A Challenge for Moderate Christians
Published January 30, 2005
On November 3rd, Bob Jones, the president of Bob Jones University (a Christian college most famous for, until recently, prohibiting interracial dating) wrote President Bush a letter congratulating him on his victory. Here are two excerpts from that letter:
The slander that liberals in America are frothing-at-the-mouth atheists who "despise" Christ is, it seems, a common one. I have heard similar comments on Rush Limbaugh's radio show amongst other places (and who could forget Jerry Falwell's rant blaming the 9/11 attacks on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians..., the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America"?). It is an often-repeated fact that America is the most religious country in the west. A poll from none other than Fox News found that 92% of Americans believe in God (compare that to 61% in Britain).In your re-election, God has graciously granted America — though she doesn't deserve it — a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate.
* * * * *
Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ.
Let's take what Fox says at face value (wow, I never thought I would say that) and have a look at the election numbers. There were 117,897,556 votes cast for president in the 2004 election. If 8% of the voters don't believe in God, that makes 9,431,804.48 votes from atheists (we'll assume the half vote came from Florida). John Kerry got 57,288,974 votes. Let's assume all atheists voted for Kerry and none voted for either Bush or Nader (an obviously false proposition). That would mean atheists made up 16.46% of Kerry's vote total. Therefore, fully 83.54% of those who voted for Kerry believe in God.
That makes Democrats far more religious than any Western European nation. The problem, it seems, is that Democrats are more likely to believe in things like epistemological modesty and the separation of church and state. According to Bob Jones and his ilk, it is not belief in God that matters. Rather, it is support for the theology of fundamentalist Christians and the legislative agenda they champion that determines who opposes the "agenda of paganism." In his letter to Bush, Jones outlines the legislative goals of the fundamentalists:
Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life.... You have four years--a brief time only--to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation...Fundamentalist Christians have been largely successful in their efforts to shape the definition of righteousness to their own ends. Their grass-roots organizing and fundraising efforts are legendary. Sadly, the meek voices of liberal and moderate Christians are eclipsed by evangelical bombast. It is critically important for religious people who do not want to be associated with Bob Jones' brand of hate-filled Christianity to stand up and make their voices heard. The most reactionary elements in American society cannot be allowed to own the definition of morality. (I write this fully aware that not all American's are Christians, but because Christians are by far the most dominant group, they carry the greatest responsibility for religious debate in this country.)
- A Challenge for Moderate Christians
- Published: January 30, 2005
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Pete Blackwell
- Pete Blackwell's BC Writer page
- Pete Blackwell's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Read it and weep.
Rev 3:16 Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth.
And how is spitting us out of your mouth going to help build viable political coalitions again?
The words of the Bible are for guiding us to the next world and for governing our individual lives, not for forming national policy to be imposed on other people, you ignorant fascist twit.
Dave
Shark's Nightly Prayer:
"Kill all the fundamentalists!
Kill all of the dogmatists!
Kill all the fanatics!
Kill all the facists!"
And kill all the people who can't SPELL f-a-s-c-i-s-t.
Dave
Referring to Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr. as a "liberal" is much akin to calling Dan Rather a journalist. Sloane was and is a fanatic liberal of the most vile sort. As to whether he is "righteous," I can not comment. But, aside from that dissent, your piece does have merit. Radicals on both ends of the political spectrum are best kept howling to each other in separate caves. But, they do have a purpose; as someone once said, without the radical extremists, how will we know where the middle ground lies?
I'd hardly call Coffin "vile." He's best known as a principled pacifist whose theology is informed by Reinhold Niebuhr.
He was an anti-communist who worked for the CIA in the 50s trying to overthrow Stalin. He was a civil rights activist who was involved in the Freedom Rides in the early 60s.
So far, so good, right?
He was against the Vietnam war and helped draft dodgers and conscientious objectors avoid service. That's what pacifists did.
In the 80s he was active in the anti nuclear weapons movement.
Doesn't seem so vile to me.
Now, Ted Rall and Michael Moore are a different story, but I don't think Rev. Coffin belongs in that group.
Pete,
I stand corrected. I was not as informed about Rev. Coffin as I should have been - expecially before throwing him into the "vile" category. I should be more (should that be Moore?) selective for that group. The whole point of my comments was that I know what you are saying to say and I agree with it. We need much more discussion and much less shouting. We share a great deal of ideas and hopes as Americans and to lump us into "liberal" or "conservative" is artificial as best. Labels only divide us and keep us from exploring the things we hold in common. There is enough fanaticism in the Middle East to last the world, at large, for some time to come. We don't need it here.
