Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Theocracy Rejected: Former Christian Right Leaders 'Fess up

By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted March 10, 2008.


Frank Schaeffer, John Whitehead and Cal Thomas have repudiated the theocratic movement they once led. Here’s why.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rob Boston

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Frank Schaeffer spent several years making a good living writing books promoting the Religious Right's worldview and speaking before rapturous crowds of fundamentalist Christians.

Schaeffer, the son of evangelical guru Francis Schaeffer, was the closest thing to a rock star that politically conservative fundamentalism can offer. As the Religious Right soared in the 1980s, Schaeffer was there to ride the wave. Young, bright and charismatic, he could have founded his own Religious Right group or perhaps even launched a political career.

Twenty years have passed. What does Schaeffer think of the Religious Right today? He wouldn't touch it with the proverbial 10-foot pole -- and the feeling is mutual. A spiritual and professional crisis brought Schaeffer to the understanding that the Religious Right has it all wrong.

"My doubts really began when I realized that the people we were working with on the Religious Right were profoundly anti-American," Schaeffer said in a recent interview. "I began to get the same vibe from them I got from my friends on the far left during the Vietnam War. They seemed to be rooting for North Vietnam. When I was working with the Religious Right, they seemed be rooting for the failure of America. Bad news was good news for them."

Schaeffer isn't the only ex-Religious Right activist having second thoughts these days. About 30 years ago, a young lawyer named John W. Whitehead worked alongside people like Jerry Falwell to help birth the Religious Right. Hoping to give the movement an intellectual grounding, Whitehead penned a series of books attacking the separation of church and state and demanding a government based on Christian fundamentalism.

Whitehead's books -- The Separation Illusion, The Second American Revolution and The Stealing of America -- made him a popular figure in Religious Right circles. With the backing of Falwell and others, he helped found the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive and highly influential coalition of Religious Right groups. He also formed the Rutherford Institute, a legal group designed to promote conservative Christian causes.

Venturing into the farthest fringes of the Religious Right, Whitehead was for several years close to Rousas John Rushdoony, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement that seeks to replace America's secular republic with a theocracy based on the Old Testament's legal codes.

Whitehead repudiated theocracy years ago. It's unlikely he'd be welcome at a CNP meeting now.

"Politics," he said in a recent interview, "would never even figure into Jesus' mind. He was a homeless person. He was like Gandhi. It wasn't in the picture. Christianity was not founded on politics. It was founded on helping the less fortunate .... That's how you impact culture."

Schaeffer and Whitehead are two high-profile Religious Right apostates, but they aren't the only ones. Even Cal Thomas, who once served as vice president of the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, is critical of the Religious Right these days. Thomas in 2000 coauthored a book titled Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America.

In a column written shortly after Falwell's death in May, Thomas opined, "The flaw in the movement was the perception that the church had become an appendage to the Republican Party and one more special interest group to be pampered. If one examines the results of the Moral Majority's agenda, little was accomplished in the political arena and much was lost in the spiritual realm, as many came to believe that to be a Christian meant you also must be 'converted' to the Republican Party and adopt the GOP agenda and its tactics."

What's more, these critics aren't shy about speaking out. Schaeffer details his years in the Religious Right in his recently published book Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One Of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) Of It Back.

The tome is a frank tell-all loaded with broadsides against the Religious Right. Schaeffer does not hesitate to speak bluntly, as the following passages indicate:

  • "What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not 'conservatives' at all, in the old sense of the word. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries."
  • "Pat Robertson would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement."
  • "Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of 'these idiots' as he often called people like Dobson in private. They were 'plastic,' Dad said, and 'power-hungry.'"
  • "There were three kinds of evangelical leaders: The dumb or idealistic ones who really believed. The out-and-out charlatans. And the smart ones who still believed -- sort of -- but knew that the evangelical world was sh*t, but who couldn't figure out any way to earn as good a living anywhere else."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: christian right

Rob Boston is associate editor for Church and State Magazine.

