Ok, I am pissed. Please stop confusing Christians with...

fundamentalists.

It is not the "religious right." That makes it sound like the left is not religious. Most of the left is. They are the "fundamentalist right." Calling the right religious falls right into their frame. Each time you use the phrase you help them.

DUers typically do not "bash christians" they bash or disagree with fundamentalist christianity. Now some or even many DUers may disagree with mainstream religion in general but our true enemies, the enemy of progress, civil rights, and civilization, is fundamentalism not all Christianity or all religion. The liberal Christians are our friends. They believe in what we more secular liberals believe in; we fight side by side together.

bottom of my heart for that clarification.

Although W attended a Methodist church when he lived in Dallas and claims to be Methodist, his statements and actions are clearly contrary to Methodist philosophy.

:hi:

I'm a Methodist who agrees with you on this!

HRC promotes equal rights, especially for the gay, lesbian and bisexual, etc. population.

What does your avatar mean?
(Just kidding. ;-) )

but I wasn't sure. I've seen it around some, but I didn't know. When I was a Boy Scout, many moons ago, they had a badge for our uniform like that indicating you were a Patrol Leader. I like your answer better.

I chose my avatar since my birthday is on Halloween!!!

from another peace-loving Episcopalian.

I've actually left a church my parents helped build. I couldn't handle the pro war church of Christ that I came from. I've found a new Church of Christ and have made it clear why I left the last one!

I've started making my opinions known that it is immoral to be so pro war especially when other people's kids will pay the price.

Our new preacher understands how I feel apparently and he says we should all pray for peace that we can't go wrong that way.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

my problem with christianity is that you are supposed to love jesus more than your mother, father, children. how can you love someone that you never met? i don't know whether or not i would like jesus. i would have to have a conversation with him. i'd also like to point out that i was raised catholic but managed to escape the brainwashing and guilt.

subject line edited.

for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" 1 John 4:20

I find your opinion insulting and offensive. But maybe that's just me.

(I swiped it from somewhere else. :evilgrin:)

Imagine that.

An offensive comment on DU.

The horror.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We're gathering some wood for a celebration later.

;)

Troll?

delete

You know, all that silly talk about paschal lambs, redemptive suffering and resurrections.

What did he know?

:popcorn:

Being a white Christian Homosexual, I get pulled in many directions. Sometimes i don't know which way is up.

We are similar in at least the three characteristics you list and noone makes me angrier than other "christians" It's very conflicting. I saw where someone else quoted Gandhi as saying something like "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike Christ." I also find myself uttering the prayer "Jesus save me from your followers" It's tough to keep it sorted out.

it is hard to take fundamentalist seriously

If that many... :rofl:

bible thumping pentacostals. In general it's unwise to lump all whacky religious types into one political group. There are plenty of left leaning "white" born again churches too. They just don't have Falwell/Robertson types spewing.

As an atheist, I have little empathy for this stuff....but I'm not stupid enough to summarily typecast everyone as belonging to one political party over religion. Just think in the 2000 election funamentalist Muslims voted for Bush, and in 2004....
they didn't.

of all religions, I refer to "Those That Claim They Are Religious, but Really Are Not Religious" as zealots.

Arghh! Labels can be useful sometimes & counterproductive in others.

Listen...now I have no quarrel with decent Christian folks like yourself. None at all. But, as I pointed out in another thread, the history of the religion is a sordid tale of power-mad freaks running rough-shod over everyone else. Christianity, as an institution, has, nearly since its inception, been anything but Christian.

Now that's not to say that there aren't many Christians who are decent people. That's not even to say that there aren't even whole sects that are worthy of respect--the Quakers come to mind.

But the halls of power have almost always been dominated by the worst types of people humanity has to offer, using the Bible to justify all manner of unspeakable atrocities time after time. It's no wonder some people have a problem with Christianity in general.