Especially when leaders from one side say things like, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for".
Rev 3:16 Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth.
John of Patmos was the prototype for an Internet blowhard, wasn't he.
OTT it may be, but non-fundamentalist Christians do need to proclaim their faith as strongly as the religious right do. And they mustn't be afraid to challenge the Religious Right's heresies, starting with Premillenial Dispensationalism, the west's equivalent to Saudi Wahhabism.
bold reasonable and thought-provoking post, I especially like the point about miscarriages, never thought of that before. The reasonable center will always be larger but less vehement and visible, the "silent majority" aren't really silent but they are, by definition, far less incensed than the enraged ends. But the middle is where the real action is, where things actually happen as opposed to simply screaming about it.
I have never believed in a god nor do I believe that Jesus was ever anything else but a political attivist and as such was put to death as all law-breakers were at that time. Religion has enslaved our world and has been used as a tool by those chasing great power and wealth. I have to confirm that I abore abortion and any deprevation of life including the deaths that the american government have caused off-shore in many foreign countries. The american public are fools who spend their time playing as children. This ignorance is encouraged by those who wish to steal the wealth in other countries. The world is split by religion deliberatley. How can I, who does not have a religious belief live by a set of rules that mean no harm for human beings and wish it only knowledge and success and be a non christian. Call me what you will and you will but I will never move from my stand that each country has the right to live for what they believe in and that christians are as sheep who give up their right as individuals and to prosper from what NATURE has given. You are all hypocrits. I have just heard on our news that the western world attacked Iraq to free the people of that country when that is a lie and this from christians. We, the wagging tail of the barking dog, were told that the war was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The war was to get the tax payers of the countries that participated in the war and die for those who had planned it for many years including 911, to pay taxes so that the oil barrons could reap the rewards and arent they huge. Also the makers of war weapons. CHRISTIANS or idiots, sheep baaa baa. I refuse to be an idiot, your government's idiot who profess to be what you all like to desribe as christians. Personally I am an educated (by nature) intelligent person and would not like to be termed as a CHRISTIAN. I do not agree with homosexuality but only because nature does also. It was once said in my presence "all here are christians" I said "I'm am not a christian as all christians are manipulated fools" and "how dare they put that assumption on my head" as I resented being cast as a sheep. Go on believing in Christianity and go to your wars and make your subjects unintelligent idiots but don't impose it on those of intellect. The powers use religion do not themselves believe it but will use it and it is brilliant as it has enslaved the people as has all religion. BELIEF IN ONE'S SELF is the true knowledge. Man was not made in a God's image. God that you speak of was made in man's image and made by men of power.
Much of what is said here is out of order or needs lots of clarifying. For undisputed truth on the matter and Christianity itself, read the articles, magazines, etc on threeq.com or the books on the following link:
http://groups.msn.com/accommunity/special.msnw
Just copy and paste.
Now I knew that if we waited long enough we could attract both the loony offensive atheists AND the loony offensive fundamentalists. Congratulations guys, now drop the cage and let them tear each other to shreds!
Dave
From Southcoasttoday.com "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire the discipline in their organization," Said Dean, later adding, "The way to win elections is to have a good system."
It took me a little while to find the quote on a site that everyone wouldn't scream was politically biased towards the right. It is on Newsmax and Rightwing news. Newsmax quotes the NY Daily News, but I couldn't find it there.
Heh heh. I worked at the NY Daily News for 3 years. On the website. I'm not too surprised you can't find it there ;) But seriously, they have a paid archive like the NY Times, so you'll have to pay to read their article.
Good choice on sources, by the way. The Daily News is well known to be a mainstream Democratic paper (Mort Zuckerman, the chairman & publisher, can be seen on TV as a commentator from the left). They're kind of a balance to the right-wing NY Post.
As to Howard Dean, who cares what he says? I'm sure we could find a republican who says the same thing about the other side. If Dean's position were the Dems' official policy, that would be another thing. He's just a hothead, as everyone knows.
just keep the flammable materials away from the loon-nexus
Pete - what you say about Dean is kinda true, he is a hothead, but he also wants to be the DNC Chairman!
According to daily kos, Dean won a major victory yesterday on his road to the DNC.
My thought is that Bush is the cowboy hothead. He surrounds himself with yes men/woman.