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


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:
Political ideology pretending to be a religion
Posted by: samurai on Mar 10, 2008 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So in the year 2008, a kindler and gentler Christianity is being declared from the rooftops. What a joke!!! Christianity has the blood of countless native cultures on its "One God" hands precisely because it is politics masquerading as spirituality. This "One God" is the problem because along with the One God, there is also "One Truth", and this, of course, needs to be enforced by something called Dogma. Dogma invariably leads to horrific crimes.

That said, everyone needs to understand that Christianity is a HOAX which was perpetrated by Romans to beat up on the Jews after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple. It has been proven by Joseph Atwill:

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html

Understanding these simple facts will go a long way in reducing the disastrous influence of Christianity on world affairs.

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

» A Hoax? Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: Whom Do You Love? Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Whom Do You Love? Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: Is It Your Heart Here? Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Is It Your Heart Here? Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: Is It Your Heart Here? Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Is It Your Heart Here? Posted by: oregonox
Read 'em & Weep . . . or not
Posted by: mclemens on Mar 10, 2008 2:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two recent well-received books on the subject:
Chris Hedges' American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, which I've read and faithfully recommend (heh heh) whenever I can,
and
E.J. Dionne's Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right which, as a devout freethinker, I probably will take a flier on.

As to the putative historicity of Jesus, an interesting case was made by Semitic language expert and Dead Sea Scroll scholar John Allegro that the greasy -- 'scuse me! -- Anointed One was actually a codename for the amanita muscaria mushroom in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Sad to relate, it's been o.p. for years.

Jesus was a mushroom . . . Gosh, think of what sort of Xmas Carols that could've inspired!

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

» RE: ead 'em & Weep . . . or not Posted by: Intellect
» Anointed Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Anointed Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Anointed Posted by: edgar_michel
Solidarity
Posted by: halrivers on Mar 10, 2008 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In real grass-roots struggles, I often worked with folks from the Religious Right, including Prison Fellowship and Rutherford. Most of the time these were folks who walked the walk, even though they were devoted to institutions that I distrusted. This article bears out the value of principled solidarity and patience. Sooner or later the contradictions would well up for these good people and the wedge issues would loose their edge. Lead with your ears.

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

Solidarity web site
Posted by: halrivers on Mar 10, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I forgot to post my website for more on above.
www.phillipbannowsky.com

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

revelations
Posted by: solrev on Mar 10, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a wonderful revelation that Elmer Gantry is alive and well in America. They should have just asked Kudlow, “free market capitalism the best way to prosperity”. They sold that product and as the market declined they appear to have a new product. The whole Christian right is more media myth than reality. The Christian right that supported Bush is not the Baptists who are supporting Huckabee. “The Holy Spirit entered into their hearts, that they would agree to turn their land over to the beast”. One can not understand what one can not see. Many that were a sleep have been awakened. Many now recognize the beast of Babylon. “They were anti-American religious revolutionaries." I am a Christian revolutionary and we are nationalists, the evangelicals to us, our lost in the wilderness of time. They have such little faith, that they seek things like secular laws and intelligent design. They too will recognize the beast of Babylon, just ask Kudlow “free market capitalism the best way to prosperity”. Even now the beast wages war in the ancient land of the garden where the beast was chained.

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

ongoing
Posted by: felixculpa on Mar 10, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the summary judgments above, the romantic ideals are familiar; they may be as limiting as theocracy in their reductionism.

I doubt Frank has the chops, but Francis Schaeffer’s story has the stuff of a pity-and-terror tragedy. A modest, gentle, passionate man who poured himself into searching dialog with spiritual opponents, and inspired a generation (I was one) of young evangelicals searching for broader horizons in which to explore their faith than the confined self-enclosed and inward-looking community in which they were raised.
His culturally engaged pursuit of moral consequence directed by compassion gave the manipulatively-minded leverage to use him for purposes running counter to everything he had fought for.
He had poured his heart out in a compassionate struggle for generous clarity. He found himself used by greedy power brokers trading on incautious trust, gained through pretense.
He preached a searching depth of humane, transcendent faith; he found himself in a captive in a den of thieves.

