%5 Christian Bashing

Dean's World: Christian Bashing: "

'This is truly a judgement of God. Release the maiden.' At which point, King Richard I ...

Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.

Sir Walter Scott's 19th century classic novel about medieval England, "Ivanhoe" had this overwhelmingly passionate and heroic scene, in which the Rebecca, the Jewish damsel and daughter of Isaac, has been spirited off to the Templar Preceptory of Templestowe by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert, who has fallen in love with her -- a high crime in the measure of the Templars as priests and because of her religion.

Lucas Beaumanoir, Grand Master of the Templar order and also an intolerant and misanthropic Norman noble, chooses to punish Sir Brian by putting Rebecca on trial for sorcery, a trial in which she is quickly sentenced to death by burning.

Sir Brian passes a message to her at the end of the trial: "Demand a champion". She does so, throwing her glove to the floor as her gage of battle in her innocence and the Grand Master obliges by ordering a trial by combat. She has until the setting of the sun for an armed knight to appear and kill or be killed on her behalf. Beaumanoir rubs salt into the would by naming de Bois-Guilbert, the lovestruck Norman, to do combat on behalf of the Templar Order.

Near the end of the day, Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, still wounded from an earlier joust in the "Gentle and Joyous Passage of Arms at Ashby de la Zouche", rides into the tilt-field at Templestowe, and challenges Brian de Bois-Guilbert to mortal combat on behalf of Rebecca.

The Grand Marshal announces, "Let God defend the Right", and the armed knights, encased head to foot in chain mail, ride toward each other with their lances. Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert collapses, either from a heart attack or stroke, and Beaumanoir, the Grand Master of the Order, with his eyes toward heaven, declares: "This is truly a judgement of God. Release the maiden." At which point, King Richard I rides onto the field at the head of his barons and other followers, and takes charge like the overwhelming deus ex machina that English history has thus treated him for so many centuries.

So that, more or less is my answer. If there truly is a God, let Him defend the Right. And if you feel strongly enough about it, given Him the assistance He needs. Each of you can be your own Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe. Religion or any other philosophy cannot be saved from attack merely by caving in and whining about the unfairness of it all. That wouldn't have saved Rebecca from Beaumanoir's auto-da-fe and it won't save Christianity from the modern assaults mounted against it by enemies a lot more subtle than the late 12th century Norman barons of England and northern France.

And, damn, that was and is a great novel. It still makes me shudder to read some of the great passages!

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Posted by Arnold Harris on February 09, 2003 at 3:30 PM
====================

.../... Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.

I am guilty of being a sinner to many different viewpoints - I assure you. If I announced that I enjoy masturbating every day and a group of Christians prayed for me I wouldn't think that they were bigots - I might think that they were wasting their time...but not bigots.


Bigotry: The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Intolerant: Not tolerating difference of opinion or sentiment, especially in religious matters; refusing to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, rights, or worship; unjustly impatient of the opinion of those disagree with us; not tolerant; unforbearing; bigoted.

Praying for his soul, listening to him speak and politely applauding him when he was finished was very TOLERANT OF THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS.
It is a belief and labeling someone a bigot for being a good Christian is really intolerant of you.

The only bigotry is on the part of those who demand we accept their prejudices and biases.

Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING???????

Your arguments are classic Christian bashing. Which, by the way, makes you an intolerant bigot.

I simply do not believe people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon are 'Christians.' They are bigots and scam artists. They prey upon the elderly and pander to the haters.

Where was it written that any of these men were in the prayer group? You labeled people other than these bigots...and you do it solely because they prayed for the soul of a gay man. You are ridiculous.
Posted by Rosemary Esmay on February 09, 2003 at 5:30 PM

--------------


Guy,
I can see your point about Robertson, Falwell, etc.. I have trouble considering them Christian myself, but I don't know that I would refer to them as "Christians" unless I was being deliberately sarcastic or disrespectful.