There is a difference between bashing Christianity and bashing Christians, though it might be hard to recognize at first.

edited to fix a typo

Christianity in history. I think your appraisal, while fairly accurate, is a bit of a negative one.

most of Christianity itself been upright, decent folks genuinely concerned with the welfare of all human beings? Hell, until fairly recently, historically speaking, they've almost all universally supported tyrants and repressive regimes and conducted some of the most questionable acts of suppression in recorded history.

Of course, the Catholic Church ruled a great deal of this history, and it, at its base, is a political organization. But even the reformation didn't help matters all that much. We saw the rise of brutal petty tyrants who used the bible to justify slavery, racism, witch-hunts, the destruction of countless native cultures, and all manner of other evil acts.

As an institution, Christianity has done some pretty horrible things. Individual Christians have done some wonderful things, but the institutions who raise the banner generally don't have that reputation.

But religion was the vehicle, and thanks to the countless contradictions inherent in the Book, unscrupulous people were quite skilled at using it to point out their justifications.

For a religion allegedly based on the words of a very righteous man, it has a terribly dark history.

Sorry.

At least, in my opinion.

to recognize that "power mad freaks" are not the monopoly of religious institutions. Nor are they the sole history of that institution.

There is also a history of "loving freaks". Tell that history.

intrigue, revenge, sex, betrayal. I think, from the standpoint of history and the lives that have been lost in the "name of God", that it was unfortunate but not too surprising that of all the Christian sects organized 2000 years ago, the Roman Catholics were the most successful (in terms of numbers converted) of all of them. A tad problematic that they based their organization on that bloody little Roman Empire crowd's politics...

Gnostics didn't have a chance.

I do, and I'm a atheist who likes Jesus and his message. If only his professed followers would heed his words.

I prefer the term "radical right" because 1) they are radical and not mainstream, and 2) the Christians I know and grew up with are fighting against the same thing, the imposition of a "church" we mutually disagree with, that is trying to take over the church AND the state.

Christ won't save me, and when I die, I won't sit with Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit on a fluffy white cloud.

But while I'm here, I will try to help others as best I can and do my best to leave a planet that can sustain life as long as possible.

If that sounds conflicted to you, I have a lot of company. :)

what Jesus was getting at is a bit out of the mainstream...

Maybe I am a true Christian instead of a Fristian. Maybe you are, too.

Peace.

i totally agree with you.

you have company in me
:hi:

and I think you nailed it on the head. Fundamentalists can be found in every "religion." Fundamentalist Muslims, IMHO, have hi-jacked their faith the way fundamentalist Christians have hi-jacked mine. I am one of those who, for your sake and mine, want to make sure that church and state remain separate.

Everyone brings their values, their prejudices, their experiences to the table in politics. The trick is finding a way to respect the other person's beliefs without abandoning one's own.

I understand very well the anger of those who "bash Christians," because the history is filled with some very UnChristian things, and anytime anyone claims the "truth" to be exclusive to their faith, that's a step toward that faith becoming "evil" in its practice.

I wish that everyone had your attitude about people with a belief in God. Radical is the correct word. When "religion" becomes radical, religion begins to become evil. One can be passionate, zealous and even revolutionary about their faith without becoming "radical."

Thanks for your post.

I call bullshit.

They used their religion to install their puppet.

They used it to take over all three branches of government.

They are using it to oppress women, GLBT people and non-christians.

They are riding it into a theocracy.

So I will call it what it is.


BTW, I use "reichwing" and, IMO, liberal christians aren't stupid.

They're more than capable of telling the difference.

How do you think we got into this mess?

Shutting up got us here.

That's enough.

I refuse to tiptoe around the wanna be martyrs on DU.

and, I think you're correct in that liberal Christians understand the difference. And, I think that fundamentalist "Christians" need to hear what those they are trying to "save" really think of them. If they bothered to read some of it, they might "wake up" to the reality that their "cause" is hurt, not helped, by their actions.

As well, I don't think the OP is trying to be a martyr, but just asking for a little of the tolerance from some liberals that those liberals complain "Christians" (lumping all of them together) don't have.

True, the radical "religious" right is very intolerant of anyone who disagrees on any point. It's also true that many on the left possess that same "intolerance" of people claiming to be Christians, even if they are not part of the "radical" sect.

