Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right

By Rob Lanham, AlterNet. Posted September 1, 2006.


A hilarious new book provides instructions on how to argue the big issues with ultra-conservative fundamentalists.
090106storysinner
The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Rob Lanham

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: The following excerpt has been reprinted with permission from The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right by Rob Lanham, Penguin Putnam, 2006.

"The real theological problem in America today is no longer the religious Right, but the nationalistic religion of the Bush administration." -- Reverend Jim Wallis, God's Politics.

Until the sixties, evangelicals were just as likely to be Democrats as they were to be Republicans.

Many evangelicals were on the front lines in the fight for women's suffrage, were vocal antiwar opponents, and led the fight for civil rights. Meanwhile, tent revival pastors fueled McCarthyism and covertly organized KKK meetings among their church elders. But the advent of the ERA Movement, the Roe v. Wade decision, and a godless culture filled with bra burnings and rock music created a unifying shift to the right. By the time abortion was made legal, many evangelicals found themselves curled up in the fetal position inside the headquarters of the RNC waiting for the world to end.

Following the election of Jimmy Carter, an outspoken Christian who was candid about being born-again, Time deemed 1976 "The Year of the Evangelical." Ironically, most evangelicals felt little kinship with this moderate Democratic president, given his support of ERA and his refusal to deny women the right to choose.

Evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye believed the time had come to get evangelicals mobilized behind a candidate that represented their values. That candidate was Reagan, the first president to come to power with the help of what has come to be known as the Religious Right. Reagan was also the first high-level politician to work opposite a chimpanzee (as he did in Bedtime for Bonzo), a noble tradition carried on today by Vice President Dick Cheney. ...

Fundamental Contradictions: Picking and Choosing

Anyone who's read the Bible knows some of its disturbing content could give "Grand Theft Auto" a run for its money.

War, murder, rape, slavery, men who wear sandals -- parts of the Bible should come with adult content warning labels. If you want a peaceful religion, even Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals says, "Choose Buddhism." Nevertheless, many evangelicals love the Bible so much they're willing to accept the whole darn thing, even the bizarre parts, at face value. They brag that they don't "pick and choose" from the Bible and refer to themselves as "Bible-believin'" Christians.

Yet the glaring list of passages that typical evangelicals ignore could fill Falwell's dessert refrigerator at the Moral Majority to capacity. Leviticus 19:27, for instance, prohibits shaving, a commandment to which millions pay no attention. Likewise, Leviticus 19:19 forbids the wearing of mixed fibers. Needless to say, Pat Robertson is clearly guilty of defying this commandment, given his collection of polyester flag ties.

And most glaringly, as progressive evangelical leaders like Jim Wallis continue to drive home, there are roughly three thousand verses in the Bible devoted to helping the poor, yet typical evangelicals spend more time griping about the costs of welfare or bashing The Da Vinci Code than choosing to help the less fortunate.

Truth be told, Bible-believin' evangelicals are more guilty of "picking and choosing" than the liberal Christians they often accuse of the same transgression. Here are some key verses Bible-believin' evangelicals pick and choose to ignore.

Key Verses Bible-Believin' Evangelicals Pick and Choose to Ignore:

On slavery: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18, NIV)
On rape: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver." (Deuteronomy 22:28, NIV)
On women wearing veils: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." (Corinthians 11:5, NIV)
On illegitimate children being barred from church: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)
On Falwell's apparent love of McNuggets: "...put a knife to thy throat, if thou [be] a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23:2, 3, KJV)

Homosexuality: God Hates Fags (and Shrimp Scampi)

Since much of the Bible reflects archaic customs (the blood sacrifice of animals is commanded by God in many scriptures, for instance), deciphering which biblical laws Christians should abide by has become the jurisdiction of theologians and televangelists, the latter group being completely unreliable since they're often stoned from their own hairspray fumes. When faced with troubling or inconvenient laws -- like the Bible's promotion of slave owning or its ban on shaving -- most evangelicals say, "That's an irrelevant Old Testament-era commandment," and change the subject to activist judges. Still, when the Bible says God finds an act "detestable" or calls something an "abomination," evangelicals insist it must be avoided at all costs. According to most evangelicals, the big abomination is (no shocker here) homosexuality.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sinner
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 1, 2006 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's more fun to be a sinner then there will always be more sinners than not so God must prefer sinners since he made more of them than pure-blooded non-sinners or is it nonsense?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sinner Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: sinner Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: sinner Posted by: Rolomax
» No thanks to immortality. Posted by: LMNOP
» Sorry I meant Applied Optics... Posted by: doctorsquared
» RE: Who are Sinners? Posted by: freerain
» RE: Who are Sinners? Posted by: robmikejas
» it's nonsense Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: it's nonsense Posted by: freerain
» RE: it's nonsense Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: it's nonsense--What is? Posted by: freerain
» RE: sinner Posted by: JC Freak
» Did you even read the article? Posted by: doctorsquared
» RE: foolish sinner Posted by: freerain
It won't work
Posted by: midge on Sep 1, 2006 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think any of these arguements would be very effective when arguing with religious conservatives as they are based on common misconceptions. I wish that both sides would clear their misconceptions-until they do debates are likely to go nowhere.

