does not encourage it, as only the heavenly government will right the wrongs on the planet, according to the New Testament. Human government is just a poor imitation, according to the Bible. Good that this is happening, if it sticks, IMO.
Well you see, a Christian theocracy is better than a Muslim one because of... erm... well the Bible you understand is... and... *mumble mumble*
They see Muslim theocracy as bad because they view their path as the one truth.
They just cannot see that they, too, wish to establish Sharia law. The source is similar too given the Koran and Old Testament are so very similar. Insane no matter who or how!
Kragg - How is that different from the Catholic Church regarding itself "the One True Church"???????
The end for the religious right was inevitable, I think, when they lost their moral compass and embraced an ends-justifies-means philosophy in a drive to achieve their social goals no matter what.
I was first able to study and document this phenomenon in the early 90s, when a school I taught at in Arkansas (Arkansas Governor's School) came under attack by the American Family Association. It got worse when Governor Clinton announced his run for president and some of the forces behind the Willie Horton video came to Arkansas to make a propaganda film about our school as a smear issue that was supposed to be Clinton's "Willie Horton" (this was before Gennifer Flowers).
Our director gave access to our school to AFA and several Little Rock Christian TV station, as the issues raised in the film consumed many discussions in the teacher's lounge and amongst the students (the summer school emphasized debate and critical thinking, and introducing gifted rising HS seniors to leading intellectual movements and theories not normally covered in high school-- AFA objected to us precisely for that, claiming that we were trying to brainwash kids to be "little Bill Clinton clones," vegans, and to become gay and commit suicide).
So these "fact-finding" teams descended upon us, and although I worked in the hot-button critical thinking area, my classes were a bit less volatile than my colleagues who were busy doing Descartes and the existence of god. I was working with Plato's Cave, witch hunts and hysteria, and more current-event-themed topics. So they stuck the TV crews in my classes.
Our students were also actively engaged in the debate, and it was through one of them I found the key to understanding how these supposedly religious people could embrace the scare tactics being used in the video about our school (it was all set to a backdrop of Carmena Burana, so I know the feeling of being portrayed so villainously).
The AFA people were urgently engaging the kids in the cafeteria during lunch, and the kids, fully "brainwashed" into critical thinking by our school, were excited by and well-armed for debate. They sought it out (I will love those wonderfully brilliant kids to the day I die).
So a typical debate started with the AFA person claiming the kids are brainwashed by people with greater intellectual abilities and more reading.
The student says, "No, no one here tells us WHAT to think. They want us to question everything, especially them, and make up our own minds."
To which, the AFA woman pounced in victory, certain she had just discovered the VERY THING her fact-finding mission was worried it would find: "Oh, so they're NOT teaching you right from wrong?!"
Indicted. Convicted. Guilty. An AFA team shows up at our school to find out whether we are brainwashing children. Upon discovering that students are not being "programmed" to follow the "authority" of any one intellectual theory or POV, but are instead being given tools of critical analysis to use in evaluating all kinds of theories, the team finds what they're looking for.
The religious right is NOT against brainwashing at all. They are adamantly for it. They just demand that their POV being the one taught as the final unquestioned authority. In their minds (that whole rubber-glue failure of imagination they have, where everything they accuse their opponents of is a psychological projection of things they wholly embrace), because all they know is authoritarian brainwashing, EVERYTHING has to be a form of authoritarian brainwashing.
And to achieve that end, they happily got in bed with a whole host of devils, from Ralph Reed to Grover Norquist to Jack Abramoff to Karl Rove. They cheered when Pat Robertson declared the ascendant George W. Bush both the Supreme Court-annointed literal leader of the land AND our SPIRITUAL leader too (because, who wouldn't follow W's spiritual lead in all things?)
And eight years of unquestioned reverence for leaders who condescend to us as stupid children ensued. And the students I worked so hard to develop an intellectual toolbox that could be used to evaluate ideas and proofs found themselves watching the decisions of a nation that used as a case to go to war against Iraq, the fact the Saddam Hussein couldn't PROVE ABSENCE, couldn't prove to US satisfaction that he DIDN'T have WMDs.
There's not a student in one of my classes who would have been able to float an argument thus-reasoned.