I don't see the point of referring to the group that Dean originally mentioned as "Christians" (in quotes), except that you don't approve of their behavior. I also don't see any justification in comparing that group with Falwell, et. al., unless you can establish a connection. I therefore question how you can imply that they aren't really Christian. As I pointed out before, there is a wide variety among different points of view about 'true' Christianity, and advocating one does not necessarily negate another. Somehow I suspect you just don't like this particular group, and are impugning the authenticity of their faith for petty reasons.

I don't see any mystery in (as you say) 'immediately take[ing] Gary's side' except that of random chance. There were some points in this thread I wanted to post on before I left for work this afternoon. It was possible that I would not decide to post until tonight (which I have done before) in order to have more time to spend on the topic. In fact I clocked in 2 minutes late. :) As for 'coyly' claiming anything: I still don't know what his "status" is. I suppose you mean his personal philsophy? I can now read his 7:29 post to see that he claims not to be a Christian, but that's the first hint I've had of his philosophy. I think in this case you are seeing some wierd concordance that really isn't there. The only reason I seem to be 'on his side' is that I think your remark "how un-Christian of you" is beneath you. If you don't understand why I think so, please re-read my first post.

As for your claim of a logical fallacy: um, no. :)

Your definition of atheism is not based on logic, but on semantics. Upon reflection, poor semantics. The root word of theis does not refer to religion, but God. For example, Monotheism refers not to "one religion" but "one God. Similarly so for Polytheism for "many Gods"; please also refer to the root of the French Dieu and the Spanish Dios. They derive from theis, which is... Damn. Hey, Dean & Rose, theis is a Greek root, isn't it?

In other words, "atheism" means "no God", or "not God", not "no religion." By contrast, religion is defined as:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The above is from dictionary.reference.com from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.

I don't think folks will argue with the above. What I find interesting is the fourth definition: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Does this not describe most atheists perfectly?

I never really thought about this until a few years ago, when British author Terry Pratchett wrote Feet of Clay, which includes a clay Golem that gains self-awareness. One of his comments was that atheism is a belief, in that the atheist expresses his belief as a constant denial of God. Upon reflection I decided this makes sense. Nearly all professed atheists that I've met, heard of, or read their works, spend all of their time attacking the idea of God, or at least denying Him. Why? Why spend any time worrying about, or discussing an "outmoded belief system"? Simple. The belief system of the atheist based upon the statement "There is no God." In other words, their belief system is based on denying another belief system. The position that there is no God is, in itself, an act of faith since it cannot be falsified.

And (this is the really cool part):
-Since the claim that God does (or cannot) exist cannot be falsified, this makes the the claim non-scientific, since one cannot use the scientific method to verify a non-falsifiable claim.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be falsified, it is not addressable strictly through reason.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be proved (or disproved) using reason, then the atheist position is based upon faith, not reason, and is therefore itself a religion.

Whaddya think Dean? Rose? Nicely fisked? Heh.

Ara: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?

Come to think of it, since when is is "fervor" for an American politician to explicitly refer to the Christian faith?

Was it "fervor" when Jefferson referred to "Nature's God", or that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"

Was it "fervor" when Lincoln said "that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom?"

Or does it only bother you when Ashcroft says something?
Posted by Casey Tompkins on February 10, 200
===== === =
------\\\\\\\--- Cannibals 'R' Us! ------- merkins will
EAT every and ANY one/or/thing which impedes their
freaking myopic lust-bred objectives QED, comrade \\\
= === =======



This is developing into a very interesting and highly entertaining thread...

And I've held my tongue, I haven't even said yet what I, as a Presbyterian minister, think about homosexuality-- an issue which has bitterly divided my denomination in recent years.

Naw, I'm just gonna wait a while longer, and keep reading everyone else's posts... :-)


Posted by Paul Burgess on February 10, 2003
---------------------

js getting vortex-ed into this one:

-----====---

I'm not going to say I have the answer but here's some observations on the discussion above.

Arnold Harris: >>Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.
So now all liberals are anti-Christian? That's nice. And wrong.

Mike S. No religion is a religion? (paraphrase) C'mon - You're really Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aren't you? No evidence is evidence? This is how Republicans argue? Answer, no not always otherwise debate would be minimal.

>>You are religious bigots. Period. Don't waste my time with sophistry intended to prove you aren't. (Look up sophistry berore you reply.)
I knew this was Gary, before I read who wrote it.