And their criticism carries more weight than mine does.

Bush and his cabal are trying to convince christians that they are under attack.

Screaming persecution on DU plays right into their hands.

like I said, I don't like the "martyr complex." To be a martyr, one has to "go to the mat" for their beliefs (whatever they may be),not just criticized. I think that one of the reasons there seems to be less political activism from the "liberal Christians" is that they DO strongly believe in the separation of church and state....they will not, as fundamentalists do, stand in the pulpits of their churches and endorse candidates and talk politics...and, that's part of their "faith."

On edit: I don't believe Christians are "under attack" from the left, either. I think one of the definitions of liberalism includes the idea of personal freedom to believe whatever you want to believe. And, when "religion" gets "legislated" it ticks people (including Christians) on left off. And, when they get ticked off they react in ways that make it sound like all Christians are "lumped together" as being "fundamentalist." The OP is simply asking us on the left not to confuse "Christian" with "fundamentalist."

'Cuz it won't be just the atheists who will suffer when this turns into a theocracy.

The Talibornagain don't see the difference, we're all infidels in their eyes.

which is why I am here.

On edit: "They don't see the difference," is correct. I just hope that, like you have stated about yourself, that all on the left do see the difference.

Liberal christians have always been our allies in the fight for separation of church and state.

and backatchya.

:toast:

Oh, and I hope you don't think less of me, if in another thread you see my anger at the injustices of the * administration and I use "language" that expresses that anger. I don't claim to be a saint, and try not to judge anyone except those committing injustice toward other human beings.

Think badly of someone for having and expressing righteous anger ?

I'll be the one on the left cursing like a drunken Marine.

:evilgrin:

doing the same thing. :headbang:

'religion' an issue is the enemy.

Makes sense

evangelicals, protestants, roman catholics, sects, Islamists, hindus & others who are religious and not totally extremist right wing.

There are even some intrinsic evangelicals or fundies. It is true. Some of them walk the walk.

But - hey - I get ya. From here on in - we should call the extreme right wing "extrinsic Christians". Those Christians who are in it for the political payoff (and by political - I do not mean just dem/repuke & elections.. I mean pressure and power of all sorts!!).

what extrinsic means.

I keep trying to explain to people that what fundamentalists teach goes against true Christian teachings. The teachings of Christ were to love one another, forgive one another, help one another, give unto those less fortunate, never point at another and judge their wrong doings, never promote hatred toward another person or group of people,be thankful for what you have and not out of greed amass more. Christ would never condone torture of human beings for any reason.

And a secular faction in each division.

The contrast isn't "religious right" versus "secular" or "irreligious" right, nor is it implied that the entirety of the right is religous; the contrast is between the religious and secular varieties of each part of the spectrum. It's less obvious in the last decade or so.

There used to be a fairly good distinction between the religious right and the secular right, as well as the religious left and the secular left.

the Religious Wrong. That's it in a nutshell.

....and from many who believe as I do. I have my strong arguments to the current organized religion of Christianity, but those who follow (and practice!!)the true teachings of such an elightened soul as Jesus are my brothers and sisters. Blessed be.........

We spend lots of time pointing to the Muslim community and telling them that their religion of peace has been hijacked. We show them point after point after point and then we tell them if they want to save their religion -- if they truly are a religion of peace -- then *they* need to do what only *they* can do: CLEAN HOUSE.

I'm sorry if you are offended to be lumped in with the fundamentalists of your religion, but they are a problem in *your* community which is affecting us all and endangering peace. Now, you need to go do what only the Christians can do: CLEAN HOUSE.

Very powerful.

Kudos, CornField.

http://www.community.marion.ia.us/active/moral_values_4_up.pdf

Four per sheet -- ready for printing. :)

I may go visit some fundie churches this Sunday...

If our language is hijacked, it's up to us to take it back. From "liberal" to "feminist" to "Christian" we cannot let others choose our definitions.