Nor were they without the acumen to see that Bush's "You're either with us or against us" argument was a false dilemma fallacy.
Yet a standard was created by fawning journalism stenography around spurious reasoning, a standard where people advanced or were promoted despite not being able to think their way out of a paper bag.
Not "elites" or experts in the formulation of Chris Hayes (whom I picked on the other day because he ended a powerful essay on climate change with his own "you are either with us or against us formulation," undermining his whole argument-- he claims in the name of impact-- I told him the impact is lost on people who know and understand that the logic is manipulative), but THINKING people, regardless of an "elite" casting that still feels funny to me while reading Hayes' book (I like the Plutocrats book better).
There's no meritocracy in the promotion of unthinking and unread people by school credential, age demographic, or salary range (read, cheap and young!). What might look perfectly reasonable on paper results in invisible losses, as workforces are hollowed out and dumbed down. Moral compasses cease to matter. Bottom lines are all.
And the first to corrupt themselves was the religious right, when they embraced ends-justifying-means tactics to serve up an authoritarian party line and call it a victory, instead of actually persuading people in the marketplace of ideas and EARNING their hearts and loyalties.
Authoritarianism, as a meta-ethical position itself is just a milder form of the meta-ethical principle of Force/Power (as a means of motivating ethical behavior). Both remove free will and agency from the realm of the ethical actor.
They fell to the Sin of Greed...
Greed? That was the 80s evangelicals.
What motivates them now is the amassing of power and influence, and the rhetorical ascendancy of an authoritarian, programmable world view.
In the overall scheme of things, such power is worth far more than simply wampum.
Feel better now?
Now, what were you trying to say?
Hmmm, what does one call a swarm of trolling? There should be a name for that.
I have to say, in the realm of run-on sentences (which can be a genuine art form) we may have here a legitimate contender! Cool!
I expect Concerned four to start posting some wing of Catholicism soon. Concerned's first post was 11/10 and IrishPat's last post was 11/5. I think IrishPat was suspended for a week.
I refrained from saying more than this. We do have a "flurry", swarm sounds about right, though.
Well I thought we were all to "gather" at the manger so what's the problem? Then again if you want to play some literal card there should be no wise men there because (if one believes the text) they didn't arrive until the child was about 2 years old and certainly NOT at the manger nor numbered at three. Much of the "traditional" Christmas imagery is pure fiction to get upset over what figures are displayed is to miss the baby for the bathwater. The baby (Jesus) was supposed to be the focal point and that is the story of love, forgiveness and reconciliation not a guest list for a baby shower!
Concerned, you are achieving nothing but disrespect for Christian principle by conducting yourself in this manner.
In an All in the Family Episode, Edith says to Archie that it is none of their business about Gloria's infidelity to Mike.
At the core of Archie's response is atheism. Unlike Edith, he puts faith in his repressive powers, and those of the state, rather than faith in God.
This principle is illustrated by the Lord in the example of the attempted stoning of the adulterer in John 7. In the same way, evangelical fundamentalists advocating repressive use of Caesar's power betrays the atheism of the stoners of Jesus's time. They should be admonished at every opportunity for their un-Christian behavior.
When our Lord confronted the stoners, they could have easily have said the same thing to him, accusing him of not wanting to hear about Sin.
Shame on you.
That was the Lord's point. Fundamentalists love to point at the sin of others as a mechanism to avoid confronting the sin that each of us choose to do. It is the dodge that the enemy uses to persuade people to continue sinning all the while hiding behind the pious cloke of the stone thrower. The Lord wants us to focus on our dominion over our own actions: our choice to sin or not sin.
You claim there is no war on women. This is nonsense. I am not a member of the church I attend every week because they are SBC and put in their BF&M creed that women are barred from ministry, anti homosexual articles, and the nonsense that Jesus's statements do not have greater weight than other passages in the bible. None of this reactionary nonsense was in the 1963 BF&M, and prior versions active while my Grandfather was alive. The misogynists that came up with this "no women in the ministry" nonsense would not allow any of the great female evangelists of the 20th century to preach.
Their biblical justification is idiotic. It is a misreading of the word anthropos whose dominant sense (see Strongs) is the sense of "all mankind", making these passages as ambiguous as english. So you have to look at the context of each of these passages. Yet misogynists in the SBC interpret as is typical in the world religions- useing religion as a form of subjugation of half of humanity.