As far as picking and choosing verses, the way they view them is more complex than just taking them at face value. In the past four centuries or so there's been a lot of scholarship among Christians concerning the contents of the Bible and debate is alive and well among them today as they tend to hold a wide range of views. I forget what they are, but there are theological grounds for not following all of the laws laid down in Leviticus and Deutoronomy.

As far as the environment, there is a growing movement among conservative Christians towards simple and sustainable living, and many, particularily fundamentalists, dislike consumerism and big corporations and favor traditional, family-based businesses. As far as dominion goes, my impression is that they believe this privilege also entails responsibility. One reason they don't like to be painted as just another animal is that such a view would mean we have no more responsibility towards each other and the environment than other animals do. But some do believe that attempts to clean up the environment are best left to the private realm than the government, and this is where they are often misconstrued as being against it.

On I.D, certainly the question of whether or not it belongs in a science classroom is debatable, but there are broader issues at play here. Rather than reflecting an ignorance of or hatred for science, it reflects a distrust of a subject that has strayed from its roots of being a value-neutral way of explaining the workings of the physical world to an actual value system; they feel that this change could have a very negative impact on society in terms of the nihilistic and materialistic worldview they believe it implies. So while they have no problem with microevolution, they do have a problem with taking value-neutral observations about evolutionary processes and turning it into a value system that they believe suggests that humans are mere chemical accidents. This would be a good issue to discuss with them.

On the poor, this is something they believe is best left to individual people (and they do believe people should give generously; many churches provide services and many families have their own ministries) rather than the government; they believe it's more effective this way and more generous, involving people giving because they want to, not a government program giving because it's law-the old debate between liberals and conservatives. The reason the views of religious conservatives line up with the right on this is because family is of central importance to them-they believe strong families are better protected against poverty and that government programs undermine this protection and the family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It won't work, Part 2 Posted by: midge
» RE: It won't work, Part 2 Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: It won't work Posted by: terradea
» RE: It won't work Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: It won't work Posted by: Charlie Big Potatoes
» RE: It won't work Posted by: drmflorida
» analysis by assertion Posted by: Joshua Holland
» What WILL work! Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: It won't work Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: It won't work Posted by: VeryBlessed
» Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Liberal/Progressive rejection Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: It won't work Posted by: arisgrandma
What Would Jesus Think
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 1, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any book that points out the shameful hypocracy of the so-called "religious" right is a book after my own heart. Please, if you have the time, read a little piece that I wrote on the subject. If AlterNet would like to publish it it full, THAT would be an honor! Here it is:
Christ Vs. Conservatism: A Serious Conflict

Pray for peace
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Would Jesus Think Posted by: surfreality
» RE: What Would Jesus Think Posted by: aussidawg
Notice that universal healthcare and progressive taxation are not on the list of issues here
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 1, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take a look at what issues are featured as the
primary ones to include in the American Political Debate:


the Environment
Gay Marriage:
Intelligent Design
Euthanasia:
Michael Moore:
Women
Capital Punishment
The Iraq War
The Holidays
Faith-Based Initiatives
Stem Cells:
The Poor:
Abstinence Education:
Abortion:
Booze
Affirmative Action
The Rapture and End-Times


In Europe, the political debate centers around POPULIST ECONOMIC issues that affect the working class as a whole--the two main issues are universal healthcare and progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is what feeds the bulldog in TRUELeft countries in Europe. That what what provides a welfare state, not just for the poor, but for the middle class, too, and of course universal healthcare, too. That is the centerpiece of True Left political debate--populist economics. THat is how the working class gains an advantage over the upper class. The upper class wants to focus political debate on issues other than populist economics, such as race, gender, religion, abortion, the environement, etc. This distracts the debate away from the issues that could show the white American majority middle class that leftism could help them too.

This distracting debate is how the upper class keeps its advantages and power over the working middle class.

Look at the list of issues above. Is it a FakeLeft or a TRUE Left list of issues?

Will it unite working Americans or divide them into factions? Are these issues even resolvable at all?

Who does it benefit to keep the debate on these issues? Who does it benefit to create the perception that welfare state benefits should only be for the poor?

Is our American Left, as exemplified by these Alternet articles, day in and day out, a True Left that helps the working class or a Fake Left set up to help the Upper class?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You guys are not even Fake Left Posted by: EricVerlo
Crackpot Christianity is a Crackpot Cult
Posted by: mat38 on Sep 1, 2006 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And many, many Americans are cracpot followers who will be very disappointed when the nukes start flying and moaning Jesus remains in a Gay LA Bathouse with Dennis Rodman and Jeff Gannon high on meth and taking it upside his colon. What will the crackpots they do then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recycling is progressive
Posted by: fork on Sep 1, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amusing, but this book seems to just recycle the Letter to Dr. Laura which has circulated on the internet since about 2000. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp if you haven't read the Dr. Laura letter.