Later, Gary: When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong. Well, no, actually, it's not. It's not even unConstitutional. It MAY turn out to be a Bad Thing, or it may NOT. There are good laws and bad laws, and religion has not much to do with it one way or another.

It IS wrong. Do you want a government that fervently acts on faith that a god, any god, has the answer and not work toward answers based in reality?

Ara: I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable
my view exactly. No more of the typo cracks though - see how it enables people to disregard what you say.

Rosemary: Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.

Which would seem to point to the malliability nature of "faith."

Then there are those Christians who say, "I'm not judging you, but I feel sorry for you" as if the two weren't the same thing.
PS type in B-L-O-G-P-S-O-T.com and see if you agree with that. It's religion, too.

Casey TompkinsAra: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?

Casey, I don't think we want to be Israel do we? I mean, they just wallow in peace and barely cause a ripple of disension in the world. [again a pre-emptive strike against charges of Anti-semitism - they have EVERY right to defend themselves].

Dean:They would have done the same thing if he were a striaght man who was on record as currently having a mistress. Or living with a woman outside of marriage.
You would like to think so, but it's never happened. If so, I will gladly send in a list of Rs and Ds who've had mistresses and they can do so at the next RNC.

Deonna:I will also say this.... the day that America took God out of everything, from schools to even trying to take God off of our currency, and out of the pledge of alleigance, we have been in HELL! Not the hell talked about in the Bible, but the confusion, wars, division among people... ect.
Prove it. Or to put it another way: -- There were no wars, no disagreemnts in America before that? Or is it that there is greater freedom and more opportunity today for people who have disagreements to speak up. Enjoyed the rest of your post.

By the logic that atheism is a religion, then it must also be an article of faith that the sun will come up every morning and set every evening. By the same logic, homosexuality is a religion because gays are only "acting" on faith that they are attracted to the same sex.

Lastly, if religion is all about faith, then why spend so much time defending it? People who disagree that a god exists could still be right or they could be wrong. Right? Logically speaking. Of course, logic and faith are two incompatible ideas so it is interesting but ultimately fruitless to try and make religion "logical."
Posted by dimn on February 10, 2003 at
-----------------

This is a great discussion - but let me throw a few wrenches into the works.

I'm an atheist, but unlike most, I didn't abandon religion: I was raised as an atheist. This has given me a rare perspective. I sought out religion when I was young because it was advertised to answer big questions and offer deep insights into life. But when I read about actual beliefs, I couldn't understand why anyone would accept them. For example, the Christian doctrines of the virgin birth, of Jesus' miracles, of Jesus ascending into heaven - these made no more sense to me than any other superstition. Likewise for virtually all other major religions.

So here's the first wrench: I sincerely invite others here to offer me a compelling reason to believe that any conventional religious doctrine is true. Don't feel you have to nail down a complete argument in a post; just point me in the direction of a book or source that you think is convincing. (Please don't suggest the Bible. I've read it.) What convinced you that God is real? I understand that faith is a personal experience, but I don't understand how it is begun.

Second wrench: I think religion is essentially un-democratic. The problem with combining religion and politics is that it produces leaders who rely on a belief in the supernatural to inform their decisions. And the supernatural, by definition, can't be supported with available evidence. So when a politician says his actions stem from his faith in God, there is no evidence to evaluate - no way for others to argue on the merits of the case. For example, if John Ashcroft says his antiabortion stand is based on his religious beliefs, there is no way for me to respond unless I know enough about his religion to argue - and I shouldn't have to know that to participate in a democracy. (An example of this kind of argument is Deonna Moore's post. I emphatically disagree with her, but since she bases her view on her religion, how can I argue with her?)

Third wrench: I don't believe leaders who claim they can separate their religious convictions from their public duties, as John Ashcroft and several others state. If their faith is the truest thing they know, then why in the world wouldn't they want to guide the public towards that truth? I sure would. I can only conclude that they do indeed let religion guide their decisions and are trying to hide that fact, or they don't really believe as strongly in their faith as they claim. I think congress is filled with both types, the first are typically republicans, while the latter are typically democrats. What I'd like to see is a politician stand up and say he's an atheist and doesn't let religion influence his decisions. The fact that this would be political suicide speaks volumes about the reality of the separation of church and state in our democracy.