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

Schaeffer's conversion is almost comical
Posted by: Jasonix on Mar 10, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For someone to go from evangelicalism to the Greek Orthodox Church because the former was too "theocratic" is almost comical. The Orthodox Church is, or aspires to be, the state-established Church in most of Eastern Europe, and unapologetically persecutes religious non-conformists with a zeal that hasn't been seen in the West since the Enlightenment.

But his case illustrates an important point: we've gotten used to thinking that threat to separation of church and state comes from religious separatist groups that want to impose a radical interpretation of the Bible on the rest of us (most fundamentalists, for example, are religious extremists who separated from the mainline Protestant denominations in the 1920s because the mainline churches accepted the truth of scientific discoveries that disproved literal interpretations of the Bible). The real long-term threat to religious freedom, however, comes from churches like Schaeffer's newfound spiritual home.

I don't see Orthodoxy being a big threat here, although it is currently an evil force in Eastern Europe. In America, I see the big threats coming from Roman Catholicism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Unlike the scattered charismatic leaders of fundamentalism, the leadership of these churches is unified and hierarchical. Both churches essentially equate family and ethnic identity with being part of their respective churches. Both have a historic hostility to the separation of church and state. Both view their religious institution as the only "true" one - a galling claim that no fundamentalist ever made (on the contrary, any fundamentalist would readily admit that one's religious institution was unimportant, as long as it followed the Bible - they were all about their ideas, not about the dominance of their particular institutions). And both churches are very, very active in politics, and use the canard of "discrimination and bigotry" to silence those who openly worry about their activities.

Progressives need to stop obsessing about manic television preachers and start worrying about large, internationally-based hierarchical institutions that have a stated, centuries-old hostility to all progressive values. If Terry Shiavo and the appointment of Opus Dei members to the Supreme Court (a sign of how deeply indebted to the Catholic Right the Bush regime is) weren't wake-up calls, or the campaign of Mitt Romney, I don't know what is.

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

» RE: Authoritarian churches Posted by: oregoncharles
Schaeffer is right
Posted by: blondesprite on Mar 10, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the obituary is probably premature and to buy into the notion that America has entered a "post-Religious Right" era is dangerous.
Carl Coon in an article titled: Toward a Humanist Foreign Policy (www.thehumanist.org)warns we have entered into a liberty vs. security age.
It does not take a mental or a spiritual giant to recognize that George Bush and his band of fundamentalist spiritual, psychological and economic rapists have brought our nation to the brink of disaster on foriegn affairs and on domestic issues.
It should be, by now, no secret to anyone that this was by design and the mission has been accomplished.
The confessions of Kuo, Schaffer, Cal Thomas, Whitehead along with the aplogies of Mrs. McClinton for going along to get along only positions them to take up the new mantle and profit, in a huge way,as the political pendelum swings and during the so-called sea change.
In the future, a warning or ingredient label should be pasted on any organized religion's products and services.
It should read something like this: Warning! This product or service is backed by millions of special interest and lobbyist dollars and contains an ideology which may be harmful to our planet, our economic and national security, your mental and physical health and for many generations to come.
Until then, it is and will remain business as usual. Organized religion that is sanctioned by governments and political factions is the blue dress of all nations.

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

The neverending story
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if the jesus myth is debunked, the thinking-challenged will refuse to make decisions on their own, and will instead, rely on someone else to do it for them. This is the human condition that has, is, and will be so destructive to peace and solidarity for the human family, because those who do the thinking for others are invariably degenerates of the worst sort. The difference between preachers and politicians is practically nil.

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

» RE: The neverending story Posted by: greenthumb
hardcore Xtian-porn
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 10, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These theocrats are renouncing the vows and leaving the camp?