Pointing out those ridiculous inconsistencies in applying biblical verse didn't stop Christians then; why would it work now? The article (and book) is just preaching to the converted. Or should I say, unconverted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

without the christians
Posted by: ellie on Sep 1, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how would we be able to figure out who is nuts or not. when will people figure out that things happen when they are supposed to happen, and toying with a time line is not a good thing to do like trying to force the 'rapture'. so happy I have never read the bible in my life!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lanham missed some VERY Key Points
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. There are NO words attributed to JC re:
Homosexuality,
so believers would do well to follow him closer, and keep their mouths shut on that topic too!

2. Modern Biblical Scholars agree that many of the writings of Paul: such as the one demanding women keep silent-were NOT written by Paul, but by another in his name to gain credibilty and further their agenda: keeping women down.

JC broke the taboo of speaking to women, he even allowed his mind to be changed by a few!

IMAGINE if the early church fathers had followed JC that closely, it would be a very different world today.

3. Rabbi Hillel lived 100 years before The Christ walked the earth and he understood that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom:
THE FEMININE Divinity
was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word.

It was Paul and John who first understood
The Word was good and
The Word was The Logos
The Word is The Christ.

It was Lennon on Rubber Soul who intuitively knew:
"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love"

Use your imagination and you will see that BEFORE Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a She:
Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity
isn't that good news?

The God Head is One Pure Being;
as much male as female
as much mommy as daddy.
And we are all children of Her Universe;
And
**He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything; and everything is born of Him.
He is the supreme controller of the universe,
the maintainer and instructor of humanity.
He is smaller than the smallest.[**Bhagavad-Gita]


4. Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 are simpatico with "heretical" Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

In other words, JC NEVER said you had to accept him as God, what he did was point The Way to Giod within every sister, brother, and all of Creation and


"Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,

but to nurture, care and love

And if you have not love, you have nothing at all

And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator

And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth

by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out."

Chapter 10: All I've Got
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two books worth reading Posted by: kenhymes
a little history on the heresy of the rapture: escapist theology
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Jewish Zionism began with the hope that all Jewish people would have a safe and peaceful dwelling place, the Christian Zionists/CZ's] are inherently antisemitic and have corrupted the gospel Christ preached.

The CZ's adhere to a 200 year old mis-interpretation and mis-reading of disparate scriptures that they have weaved together to support their fear based doctrine.

John Hagee has captivated nearly 18,000 misled Christians at his Cornerstone Church with his take on who the anti-christ is, and he also hosts a major TV ministry where he explains his views of how the end times will unfold. He blatantly corrupts and denies the message that Christ preached.

Hagee, Hal Lindsay and the Left Behinder's are doomsday false 'prophets' who believe that the only way to defeat what they have labeled "Islamist fascists" is with a full-scale military assault.

The cult of 'Christian' Zionism is what the concept of Anti-Christ is all about. This heretical theology of Premellenial Dispensation worships a god of Armageddon and not the God of love, forgiveness and compassion that Jesus/AKA The Prince of Peace taught, is the epitome of what the majority of theologians have always understood to be what the term anti-christ is really about.

Christian Zionists desire to convert the Jews to Christianity or leave them to perish in a nuclear holocaust, for they believe that is Gods desire.

In 1891, Christian fundamentalist and lay-preacher, William Blackstone appealed to President Benjamin Harrison to help establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Blackstone was a disciple of Dwight L. Moody and they both were influenced by the father of premillenial dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby.

Darby had great success in connecting with the post-Civil War survivors and was able to transmit his new theology into the heartland of America. Despite the horrifying news of Czarist pogroms that could have been the catalyst to establishing a Jewish state before the Holocaust, the fundamentalists moved onto the Scope's Trial and forgot about the Jews for a while.

Fifty years later and after six million innocents were cold bloodedly murdered, and then only after the British Mandate ran out, Israel was born.
Most evangelicals interpreted the establishment of Israel to be the fulfillment of -how they understood and interpreted- certain prophetic scriptures. They interpreted the Israeli victory in the 1967 War and the capture of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights to be an act of God and not because of Israeli superior military might.

The American Bi-Centennial in 1976 was a watershed year for the religious right. While mainline churches declined evangelical fundamentalist churches became the fastest growing sector of American Christianity. TIME magazine named 1976 as The Year of The Evangelical and suddenly they became a legitimate political and religious force.
"Following the War of 1967, Israel gained an increased portion of USA foreign aid and military budgets, becoming the 'western pillar' of the USA strategic alliance against Soviet incursion into the Middle East...During this period AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby agencies began their ascent to power in shaping USA foreign policy. The Roman Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations began to develop a more balanced approach to the Middle East, bringing them closer to the international consensus on the Palestinian question. Pro-Israel organizations interpreted this shift as being Anti-Israel and in turn began to court the conservative Christians."-pg. 35 Challenging Christian Zionism www.sabeel.org

Excerpted from:
August 13, 2006
The Cult of the Antichrist
http://www.opednews.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only The Good Die Young
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 1, 2006 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come out Virginia, don't let me wait
You Catholic girls start much too late
aw But sooner or later it comes down to fate
I might as well be the one

well, They showed you a statue, told you to pray
They built you a temple and locked you away
But they never told you the price that you pay
For things that you might have done.....
Only the good die young
thats what i said
only the good die young x2

You might have heard I run with a dangerous crowd
We ain't too pretty we ain't too proud
We might be laughing a bit too loud
aw But that never hurt no one

So come on Virginia show me a sign
Send up a signal I'll throw you the line
The stained-glass curtain you're hiding behind
Never lets in the sun
Darlin' only the good die young
(woah x5 )
i tell ya
only the good die young x2

You got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation
You got a brand new soul
mmmm, And a cross of gold
But Virginia they didn't give you quite enough information
You didn't count on me
When you were counting on your rosary
(oh woah woah)

They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the Sinners are much more fun...

you know that only the good die young...