We can sit and whine about it all day and it won't make any difference. We need to get in the faces of those slandering our good name. Until those misusing the label are branded as imposters, we cannot change the perceptions of the public about Christians.

If you understood the tremendous diversity of RELIGIONS that are Christian, you would realize the fallacy of YOUR logic.

To tell me, a Unitarian Universalist/Methodist that I am responsible for cleaning the house of Jerry Falwell is a bit like telling George W. Bush that he is responsible for bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

I understand your desire to show off your lovely graphic image, but next time employ a lit logic along with the show, couldya?

I, too, am appalled at those of you who call yourself liberals and lump me and others like me in with people who are not at all like me in thought or deed. Frankly, by making the flawed logical statements you've made in your post - you remind me of THEM.

Your statements are driving people AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Why does it threaten you so that I call myself Christian? I could care less whatever higher power or none you choose. Just please educate yourself rather than point fingers. That's the problem I have with the religious right - do you really want to emulate THEM?

And when did I ever accuse one Muslim of being responsible for all Muslims? Again, flawed thinking and blanket statements.

I don't care what you call yourself. I do care what others associated with my religion do in that religion's name. I guess I mistakenly believed Christians would feel the same. So, please continue to allow the public view of your religion to be warped to a point of non-existance. Feel free to continue to stand by professing your individual liberalism while associations within your own religion's ranks spout violence and spawn hate.

In the meantime, I will continue to fight for the separation of church and state, which is the plight of the Democratic Party (not the preservation of the Christian religion). At the end of the day, what happens to your religion is up to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I can surely read. I can also surely tell one type of Christian from another. The general populace, however, cannot. Now, there are some members on this board who are more than happy to profess their personal liberal form of Christianity and who believe that will be enough to turn the tide of warped world view that the wingnuts have created. I'm just here to say: It isn't enough. The Wingnuts will continue to define each and every Christian until the non-wingnut Christians regain control of their religion.

So, once again I urge you to quit tossing the problems with your religion into the plight of the Democratic Party. It is, in all honesty, none of the party's business. If you (collective) want to change what has become nothing short of terrorism within your own ranks, then you need to step up to the plate and do so. Until that happens, don't expect non-Christians to necessarily understand there is a difference.

When Christians who truly follow the message of Jesus Christ are willing to stand up to the those within their own religion who seek no more than to spout violence and spawn hate, maybe the general populace of this country will understand there is a difference.

But, as I've stated before, preservation of the Christian religion is a problem for the Christians, not the Democratic Party. Feel free to remain comfortably numb in your own liberal congregation and with your own liberal ideas. Feel free not to go to bat against those who wish your religion harm. Feel free to completely ignore my call to action or, if you like, reduce your responses to me into illogical euphanisms. It really doesn't matter much to me because liberal Christianity or wingnut Christianity, I'll fight to keep them out of government just the same.

Those thoughts and actions of 'other' Christians which you claim are not your responsibility? Those are being done in your name. And those are the only thoughts and actions which are being protrayed on the nightly news, in the papers, and over the net. While you may not be able to change those thoughts and actions, someone... anyone... needs to stand up to them and offer a different viewpoint which is more inline with Christ's teachings. Until that happens, don't expect the vast majority of the public to understand the difference between your particular sect of Christianity and the one being spewed on the boob tube.

It is not our responsibilty to do any more than you because of the actions of a small group of fundamentalists.

If you chose to misunderstand Christiantity, that is your own fault, and no one elses. I am not responsible for your level of education regarding Christianity. It is your responsibility to be informed.

All attempts to place responsibility on other Christians will be duly noticed and ultimately ignored. It is the duty everyone who believes in freedom and is opposed to fundamentalism to stand up to fundamentalism. That includes Christians and non-Christians.

If you want to alienate a large group of liberals, keep attacking Christianity, becuase the majority are moderate-to-liberal.

And exactly how am I, when I say, "Christians, take back Christianity!", alienating a large group of liberals?

I'm sorry if those Christians who frequent DU are not up the task of taking on the fundamentalists within their own religion. That fact, however, does not shield such individuals from responsibility.