Nah, the only thing I read in this piece is that the Xtian theocrats are rejected by the hardcore fundies because they weren't well, hardcore enough. Don't be fooled into thinking this is over, people. Xtian whackjobs won't rest until this is one nation under their cross. They are a psychotic cult hell-bent on absolute domination.

Either that or it's great graphic novel material...

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

» heaven-bent Posted by: openhouse
Oh, man...
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 10, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Cal f-ing Thomas bails on 'em, you KNOW they've gone so far around the bend that they can't see the bend when they turn around.

Christianity, LOL!

jdfu!

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

» RE: Oh, man... Posted by: cacky
Support The Troops, Please
Posted by: QQOblivion on Mar 10, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, I would like to see (these and other) reformed fundies speaking to our military at, say, the US Air Force Academy. Why must that group of "reformed Muslims" (reported on earlier on Alternet) have all the fun speaking to the cadets?

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

Who cares?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Mar 10, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Seeing of the Liberal Light of these three opportunists hit me like the notion that Josef Goebbels would have turned into a hippie. Where was their brain when they were feeding pseudo-religious bullshit to the idiots? And getting rich off it?

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

» RE: Who cares? Posted by: greenthumb
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Re: Theocracy...
Posted by: OnlyJesusSaves on Mar 10, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please go to this for a truthful meaning of "theocracy." Thank you.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=668

JLof@aol.com

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

Mistaken Bottom Line
Posted by: 060730 on Mar 10, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To focus these accusations against the religious right is to use the same manipulative weapon that you are accusing them of using.

I have seen this same attitude portrayed in ideology after ideology. People get together in groups to give them a sense of place, together decide that they have discovered the real problem, then once they presume to know the bottom line and have validated each other they presume their right to enforce it. The author has described my experience with many groups -- from the revolutionary communist party to the religious right, to the nation of islam to anarchists to all points in between -- who all have more in common in their methods of problem-solving than they are willing to examine.

It reminds me of the series Heroes -- you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys because even though they are each amazing, they are faced with decisions, judgment calls they aren't qualified to make because they don't have enough information. No matter how much they piece together, they still can't save the world.

Archimedes begged for a lever and a place to stand to move the world. He was at least honest. People attach the adjective "power-hungry" to other people who assume the spot they already stand in is perspective enough, their present understanding to be all they need to know to make the tough choices, and who have enough constituency to grab a block of power. But that's just a symptom of the pandemic short-sightedness we are plagued with.

If we were all at least as honest as Archimedes we would realize we often presume too much understanding to make a wise decision, and when things turn out well we are grateful for just dumb luck.

But more often when a decision has to be made, painful fallout ensues. Then we blame God for the results. (How could a loving God do this? How could a loving God allow this?) But it wasn't God at all, it was us, trying to be God, with disastrous results.

To say the religious right has a corner on this flawed thinking is to misdiagnose the problem entirely. It's the wrong boogyman to fear. To cast blame there is to conveniently ignore the boogyman within -- we are all capable, and often entirely willing, to make a presumptuous mistake then cast around for someone to blame for disastrous results.

There is something suspect about using the very same tactics as our enemies -- while denying to ourselves that we could possibly be capable of it. Or denying that it will have the same disastrous results. Insanity by definition, isn’t it? And stirring up others to fear what we fear, isn’t that a dangerous thing?

Anyone who cares about the world at all would be as suspect of their own motives as they are of anyone else’s motives. They would understand that fear of someone else is not a good foundation for problem-solving. I don’t want someone who is afraid of me deciding my fate and my intrinsic value. Anyone who cared about the world at all would long for a loving God who could see it all laid out and assist us in decision-making -- who could protect us from others and others from us. Anyone who loved the world at all would have a little humility.

The religious right might be charged with a track record that is just as flawed as anyone's, that they show no sign of bringing a kingdom to earth that looks any different than the one they want to overthrow. They might be charged with blasphemy -- with using the devil's means to further their own kingdom and pasting God's name on it. These are all fair and just charges.

But to say they are any different than the rest of us is to be as short-sighted as we accuse them of being.