Finally, a point about what atheism is or isn't. All this talk about atheism being a religion or a belief based on faith is silly. Atheism a non-belief, and we all have an infinite number of non-beliefs. Do you believe I have a life-size purple elephant in my office? No? That's a non-belief of yours, something you take on faith. If we're discussing god, I'm an atheist. If we're discussing the Wicca faith, I'm an awiccian - I don't believe witches exist. If we're discussing Santa Claus, I'm an aclausian - I don't believe Santa Claus exists. Religious people are so obsessed with God they think everyone else is too, and that atheists go around constantly thinking "not-God" thoughts. But because atheists don't believe in God, most of them don't think about him much at all. That's certainly been my experience. My non-belief in God doesn't guide my life any more than your non-belief in my purple elephant guides your life. It's only when religious people raise the issue of God that it becomes an issue in the first place.
Posted by Garrett Soden on February 11, 2003 at 12:48 AM


Well now, lets see what the Good Book has to say about public prayer:

From the KJV, Matthew Chapter 6:

5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

-------------------
I think those praying for the Rep. at the Convention were of the Verse 5 variety above...as has been pointed out by others already, many of the other politicians on that stand were Adulterers, or worse!

They were praying for the PR, let's get real, and they have their reward.


I'm guessing that the Rep. in question was Jim Kolbe, whose District I live in, as he's about the only gay Republican I can think of (and it's a mostly Dem. District...when he got forcibly outed, his strangle-hold on the seat got tighter, as he gets many cross-over votes from otherwise left-leaning Dems...Tucson has one of the highest percentages of gay population outside of SF in the US).

If the person in question was Kolbe, I'd say his soul would be in peril more for conducting a sham of a marriage for years, and then ripping his family appart when outed, than it is for being gay.
Posted by David Mercer on February 11, 2003 at 12:55 A

====================



Dean, I agree with you about many VERY good things about America that wouldn't have happened without very sincere Christians acting from within their faith. And I agree with you about those who think that being religious and holding high public office is violating seperation of Church and State.

I just doubt the motives of those who prayed on TV to get seen being such good Christians.

And they weren't in a Church, they were at a political convention...and as one who's mother always says she'll "pray for me", because she sees things I do as "sinning" that I do not, I don't think the Rep. in question appreciated the manner they went about praying "for his soul".

I still maintain that they did it to be seen doing it.

I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for Christians I have and continue to meet who live up to even a fraction of the ideals that Christ himself laid out in the New Testament, but I also have nothing but contempt for hate mongering followers of Paul who call themselves Christians.

(Jesus never said women should be silent in submission to their men, that was Paul. Nearly all of the tendencies of Christians and their Churches that have lead to the contempt for them you deride springs from the teachings of Paul.
Don't believe me? Re-read your New Testament).

It's the genuine kindness and non-judgemental attitude of a number of true Christians I've met when I was at the low points of my life that made me re-evaluate the kind of bigotry you deride that existed in myself, and also caused me to take a closer look at who the hate-mongers in the Churchs liked to quote that opened my eyes about Paul.

Christians I have respect for and would gladly see in any high office..."Paulians" (for lack of a better word) I fear, for they would see a Panopticon Nanny State the likes of which John Ashcroft is trying to implement, and WOULD like to see a Theocracy here in the US.

So I suppose I am in near total agreement with you Dean, anti-Christian bigotry is bad, you need a discerning eye to tell them apart.

Just take a look at who they like to quote, Jesus or Paul, helps immeasurably.
Posted by David Mercer on February 11, 2003
//////////////////////

Did Dean bend the truth when he talked about 'Christian bashing' at the 2000 GOP convention? It appears so:

US News&World Report

AFA

GOP columnist

ABC News

CNN

Uh oh. Doesn't look like Dean was being completely truthful.
Posted by Guy Cabot on February 11, 2003
///////////////////////