There is a reason I have a voice when it comes to the War in Iraq. First and foremost, I'm an American and this act of agression is being done in my name. Second, my tax dollars are being spent to wage the war.

For those same reasons, I cannot and do not have a voice when it comes to fighting the fundamentalists within the Christian religion. They are doing such things in the name of Christ, which is not a name I've taken for myself. None of the contributions I make to my religion are being filtered back to the fundamentalists and/or their organizations.

For those same reasons, it is logical and imperative for the Christians who wish to preserve their religion and save it from the fundamentalists, to take action now. These violent outbursts and calls to hate are being done in your name and with your money. You have a voice where those of us who are non-Christians do not.

My feeling is that you should use that voice to its fullest. Of course, you can take my suggestion or you can leave it. If, however, you elect not to speak out against the fundamentalist wing of your religion, you cannot then cry foul when you are lumped together with such. Your silence is evidence of your acceptance.

cornfield:
"I'm sorry if those Christians who frequent DU are not up the task of taking on the fundamentalists within their own religion. That fact, however, does not shield such individuals from responsibility."

You miss the extremely obvious point that it isn't the same religion. My religion has nothing in common with the fundamentalists. The word "Christian" has widely different definitions, some of which are virtually opposed to each other. I don't control that definition any more than they do.

And your opinion on responsibility is quite meaningless as far as I am concerned. That you or anyone else can't tell the difference in the vast world of Christianity between fundamentalists and other Christians is nobody's fault but your own. If you refuse to educate yourself, that is your problem and nobody else's.

"If, however, you elect not to speak out against the fundamentalist wing of your religion, you cannot then cry foul when you are lumped together with such. Your silence is evidence of your acceptance."

No, the lumping together is done by those either too ignorant or those deliberately prejudiced against Christians. I do speak out against fundamentalists, as many Christians do, all the time, but if I never said one word, I don't have one ounce of responsibility for the ignorance of others who group us all together.

that you do not feel the need to answer the violent, horrible and nearly unspeakable acts that have been done in your name. The ignorance of the situation and of what's at stake does not reside with me. I guess whatever has begun its way down the pipe will continue. So be it.

Just happened to see it. Really powerful.

Liberal Christians: all our godless whining isn't going to do as much as YOU standing up to take back your religion.

Great graphic, btw. :thumbsup:

what makes you think we aren't standing up to take our religion back.

It hasn't been stolen, just misused

do we need some hydrochloric acid to dispose of anything?

The Christian Right has unfortunately been working on this stuff for 30 years or so.

The moral majority, the Christian coalition, etc.

Now it is liberal Christians fault that EVERYONE sat back and said, oh, they won't be able to do much, or laughed at the CC, etc.

I'm game, let's go get them.

But laying the blame for fundy insanity at the feet of liberals is not fair.

We are speaking out, we unfortunately don't get much media time.

because they do not accept democracy and pluralism - the two main pillars of modern states.

They follow their gods - whoever they are - as the only way of living to follow. This is fine if this is how you want to live your life, but you have no right to force the rest of us to live that way.

This is the irony, of course. The same people who condemn the Talibans, support the Christian version here. Another irony - like most dictatorship, religion was not tolerated in Iraq. But now, that we "liberated" the Iraqis, extreme Islams now rules. Certainly Iraqi women have taken major steps backward. But then, I remember the Iranian revolution when so many professional modern women took to wearing the traditional cloths (not the Burka) in support of the revolution against the Shah.

I wish I knew where they are now. I won't be surprised if the ones that are still alive are living in exile.

I believe in Christian tolerance in the tradition of Jesus Christ. I ask myself "What would Jesus do" and that is my guiding principle.

Fundamentalism is extremism and it is intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, judgmental and dangerous.

in the bloodstream.

i'm a christian -- but part of being a christian is looking at the history of the institutions of organized religion and the good they've done and the BAD -- there's no sense in talikng to anyone with selective memory.

:hi:

Kinda fits, don't it?

-Hoot

If you have a true faith why would anyone's comments about whacky Fundies bother you? Why does commentary about Christianity bother you so much? The rest of us have to deal with it all the time.