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

» RE: Mistaken Bottom Line Posted by: davewuxi
Who took the politics out of Jesus?
Posted by: peacelf on Mar 10, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus is political! (see my Youtube Channel "Peacelf" for video, Jesus:The Lost Message)

Moreover, Jesus was politically empowering people. His movement for "God's Kingdom" was a here and now political movement to uproot Roman imperial and oppressive rule by teaching Jewish law to Love your neighbor as yourself. Historical Jesus scholar, Dom Crossan argues that Jesus' mission consisted of healing and commensality, sharing of food and "healing" the illness of corrupted cultural and social forces. People who are oppressed suffer from many social stigmas when the two cultures clash.

Most white americans- especially Evangelical Christians-have difficulty understanding the idea of oppression because they are not oppressed.

Jesus was one of the oppressed peasants of Gallilee. He followed the traditions of Old Testament prophets of challenging human kings who were corrupted by greed and power. Would anyone find it unusual that the wealthy and powerful have usurped Jesus' anti-imperialist message and replaced it with an empire-friendly message?

As Cornell West says, there are two kinds of Christians: Constantinian Christians and Prophetic Christians. The Constantinians are imperialist Christians, like the Christian slave owners who used the Bible to justify slavery. Jesus was of the prophetic Jewish tradition. Even while Christians condoned slavery, Christian abolitionists opposed slavery.

So, these recent converts from Right Wing Christiandom still miss the point.

peace

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

I am confused. . .
Posted by: Quasar on Mar 10, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I support their conversion I wonder why they feel the need to convert to anything to justify their beliefs. I understand their disillusionment, but I don't get their need to espouse this disillusionment to the rest of us. Is it for our benefit? Why isn't it enough to see a homeless or hungry person and want to help? Do they really need a church to tell them that that is the right thing to do? Is that the essence of their conversion?

Regardless. In the end, it is a private matter. What they now realize perhaps is that their faith is actually stronger without government standing behind them. The separation protects the state while it strengthens all religious beliefs. True faith should be able to stand alone.

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

» private? Posted by: openhouse
Wonderment
Posted by: electriclady281 on Mar 10, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus asked specifically that he not be worshipped, yet although christians blaspheme by doing so, they fail to follow his teachings about God.

I wonder just how much Cal Thomas and his formerly fundamentally conservative religious right pals knew about Jesus and his teachings in the first place,

Then I wonder about their intelligence because it took them so long to figure out how dangerous a coalition they had helped to establish.

And I wonder why the news of their defection from that camp has not been trumpeted by the media, as their former support for the religious right used to be?

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

» RE: Wonderment Posted by: TagsNOLA
Breathing Easy...
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Mar 10, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and god free for 48 years.

You too can do it. Just get over the illusion of there being ANY gods.

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

» RE: Breathing Easy... Posted by: oceanwaves99999
» RE: Breathing Easy... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Breathing Easy... Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Theocracy Rejected
Posted by: rewassenich on Mar 10, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is about time these 'theologians' find out on what the bible is based on, that it is a story book invented by the early christians after Rome adopted it as the state religion for the roman empire.
The first 'story initiatives' were dreamed up during the council if Nicaea, that Jesus was the son of god, that he 'bodily' went to heaven, that he was never married, never had children, that his true wife Mary-Magdalene was a prostitute. All this can be proven as untrue.
Many similar untruths can be found in the Koran. Basically, all one-god religions are wrong, stories written by men for men, they go against the laws of nature - simply because in nature female and male are absolutely equal. People who really need religion should at least have two gods - one female, one male.
rewassenich@commintl.org

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

» RE: Theocracy Rejected Posted by: Br0ken
» Nicea Rejected Posted by: luckypuck
Christians
Posted by: SOWILO on Mar 10, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christians are there for me to push out of my way.

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

» RE: Christians Posted by: openhouse
The Religious Right Look like Idiots
Posted by: lilcheese71 on Mar 10, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only about a third of America is part of the Religious Right. Thanks to the crimes of Bush and company the influence of the R.R. is waning. In order for the R.R.'s obituary to be written Americans need to be engaged and involved in the political sphere.