Billy Joel

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Effing Brilliant! LOL Posted by: Suburban Dad
The Spirit of the antichrist
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2006 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term "antichrist" only appears five times in the Bible, but a cult not based on sound theology has created an urban legend that seeks Armageddon. The term "antichrist" never appears in John's Revelation or Daniel, two disparate works of literature written three centuries apart and under very different circumstances, yet the Left Behinder's weave them together.

The small texts that mention the "antichrist" were written to attack the Gnostic understanding of who Christ was. A Gnostic relies on intuition and not on dogma and doctrine. Gnostic's were most certainly free spirits and most all of the writings we have about Gnostics, have been the attacks upon them. That all changed when the Nag Hamadi Library was translated and published, for what had been deemed heretical by those in power in the fourth century can now be read in most every language.

Biblical scholars today agree that many books of the Bible were written by others in the name of an apostle, for the quickest way to gain credibility is to trade on another's reputation.

We may never know if the author who coined the term "antichrist" was actually the apostle John who wrote I John and 2 John-the only sources where the term appears.

John also say's much more:

"Dear Children,
...as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many have come..."- I John 2:18

"This is how we know who the children of God are not: anyone who does not do right; nor anyone who does not love his brother."-I John 3:10

"If anyone has material possessions and see's his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? ...let us love with actions and in truth."-I John 3:17

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out all fear because fear has to do with punishment."

The theology promoted in the "Left Behind" fiction is a theology based on fear and punishment. These misinformed Christian's worship a punitive father as God.
Many do not have eyes to see that nature is God's primary temple, and war the greatest abomination.

During the time when John was writing about the spirit of antichrist, Gnosticism was still in it's evolution and far from the intricately developed system of the second and third centuries when the church and it's institutional hierarchy became firmly established. During the time John was writing against the false teachings, the Gnostics were by and large libertines who denied Christ's humanity. Some said that Christ only appeared to have a body; others said the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at his baptism and left him when he died.

The Gnostics left no testimony in their behalf, so all we have to go on is what was written against them and the texts that survived and are now the Nag Hamadi Library. These texts offer no new information but prove that early Christian's were just as diverse as Christians today.

The Armageddon groupies believe they will be lifted out of the misery of the world, and neglect to reflect upon the antichrist within, which is how centuries of theologians understood the term.

For many, the term anti/against Christ means to be anti/against his teachings...

Excerpted from
August 21, 2006
http://www.opednews.com
The Spirit of the Antichrist

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Spirit of the antichrist Posted by: cosmicgold
Harder they fall
Posted by: fifthworld on Sep 1, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's really only one effective or necessary tactic: when you encounter a parched and crusty fundy, touch him and he'll keel over or crumble, collapse like a deck of cards, or a controlled demolition, or a metaphor to be named (botched)later.

If you do want, of course, you can engage in some semblance of intellectual debate if you have the mental stability and emotional stamina.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dorothy Day and eileen fleming
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Love is not the starving of whole populations. Love is not the bombardment of open cities. Love is not killing, it is the laying down of one's life for one's friends. Our manifesto is the Sermon on the Mount, which means that we will try to be peacemakers." -Dorothy Day



About 2,000 years ago, when Christ was about 33, he hiked up a hill and sat down under an olive tree and began to teach the people;

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."

In other words: it is those who know their own spiritual poverty, their own limitations and sins honestly and trust God loves them in spite of themselves who already live in the Kingdom of God.

God's name in ancient Aramaic is Abba which means Daddy as much as Mommy and He/She: The Lord has said, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not yours." –ISAIAH 55:8

How comforted we will all be, when we see, we haven't got a clue, as to the depth and breadth of pure love and mercy of The Divine Mystery of The Universe.


Christ proclaimed more: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." The essence of meek is to be patient with ignorance, slow to anger and never hold a grudge. In other words: how happy you will be when you also know humility; when you know ourselves, the good and the bad, for both cut through every human heart.

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be filled." In other words: how happy you will be when your greatest desire is to do what God requires, and he has already told you what that is; be mercy, seek justice and walk humbly with your Lord.[-Micah 6:8]

"Blessed are the merciful, they will be shown mercy." In other words: how happy you will all be when you choose to return only kindness to your ‘enemy.' "For with the measure you measure against another, it will be measured back to you." Christ warns his disciples as he explains the law of karma in Luke 6:27-38.


"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they see God." In other words: how happy you will be when you WAKE UP and see God is already within you, within every man, every woman and every child. The Supreme Being is everywhere, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Beyond The Universe -and yet so small; within the heart of every atom.

"Blessed are The Peacemakers: THEY shall be called the children of God." Oh how happy the WORLD will be when we all seek justice and pursue it, for there can be no peace without justice.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires, theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven."