I wanted Dean for Pres. more than Kerry, I stood behind Kerry when he won the nomination, but I was disappointed and was pretty sure we'd lose. Dean, I do not see as an extremist, but yes, pretty liberal, look at his record in Vermont, it is a glowing endorsement.
When I look at the actions and read the words of Tom DeLay, Frist, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, the WHOLE lot of them, it is clear to me that they hate Democrats, everything we stand for, and will NOT compromise or work together. The gerrymandering of Texas and the like are clear indications of the levels they will go to, to make this a one party nation.
So if Dean said that, then it is nothing more than an appropriate counter to what we face. (and I hope Dean wins the nomination, and I hope people don't let the Right define him like they did Kerry)
if Dean wins, what form will his next meltdown take? Will he take the Democratic party with him?
The right already has defined him...along with a good portion of the democratic party! He's a left wing nut job!
Steve - you can "read" into the things republicans say, but I challenge you to find a quote from a mainstream republican that comes close to "I hate republicans and everything they stand for".
Not rush or coulter or hannity...a pol, you know, someone along the lines of dean, that would utter anything like what those new england dems like to spew!
That 'scream' was funny sounding, but I saw it as trying to 'motivate the troops', and it just backfired. that's not my definition of a meltdown. Are you referring to something else?
Andy, no, I don't want to take your challenge, because I might not find anything. The difference between the Repubs and the Dems, in terms of organizational matters is huge.
Foxnews, Rush, email campaigns from right wing organizations, etc. do go on and on about the 'evils of liberalism'. So why would a Republican have to do it, when they have installed a marketing system to do it for them?
You're right Steve, the WHOLE world is against you! Liberal? I thought you were a "progressive"?
Steve, I have heard many try to explain away the scream, but it scared the shit out of a wide swath of the populace, including many sympathetic politically and as such I would definitely call it a meltdown, certainly from the political standpoint, and if thechairmanship of the Democratic party isn't a political position, I don't know what is.
Andy, how do you get out of my post that I think the whole world is against me? Nonsense.
The majority of the western world is more to the left than the right.
Eric, that is the sentiment of most, to be sure. To me, a meltdown is when you mentally fall apart, and while I know the snide comments that line opened up, I don't think his poorly given scream was due to mentally falling apart. Yes, it was a mistake, yes it cost him, yes people feared it, but I don't see it as a meltdown, he was fired up and ready to go, that's not a meltdown to me.
You all can relax anyway, ever since Clinton, everybody I've ever wanted to win anything anyway, never has.
with that definition of meltdown, I would agree with you, but I would specify this as a "politcal meltdown" in that that one action led to a political collapse by revealing, or giving the perception of revealing, a large hole in his judgment
and with that definition, I could agree with you.
I can't vote republican andy, I don't believe in voting our democracy away into a theocracy.
Andy, if Bush is God (and we all know He is) then Republicans are theocrats.
Yer welcome.
Now I'm confused...well...I've been confused most of my life...but...well...you get the picture!
wouldn't the rigidly hierarchical Catholics be more inclined toward theocracy than Protestants? And aren't the majority of Catholics still Democrats?
sounds like you all are thinking I'm talking about the constituents, no, I'm talking about the people in power.
The Texas Republican Party has written God into their platform, the Republican party has their own fringe element (right wingers) who are far more powerful within their own party than the extremists on the left. The party has people like Scalia and Gonzalez, who openly question the separation of church and state. The party has people who want to put religious symbols in federal buildings, they want public schools to teach their religious moral values, the list just goes on and on.
Constituents don't see all this as a doorway to theocracy, I do.
the big arrow of Western history is away from the entanglement of religion and the power of the state - I do not see that changing despite the efforts of some atavists
many don't, Eric. I do.
I guess this would make Scalia one of those darned 'activist judges'.
if Dean wins, what form will his next meltdown take? Will he take the Democratic party with him?
You know, the guy was governor of Vermont for almost twelve years and nothing untoward happened. This "meltdown" crap is the kind of hyperbole I'd expect from Tom DeLay.
Steve, have you READ the Texas Republican Party platform? It's one of the most amazing, progressive political documents I've read. It's nothing at all like the national party platform. Putting aside a couple of dumb religious planks it's basically a pure manifesto of classic Liberalism. You can find a link to it at http://www.fontcraft.com/csa/comments.php?id=89_0_1_30_C
Dave
Dave, from the link you gave me:
"Unfortunately, to get all those good ideas into the platform they also had to include some extreme positions on social issues [homosexuality]"
and you say:
Putting aside a couple of dumb religious planks
with all due respect, since these dumb planks would affect you and I differently, if I were in Texas, I think it's reasonable to assume we give them different weight.