It is a barbaric perversion of the Lord's message and exceptionally un-Christian.
The Anglicans-Episcopalians anoint gay pastors and bishops. Is it your view the devil is controlling their actions? Do you think the government should bar them from the ordination of gays in the ministry?
You seem to be unfamiliar with the widespread practice of barring women from the ministry. This is dogma in the SBC, Catholic and preponderance of churches that make up conservative churches, basing the misreadings of some of the letters of Paul. There are rare exceptions, but even among those that permit women such as the Pentecostals, in practice they are a rarity in a largely bigoted community hostile to female authority.
It's a fact of life in conservative churches, so please don't feign ignorance of it.
Right, sandy is a tr0ll. And I'm a leprechaun. Somebody doesn't know the meaning of the word 'tr0ll', and that same somebody is going on ignore right now. I suggest everyone do the same (although I know that will never happen).
The post missed the Catholic Bishops reaction to Obama's reelection. They reiterated their position against gay marriage, abortion and contraception. The Pope issued his statement against gay marriage in conjunction with the bishops. Yet, the Catholic vote went to Obama by a few percentage points. The religious right assumed that the bishops could deliver votes, but that did not happen. I believe that the religious right is splintering and that is a reflection of the age differences. Older people are more rigid in their beliefs so they accept the religious views on these social issues while ignoring the income inequality and poverty issues. These voters are shrinking as a faction in the Republican party while younger voters regardless of their belief in religion are moving toward the progressive views on social issues. These voters do not blindly follow the religious conservative views. Like the immigration issue, this leaves Republicans in a bind over the social positions they have taken. Either way they lose some voters. The question they need to ask is which group of voters can they afford to lose. And the longer the Republicans put off a decision, the more likely they will lose a generation of young voters, women and Hispanics, that are necessary for the Republicans to rebuild the party. They need to disentangle themselves from the Tea Party and the religious right. Going further to the right will assure the Republicans stay in the minority for a long time.
Fungelicals assumed that Catholic laity are similarly beholden to pastoral authority, which as any birth-control-using Catholic (98% of 'em) could tell you, just ain't true. Whoops, there went ecumenism. Dude, where's my vote?
At least the article pointed out that there are the "my way or the highway" Christians and the "we aren't of this world so let's stop telling people what to do" Christians. Obviously a lot of church leaders are quite out of touch.
This isn't Christianity. It is just one more way for somebody to force their opinion on others. Bishops have no right to tell people how to vote. Neither do CEO's.
I should think that the evangelicals should have figured out after Kennedy was elected that Catholics do not vote as a bloc. That was reinforced by public opinion polls of Catholics on contraception after Pope Paul issued his encyclical on the issue and every public opinion poll of Catholics on a whole host of issues. Add to that the bishops are at odds with its own clergy on some of the same issues. This battle with the bishops has been going on since the 1960's. In fact, the recent events of the sex abuse scandal has weakened the bishops influence even more than all the other matters. I can't think of any election that the bishops can say they delivered the Catholic vote.
I grew up and remain Catholic, and I pray and I have a set of belifs that are different from the church but I still believe in God and I don't think it makes me a bad person. That said, the religious right or evangelicals or whatever they want to be called, I often wonder what their teachings have told them or maybe they really don't understand them but demonizing the poor and the sick is unacceptable. And yes, when you call every poor person a leech and a parasite on society and you call those without health insurance basically the same thing and want all safty nets cut but support tax cuts that favor wealth individuals much more than the average person it makes me think I have it wrong sometimes. I don't think Jesus would be liked by the evangelicals if he was on earth in the form of man and attended a service and spoke what his values are.
Thanks, WaH, for the breath of fresh air after Concerned Four's diatribes. I had to scroll down for what seemed like hours while holding my nose. No place to "reply" to the rant. I grew up Lutheran and remain spiritual. My beliefs haven't changed a whole lot, but my faith in organized religion is gone. I still rely on an ethical base of behavior, trying to maintain ideals, values, principles based in the Ten Commandments. Best of luck to you,Wah. It's dangerous out here in the middle of the road (with the dead raccoons and other roadkill) but I think we're onto something. Spiritual Sanity, or some such designation. Concerned Four just declared my family "wrong" and I'm in a quandry.