And one fine day the lion will lie down with The Lamb and man will make war no more and that is the Kingdom of God.


public service message from the
.org
wearewideawake

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Effing Brilliant!! LOL
Posted by: Suburban Dad on Sep 1, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was the best post yet!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New approach?
Posted by: Bbear41 on Sep 1, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A coluum in today's local paper says that libertarian Republicans (South Park Republicans, so-called) are falling out with the Bushite-Christian right Repub party. Seems to me this could be an opertunity for a constructive departure from the establishe parties. I don't see how libertarians of any stripe could get along with the Repub establishment as it is now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New approach? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: New approach? Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: New approach? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: New approach? Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: New approach? Posted by: kittynboi
bumper sticker slogan
Posted by: drmflorida on Sep 1, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
somebody at the local community radio station here had an idea for a bumper sticker that I wish I could claim as my own.

"The Rapture is NOT an Exit Plan"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christian Zionism
Posted by: Bbear41 on Sep 1, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long thought the right-wing Armagedonist Christians care nothing for Isrealies and Jews as people, Only as markers in the 'end times' prophetic script

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christian Zionism Posted by: Kym525
Michael Moore is a great American Hero.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Sep 1, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I find people like you who bash him and yet consider yourself progressive...to be the annoying ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A barrage of bumper stickers
Posted by: owleyes on Sep 1, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has all the platitudes in current stock conveniently rolled into one giant platitude, namely "it's us vs. them." I tried out all of these arguments and more on my Bible believin parents when I was in my early 20s. It didn't convince them of anything. It only created rancor and ruined my relationship with my dad for about 4 years. What I learned from that experience is that if you only have a superficial awareness of what's in the Bible, it's a bad idea to go arguing about it with people who know it backward and forward. Fundamentalists are crazy, but they know the Bible far better than most of us heathens. Also, if you argue with them about what the Bible says, you only reinforce their idea that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Anyway, as tempting as it is to get sucked into polemical, ideological debate with Christians, has anything good ever come of it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perhaps not, but Posted by: Aim
» Fortune be with you, then Posted by: owleyes
Abortion and the comic book "Christians"
Posted by: pogo on Sep 1, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion and the comic book "Christians"

Jesus never talks about abortion, as it is recorded in the Bible. Yet most modern Christians, particularly Fundamentalists, seem to labor under the misapprehension that the Christian Church has always condemned abortion as murder. Did you know that until 1869, abortion in the first trimester was pretty much OK with the Catholics? They didn't officially think that the 'soul' entered the embryo until later in the pregnancy. A very strange idea arose fairly recently, historically speaking, that said that God throws infant souls down into bodies at conception and if they are not born and don't get to hear about Jesus, then they have to hang out in Limbo for all eternity. This is a sort of comic book version of Christianity and totally perverts the merciful and loving God that Jesus talks about, into a sort of demonic god who arbitrarily condemns little babies for something someone else does. Comic book Christianity. The people who believe that particular superstition don't seem to have actually understood the 'good news' that Jesus taught - the truth that we are all deathless spirit, and that, in our essence, we are all children of that divine spirit, sometimes called God, that is the true being at the heart of everything,. No 'soul' is ever lost through the death of a body. Most cultures, including our own until just recently, have believed that the divine spark unites with the physical body at birth or late in the pregnancy. Most of the wisdom teachings of the world say that souls are old and wise, not newly created whenever a sperm cell happens to meet an egg, and that they don't have to associate with a body that isn't going to come to term. In any case, 'souls' don't die with the death of the body. A tissue cluster the size of your fingernail may be a potential vehicle for a human birth but no one is in the vehicle yet so when one of these zygotes is aborted, no one has been "murdered", as the comic book christians so hysterically claim.

Here is a short, partial history of abortion.

"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, the gender of a fetus could not be determined visually until about 90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to determine gender. Ultrasound devices were millennia in the future. Thus contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

There were three main movements within early Christianity. Two did not succeed: Jewish Christianity and Gnostic Christianity. The third, Pauline Christianity, flourished and evolved into the Christian Church. It was surrounded by a mosaic of other competing religions within the Roman Empire, including Judaism, the Greek state religion, Mithraism, the Roman state religion, and various Mystery religions. With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to strangle or expose (abandon) new-born babies as methods of population control. There are many writings, letters and petitions of early Christian philosophers and Church Fathers which equated abortion with infanticide and condemned both as murder.
cont.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

only the good die young
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 1, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hell, I LIVED that song. Virginia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundies have as much to do with....
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Sep 1, 2006 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christianity as Michael Jordan had to do with playing hockey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About the happy holidays thing
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Sep 1, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a liberal Christian myself, I've always wondered at the weakness of fundies' relationship with God that their relationship is threatened by others not celebrating as they do. Are they really that weak that others celebrating Festivus or nothing at all threatens their commemmoration? Weasels. No, much worse than that, weasels are not self-conscious beings. And at least they're fairly logical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typo?
Posted by: peritonlogon on Sep 1, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FTA
"In fact, the progressive Christian charity, Christian Aid, released a report in 2006 warning that close to 200 million people could die in Africa by the year 3000 as a result of famine, drought, and floods brought on by climate change."