I'm not going to "put aside" and dismiss as a dumb religious plank, the ostracization of my family, just so you all can use it to further your agenda (as evidenced by the quite I provided above). Gee thanks Republican party, with a thought process like that, I just can't wait to get into the nitty gritty on civil rights issues and your rationale for the Patriot Act.
It's one of the most amazing, progressive political documents I've read.
I'm familiar with it, it is far from progressive.
It's very progressive compared to the national Republican party platform, and while it does have some backwards ideas which have a religious origin, it's remarkably forward thinking on issues of education, government accountability, foreign policy, civil rights and as you seem to have missed, limiting the excesses of the Partiot Act.
No platform will ever be perfect because they always represent the pet issues of a variety of constituent groups, but as party platforms go the Texas Republican one is way above average.
BTW, the link you give is only to the preamble. Have you read the full platform?
Dave
JR, see #37, surely in the political sense he had a meltdown, and the position he is seeking is nothing if not political
and while it does have some backwards ideas which have a religious origin
so you are okay with violating the separation of church and state as long as it gets the really 'cool' stuff passed?
the link you give is only to the preamble. Have you read the full platform?
yes, although if I was to break it down with all that I see wrong with it, it would probably deserve it's own thread, it's kind of off topic here.
From the preamble:
Life begins at the moment of fertilization
human life...created in the image of God
Dumb planks, Dave? We DON'T know when life begins. We DON'T know that God created us in his image. You're just going to let these slide by though, to get other things accomplished? How is this different than putting in the platform Creationism? After all, we don't know that one either, but hey, if it helps to lower taxes, then WTF, is that it?
From the preamble:
We take a principled stand to preemptively defend the citizens of the United States against all foes, foreign or domestic, whose goal is to destroy our American way of life.
Yeah, I got it. I'm a 'domestic foe' whose goal is to destroy your American way of life. I know what throwing 'or domestic' in there means, Dave.
From the preamble:
while opposing judicial activism
Progressivists don't believe that judges are being politically motivated, they believe the judges are ruling on equality.
No, no, I don't see it as progressivist at all, I see it as a doorway to a theocracy.
Steve - as a transplanted southerner I have to tell you that you're not speaking correctly. Several times in this post you've used the words 'you all'. It's ya'll dammit!
I guess it's a matter of priorities. I place a relatively low priority on a lot of the items the Christian Right pushes for. I don't agree with them, but on the other hand I don't think the issues are really that important compared with economic and civil rights issues. I can live with the pledge of allegiance and some restrictions on abortion if it gets me social security reform, school choice and a leaner, less repressive government.
As for theocracy building, I just don't see it. The areas where they see a role for Christianity are pretty trivial in the bigger picture.
Dave
I think demonization is the right word here.
Nice numbers break down - sort of gives the Evangelists who won't shut up the ammo to shoot themselves in the foot.
Eric Olsen: JR, see #37, surely in the political sense he had a meltdown, and the position he is seeking is nothing if not political
See Comment 28 where you basically imply that Dean's alleged lack of mental stability is a threat to the entire Democratic party.
We get it, you don't like the guy. But your opinion of him doesn't really have much bearing on Dean's actual qualifications for political office. It's not like Bush exactly distinguished himself in the first debate, but he still won the election; and even I can admit that his petulance in a debate doesn't necessarily herald a nuclear holocaust during his second term.
I really have no particular opinion about Dean one way or the other - I neither like nor dislike him, he didn't get far enough into the process that I paid all that much attention to him. I'm just observing from the outside.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/24910)
>>The slander that liberals in America are frothing-at-the-mouth atheists who "despise" Christ <<
The problem is that there are enough liberals who this description DOES fit that extreme religious conservatives can make their case and have facts to back it up. If the Democratic party was full of religiously neutral moderates and nothing else then they'd have a lot more friends.
The same can be said from the opposite perspective. There are just enough bible-thumping nutjobs in the Republican party that Democrats can claim the party is being dominated by Neocons or religious extremists and point to examples to support their position.
The truth is that neither party is dominated by these extremist factions and I imagine that most Republicans and most Democrats would like their more extreme brethren to silently fall in a deep hole and never be seen again.
Dave