It's difficult to call fundies Christians because they barely follow the practices of Jesus Christ. Probably the best discription of them would be 'Paulists' since Paul was probably considered to be the first fundamentalist.

Christian support --- there is no possibility whatever of building a progressive majority in America. It is mathematically impossible. Those who bash progressive Christians must realize that they are doing the right wing Republicans' work for them. They are obviously not serious about building a progressive majority. They would cause less harm for the progressive cause if they just donated their time to the RNC.

I have nothing but the highest regard for the Christians.
The "fundamentalist" Christians are the real problem, NOT
the normal church going everyday folks.

The fight is with them.

THANK YOU for pointing that out. The cries of persecution from a very few believers here are laughable.

Or the American Taliban?

Taliban who has hijacked your religion.

for years

I have any way

back in the day that the moral majority was formed I could see an enemy of democracy and freedom forming

Now they have infiltrated government at all levels as to their plans

Are we listening yet!

I am not at all religious, and I can tell the difference between a Christian and a religious rightist.

I can also tell the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist.

I can also tell the difference between a fundamentalist and these fascists who use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses.

Remember, that's what the religious right is all about: It's the politics that matters to them. Religion is a means to get support for their untenable policies.

But don't be pissed at those who hear the war chants of the fundamentalists and get a bit concerned about things.

Yes there are a lot of good Christians out there. But there are a lot of bad Christians too. If the bad Christians are more vocal than the good Christians then the nonChristians tend to see Christianity in the light provided by the bad Christians.

Be pissed. But in turning your anger at those who get upset at Christianity you dull your own voice. You are going to argue a case you cannot win in the way you are going about it. All the while you are complaining about the nonbelievers getting ticked at Christianity the religious right is continuing its bellowing of it's twisted take on the matter.

I don't recall reading any scriptures that said it was going to be easy being a follower of Christ. There are countless verses telling you to expect rejection and denial.

The problem here is clearly in the camp of professed believers. Marketting works and there is a very strong campaign going on from the fundamentalists camps to make their take on Jesus the dominant one. If you want to do something truly effective and good then counter them. Let our anger and irritation with Christianity be the barometer of how well you are representing your beliefs. If you turn your anger against us you only give the fundamentalists more time to corrupt Jesus and you lose any chance of finding allies in our midst.

And no offense is meant.

As many DUers know, my passion is fighting the Hardright Religious Extremists in this country. As a Universalist and Religious Scientist, I honor all paths, including believer and nonbeliever. I have atheist-friends, liberal Christian friends, Jewish friends, Pagan friends, and New Thought friends. It is my firm belief that progressives of all stripes must stand up to these extremists.

Those at Americans United for Separation of Church and State coined the term, "religious right." Rev. Barry Lynn, J.D. (both an ordained reverend in the United Church of Christ AND a bright man with a law degree) wanted to distinguish the Falwells and the Dobsons from those who were both progressively-minded and believers. We could think of a better term.

I don't honing in on "fundamentalist," because I do have a few friends who are traditionalists, but would never think of imposing their beliefs on others. I don't like 'evangelical right,' because I have many friends who will discuss their faith with those willing to listen, but will not force themselves upon those who don't want to listen. I rejected "Christian Nationalists," because extremists come from many faiths. Professor Joan Bokaer's "theocratic right" has potential, although some, particularly the Southern Baptist theologian, Al Mohler, are clever enough not to say "theocracy." I'm thinking that we have to brainstorm and come up with a name. Until then, perhaps "hardright religious extremists" will do.

The group that I am trying to come up with a name for ... is the individuals that Paul Weyrich has targeted for decades, including the Southern Baptist Convention members and the Assemblies of God members - the group that includes everyone from Al Mohler and Richard Land to Falwell to Dobson to Gary North.

I believe that many of us are united, believer and nonbeliever, on this Board, and seek to address this Republican Noise Machine, the Hardright Relgious Faction. We stand tall. We just need to come up with a good name.

Thoughts?