The year 3000? I'd like to see their projection model. Anyways, 200 million people dying of starvation on a continent is not all that bad for a millenium, far fewer than this past one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please, if you want to talk about this seriously, read this book
Posted by: kenhymes on Sep 1, 2006 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ESSENTIAL READING for any Christian, and for any non-believer who is going to try and seriously engage fundamentalist Christians on their own terms: Paul Johnson's magnificent and groundbreaking work, studiously ignored by the fake Bible "scholars" of the Christian Right - "A History of Christianity."

This book can teach so much about the origins and complexity of Christian thought.
It debunks both sentimental New Age notions about the Essenes and gnostics (the Essenes were militaristic Zealots, the gnostics elitist and full of contempt for outsiders and the disabled), as well as the fake history of the church promulgated by those we now consider the early church fathers, and sustained by the Vatican later on (in truth, every sect had an "authentic lineage" tracing them back to Jesus, and there was no agreement on the meaning of Jesus' ministry, anywhere, until it was imposed by the power of the Roman state).

One more aspect little known or understood by most I hear talking about this topic: the most organized and successful Christians, until the razing of Jerusalem in 66-70, were Jews in Jerusalem, not the roving evangelists described in Acts. They were interested in re-absorbing Jesus into the Mosaic law and the temple system, but also were focused on the return of a political and military messiah who would defeat the Romans. It wasn't until after the destruction of this faction (and the Jewish state) by the Romans that the center of gravity of Christianity shifted, by default, to Rome and Greece, and became universalist and cosmopolitan, in many ways akin to its primary rival at the time - the "mission to the Gentiles" of the Diaspora Jews who had already left Judea.

These urban, Hellenized Jews were liberal, universalist in leaning, and concerned with social justice and charity. They attracted and encouraged many non-Jews, known upon joining as God-Fearers, to their conception of a single universal God. The Pauline Churches, to which Paul's letters were addressed, were more like Pentecostal churches of today, full of speaking in tongues and prophecy, and more than a little out of control. Paul struggled unsuccessfully in his lifetime to make churches that accepted his theology of grace over law more like the Jewish Diaspora missions in social character and practice. He was the proponent of reason and faith working together. He was an impassioned intellectual and reformer, not a hateful bigot.

There's way too much to say about this book. If you are truly interested in what happened after Jesus died, and what that means for the way we conceive of Christianity, and in many ways the world... START WITH THIS BOOK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genocide, Rape and Abortion
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Sep 1, 2006 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two questions for members of the Judaeo-Christian axis.

1. If the Bible is to be believed, Moses, having ordered the destruction of the Midianites, was "wroth" with his armies' leaders for being overly gentle with the vanquished foe. "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?" (Numbers 31:15). Upon learning that not all the women and children had been slaughtered, he gave this charming order: "Now, therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:17-18). So, is this a tradition that can speak contemptuously of other religions and condemn them for a penchant for violence?

2. If God's laws are universal, eternal and immutable, why is there so much flip-flopping? Relying here upon the Roman Catholic Church (pace Protestant, Orthodox and assorted other followers of Jesus), why do rules change so dramatically? For quite some time, it was agreed that "life" began only at the instant of "quickening" usually about one-third of the way through a pregnancy; before that, abortion was not a sin. The current belief that the termination of a fetus is an abomination from the instant "the sperm hits the germ" has not been consistently held. A better (funnier?) case in point, however, is the fact that, at one point (though still deemed illicit) an abortion was punished by a church-imposed penance that lasted for a full three months. But wait! It also meted out a penance of seven years for oral sex. So, are cunnilingus and fellatio twenty-eight times as sinful as an abortion?

Now, of course, consistency is no guarantee of truth (some of us have been very wrong for a very long time, and all of us can all learn new things), but chronic inconsistency is certainly a problem for those claiming to have truth by the tail (or is that "tale"?).

A pre-metrosexual with gender-language problems once offered this:

"Good men do good things. Bad men do bad things. But, to get a good man to do bad things requires religion."

His penance for gender-bias should, I think, be small.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Genocide, Rape and Abortion Posted by: ISlamIslam
"Religion is the opiate of the people"... and this book sucks!
Posted by: jonestown kool-aid on Sep 1, 2006 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first printing of this book should be recycled and turned into 'bath tissue' (a.k.a toilet paper), that way it might be put to a useful purpose. Border's and other bookstores are filled with 'rag literature' like this... just a step above, or below, the new york post- in terms of useful information presented to the reader. It may be amusing to read, but it doesn't do anything to contribute to reasonable, intelligent debate. Kind of like listening to sean hannity- he's amusing when he's trying to say something meaningful, but ultimately he never makes any sense (to anyone capable of rational thought) because he's too arrogant to realize what an incredibly ridiculous human being he actually is.

.......... ok, next subject.........

My oldest brother, and his family of four are evangelical christians. He and his wife used to belong to the ZPG group (zero population growth, basically you have 2 kids to replace you and your spouse, thereby stabilizing our population over time). These days he believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, and he often gets mad at blasphemers. I choose to not dicuss religion with him, and we get along just fine.... until we dicuss any contemporary societal issue (gay marriage, abortion), then his 'moral switch' gets flipped and he begins to quote scripture.