Right now, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to tell my 2,3 and 4 year old grandkids that their manger scene arrangements are not Christian. As I recall from last year, their construction included the regular cast plus all the zoo and farm animals from their toy chests, several Barbies (some with clothes on, some not), Spider Man, an unidentified monster with no head at all and several bathtub rubber ducks. The kids were really excited that all their favorite playfriends could be together for Jesus' birthday party. Now I have to break it to them that they are not Christian enough, I guess.
Well . . . not on my watch. This year, I'm adding an R2D2 that belonged to their father. And maybe a Barack and Michelle, just for good measure.
Happy Holidays, WaH!
If these folks want to participate in the political system, that's fine with me - as long as they start paying taxes.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -Thomas Jefferson
If anyone here thinks the Evangelicals are bad...start looking at the Mormons...then think about the bullet we just dodged...
The institution of organized religion is failing because society is evolving. It was created by man as a means of control.
In our modern age, with all the information in the world available at our fingertips, with science beginning to understand our natural world in more and deeper ways than ever before, bronze age superstitions just don't cut it anymore. Instilling fear and hatred towards others that are different is not a strategy that will allow for growth in this 21st century.
I am not arguing against the existence of a higher power or spirituality. Just against organized monotheistic religions.
Off the soap box now.
Thank You. I feel that the Christian Right is secular and wordly while all the ones they fight against are evolving into the spiritual being that each one of us truely is. It will take time, but the evangelicals will get there too.
And that is the point that clinches the whole issue! Well said Jontara.
Evangelicals aren't representative of all people who are religious. It is possible to be liberal/progressive/democrat and be religious. Joe Biden had it right, religion does not give anyone the right, real...implied...or imagined, to impose doctrine of their church on others.
The church should be about helping others. Its hands extended in assistance and fellowship, not raised in force and condemnation. Its voice lifted in comfort and consolation, not raised in persecution and vehemence. Its heart open to all in understanding, not harden in denial.
Well stated.
There are liberal Christians, moderates and right wingers. My faith makes room for a wide variety of opinions and a great deal of freedom of choice which is the basis of religious tolerance and key to understanding our Constitutional heritage. It is a great mistake when a religious group or any group for that matter decides to fictionalize history. So it is with the religious right who recast our American political system and the fathers of our country to make them all into their camp of exclusion, and self-righteousness.
I am right there with you.
There are MANY right there with you both. Most of whom are in the camp of I will keep my eyes on my own stuff and allow other to have their own beliefs.
Let's remember though, Robertson has talked of assassinating other country's Presidents as an option (among other things). Wow.
There's plenty in both Constitution and Bible to say we really have to keep them from becoming intertwined.
Astonishing. Can it be? Are they actually coming to terms with the fact that religion and politics shouldn't mix?
I saw a mean trick on Glee recently. The Cheerio in charge of the "Left Behind" club sent a "doubter/questioner" into another room while the rest of them left clothes and belongings in chairs and left the room, staging "the rapture".
This was supposed to convince her she was "left behind".
Maybe we can pull a similar trick on those Religious Right that are attempting to keep political power. Or the folks signing the secession petitions.
Naw, that would just be really cruel.
We can just let them have their own ideas and act pious amongst each other, but they have to leave the rest of us out of their grand schemes. How else will they understand? It's not all churches Temples and synagogues, etc. Just those that want to control and condemn everyone else.
Instead of attempting to seize power and playing (harmful) tricks on people, maybe do something more helpful to their neighbors?
The controllers and leaders could be the ones left behind.
When Governemnt and religion are put together they are the lesser for it.
Gosh maybe these nut jobs should form their own party? I sure do not want them in the democrat party if they keep pushing their idiotic "values".
Why should they leave the Republican Party since they own it? Let's encourage them to not leave home.
When the Religious Right forced a real Christian like Jimmy Carter out of their fold, you just knew that things were not right. It might be wise to get back to helping individuals instead of condemning entire sections of society?
the "not of this world" schtick will only last as long as they think their god is coming back. Since it won't, they'll eventually lose that part of their nonsensical myths and focus on the world again. Or die out. I hope for that last one.