His church (and many others) 'convert' queers- they brainwash them into being straight. WHAT THE F*&K IS THAT?!?!?!?! I don't shit on people for their religious choices, but I HAVE to speak up when their ACTIONS obstruct the path towards a more open and tolerant society. Also, I could care less if people are gay unless some dude is hitting on me --persistently, that is annoying beyond words-(yes this happens to men and women at times, sorry it's the truth). The key to dealing with adverse situations is to be CALM and not get EMOTIONAL in ANY sitution, no matter what. Ask anyone who's seen a riot start, all it takes is one asshole in a crowd to become aggressive and then all hell breaks loose... if people were not fearful, and kept their heads wired tight the negative situation might be averted...it's the same with debates on social issues. Rational behavior is not often rewarded.

One more thing... BOTH sides (left & right) need to recognize their own b.s. before anything will change. Neither side is 'correct', both are inherently flawed belief systems that offer solace to those who subscribe.

500 years ago most people believed the earth was flat, Columbus proved them wrong ( he also practiced genocide, and considered himself a religious man... sound familiar?) Galileo was shunned by the establishment for his study of astronomy, in america we burned 'witches', because they were satanic (actually the people burning them were misled by their own rigid religious beliefs and fear.

I don't agree with some of my brother's choices or beliefs, but I will love him no matter what. Compassion and tolerance are two things jesus espoused, everyone else (regardless of faith, or lack thereof), could do the same. We don't have to agree as a society, that notion is impossible. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean you can't get along with them. And bagging on christians, or muslims, or any other faith doesn't lead us toward any meaningful debate either. Oh yeah, if anyone is wondering... the answer is- no I don't go to church, but I do believe that something exists which is way beyond our comprehension (no, not an old man living in the sky, sorry).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recovering a rosy past
Posted by: hquain on Sep 2, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lanham's attempt to portray 'the saved' as salvageable is seriously naive. Consider the first sentence:

"Until the sixties, evangelicals were just as likely to be Democrats as they were to be Republicans."

This is because in the 60's the content of these terms changed! The civil rights revolution (100 yrs after the Civil War, fer chrissake) drove the racist right in the South out of their odd but comfortable home in the Democratic party into the more-than-open arms of the Republicans.

Color-blind and region-blind, Lantham's view is this: "the advent of the ERA Movement, the Roe v. Wade decision, and a godless culture filled with bra burnings and rock music created a unifying shift to the right. "

Shift? This is selective fantasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmm. Consider this.....
Posted by: wdzeller on Sep 2, 2006 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that many Democratic party members and the left in general love to call attention to the " insensitivity, bigotry, and ignorance of the evangelicals" (my quotes merely point out this general attitude which those same evangelicals are made VERY AWARE of as a result of the derogatory depictions made of them in the press and popular culture in general).

Why would any "progressive" expect these same people, who primarily populate the South and Mid-West, to therefore VOTE for them? It is a fact that nearly every week on this website I read comments by contributing "progressives" that are demeaning and degrading to those people who live in the aforementioned regions, and I myself have had the pleasure to read such comments made about thoughts and ideas that I have personally posted in response to various articles.

Face it folks, it you don't start winning elections in the South and Midwest you WILL NOT be able to enact the programs that are most dear to your hearts.

Less someone start throwing the anti-South, "you're a bible-thumping evangelical" Ad Hominem attacks as a response to what I've written here, let me make it clear that I'm an Anglican who is Libertarian in his politics, and who espouses the Austrian School of Economics and also Raw Material Economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmmm. Consider this..... Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Hmmm. Consider this..... Posted by: wdzeller
» I concur Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: I concur Posted by: kittynboi
There is only one question that this book must answer.
Posted by: Reader11722 on Sep 2, 2006 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's only one important question for every book written criticizing Republicans in power in the United States: Did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that question would explain the illegal wire-taps, the banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, the detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and the multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived - Book

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's picket Long John Silver's
Posted by: No.mad on Sep 2, 2006 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9. ...whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas...they shall be an abomination unto you: 11. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

That does it! I'm getting my paint and cardboard. Meet me at the front door!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's picket Long John Silver's Posted by: doctorsquared
It will too work
Posted by: dkm on Sep 2, 2006 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the rationalizations presented by Midge are just that, rationalizations for not acting in a Christian manner while still claiming to be a Christian. While it is true that some evangelicals are interested in restoring the environment, many more are against it. One of the evangelical leaders in the environmental effort received a bunch of hate mail from other evangelicals, one even asking if he really believed that God would let the earth be destroyed. Remember Noah? Remember "God said a fire, not a flood next time?"

By and large, with few counter examples (Jim Wallis being a prominent counter example), the evangelicals have forsaken Christian values by distorting the message of Christ to fit their own selfish worldview. I remember seeing a letter to the editor of the NYT by a woman from Mississippi claiming that her Bible said that we shouldn't help the poor. I considered sending her a Bible suggesting that she read the words printed in red.

I liked the passage about God destroying those who destroyed the earth. It should give the Rapturists second thoughts about working for the end of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm looking forward to the author's next book
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Sep 3, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm looking foward to a hilarious new book following this one that provides instructions on how to argue the big issues with ultra-conservative Jihadi Shari-ists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horse Hockey!!!!!
Posted by: Somedaysoon on Sep 3, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fundamentalists do pick and choose. Few have read the bible, most get their beliefs from other people that pick and choose parts of the bible to serve their bigoted, narrow and unchristian points of view. ALL fundamentalists are dangerous whether christian, muslim, jewish, etc. They rely on a strict belief system that generally finds all others the heathens that must be converted or destroyed.
When a church group gives as much to the welfare of the poor as they do for church expansion and parking lots I might say "job well done". When christians choose to hate homosexuals, women of liberation, people of color/race/whatever, but fail to comprehend their own sins of adultery, stealing, hate, child abuse, battery of women and children, etc., I will continue to steer clear of them. I attended church in my younger days and saw such atrocities-even murder, rape, and theft. But they hated the gays, abortion, womens liberation, contraception, Dr. Spock, etc. I even attended a baptist college. The hypocracy stinks. When the hate stops, women are seen as equals, homosexuals are left alone, politics gets out of the church, and the poor are truly helped I can start looking for a church again. Until that day I will continue to find Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins, as crooks, liars, corrupted fools to watch carefully as you would an enemy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OT is defunct
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Sep 3, 2006 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assuming Jesus said words to the effect of "the only 2 commandments you need are "Love your God" and "love your neighbour as yourself"", everything else is either irrelevant or is just a result of one of these 2.

Therefore, any quoting from the OT that the right-wing, fundie, whack-jobs try to shove down our throats can be written off as a lack of education on the part of the fundie because they don't seem to realise that Jesus wanted life to be SIMPLE and he wanted people to love and be kind to each other. I'm sure Jesus was acutely aware of how man-made most religious rules were (still ARE), so he wanted to do away with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OT is defunct Posted by: conquerormarr
Jeeezuz
Posted by: Xjy on Sep 4, 2006 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rebel_Pig thinks European states are TrueLeft. That's not true at all. The working class has a bit more protection than in the States, but it won the protection from the capitalist ruling class as a bribe to prevent it from revolution and the destruction of capitalism. The working class after world war 2 was so angry, so organized and militant, and so used to being armed and fighting, that it took BIG BRIBES and really treacherous leadership from its politicians to head it off from revolution. Churchill was quickly dumped in Britain, but the system threw up Attlee, and he and his henchmen pulled the wool over the working class´s eyes. Since then, after a couple of decades of advances for working class living standards (not political power as such), all governments in all these European etc countries have done their damndest to roll back these welfare state reforms (that includes Labour governments).
We'll see what crawls out of the swamp when the housing bubble bursts, the dollar implodes and the US is crushed under its own debt mountain. If you lot don't start discussing socialism and organizing for it soon, the creature crawling out of the swamp won't be pretty to look at or live with.
As for this religious crap and arguing about the bible -- welcome to the Middle Ages!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could they both be crazy?
Posted by: nhilbourn on Sep 5, 2006 12:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Damn, we're going to take an ultra-liberal's advice on how to talk to ultra-conservatives?

How about we agree that both sides are a little crazy.

I think that settles the argument.

By the way, why did Alternet even print this? The entire book sounds like a fucking blog entry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You cant argue with idiots.
Posted by: hudgeliberal on Sep 5, 2006 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found that it is virtually impossible to argue with the idiotic conservative christians. When you pin them down on a subject and prove them wrong..they will just change the subject or say something like"thats just the way god wants it"..what a bunch of idiots! The average IQ of conservative christians is 38pts lower than that of people who consider themselves liberal. MMmmmm...nuff said! We are heading into fascism at warp speed...it is time to fight back against the right wing dictators who stole our government in a bloodless coup. I say fight back "by any means neccesary"..it is time to take the country back from the rich,white,elitist who want to enslave the rest of the population. One thing in our favor..there are far more of the poor and working people than the rich elite. We have numbers on our side...now is the time to make them listen. One way or another!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religious Leaders' Statement on Christian Zionism
Posted by: wawa on Sep 5, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism" released Aug. 22, 2006, was written by Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem and other local heads of Churches in Jerusalem. They affirm:

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel.

The Christian Zionist program provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it laces an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral preemptive borders and domination over Palestine.

This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ.

Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements.

The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermine the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights.

We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.

We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.

We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others.

We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building.

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but without violence.

"What does the Lord require of you:
To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)



Complete Statement
Sept 4
WAWA BLOG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what's new.......
Posted by: Michiganman on Sep 7, 2006 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows the neocons are twisting christian faith into a "self-punishment guilt complex" designed to invoke IMPERIAL powers onto the presidency(AND PASTORS ALIKE). Let's cut to the chase and dump their FFFFing tea into the harbor.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what's new....... Posted by: Doubtom
I LOVE IT
Posted by: dadanbetty on Sep 10, 2006 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that the people who follow Christianity know little about it and the people whom do not follow it seem to be better informed about it........why is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]