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

violence and which jesus?
Posted by: paganpat on Mar 10, 2008 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually there were many Jesus's and the Jesus that schaeffer talks about was homeless by design and wanted everyone to leave their familys like him.All the homeless I know were kicked out of their homes and not homeless by design.Also Gandhi was a Lawer and very political. Non violence is very powerful and Schaeffers Jesus came bearing a sword and was proud of it, not very effective, anyway I don't see anyone turning the other cheek but nonviolence became a political tactic that really worked. Non violence and pacificsm is not the same , not even remotely.

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

Exposed In The Light
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Mar 10, 2008 4:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the view of one man who thought he could change the way Americans live through the Religious Right: he was a member of a certain sect who crawled about like cockroaches inside a home.
An annoyance to many, yes and we weren't sure on a method to eradicate these pests, because we know they're here to stay. But not in our house, okay?
And after we turn on the light we see these creatures scurrying away to avoid the glare because we know they will be exposed for seeking religious answers to political questions, something to which the country wasn't founded on. The author notes that to use the White House or Congress to get your religious views out is not the best vehicle to do so. The church is suited best for it.
This kind of tale is familiar. I think we've all been there, to get involved with an idea or cause and later drop out. Society is big on trends of all sorts, and religion is like that, too. We go to church and switch to another that is to our liking. And our society is too multifaceted to deal with the problems we face today.
Religion tries to help us spiritually, to give us morals, etc. while politics gives us laws and legislation. But the two never bond well in public.
He's one cockroach who's left the pack and got away from that group.

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

Progressives need to stop worrying...
Posted by: Ben Furman on Mar 10, 2008 5:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...about specious religious threats.

I normally enjoy your responses on most issues, jasonix, but you're way off base on this one. Orthodox Christians, in general, keep their noses out of politics because they have nothing to gain from it. Most of their positions run counter to the needs/desires of the state, so it is in their best interest to maintain separation wherever possible. The Bolsheviks ran the Russian church almost completely underground. Where is the evidence of the counter-persecution of non-conformists that you allege?

Characterizing an entire body of believers as "evil" is counterproductive at best. Lumping the Orthodox together with the church of Rome and the LDS is a combination of exaggeration and nonsense.

Rather than "worry" about any of these people and their agendas, progressives should live by example and mind their own damn business. Live and let live. Patristic hierarchies have no more power over you than you are willing to give them.

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

Former religious right missionaries see the "light"
Posted by: pennagal on Mar 10, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One hopes that these men have seen the light but, frankly, why did it take supposedly intelligent and well-educated persons SO long. One has to wonder if they are just ahead of the curve. It was profitable to equate salvation with advocating every right-wing, fascist idea that popped up. Now it's about to be profitable to repudiate those ideas. Some of us who claim an affinity for Christianity have been repudiating "right" thinking for a long time. Where's the money?

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

Just remember!
Posted by: paula.c on Mar 10, 2008 6:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus was born a Jew and lived as a Jew for all of his life.

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

It's all a scam
Posted by: JefffromCA on Mar 10, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Even those for whom pleasure of any kind is considered "sin".

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

Cal Thomas...
Posted by: dbarber on Mar 10, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...hasn't really reputed anything. He still takes the exact same political stances he used to, he still pushes fundamentalist Christianity as an 'alternative' to the threat of 'secular humanism' he's just less likely to use one to bolster the other in the same column.

I think he may have had a personal disagreement with someone like Falwell or Reed, and his book was a way to strike back. He was definitely out of the loop; if he'd known Bush was going to be awarded the presidency, I think he would have been mending fences in 2000.

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

The Downfall of Rome
Posted by: ciccio on Mar 11, 2008 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Rome started conquering the known world, it took all the Gods it came across and added them to their own collection. The first time they came upon a culture that said to them that not only was their God the one and only one, but they could not even worship him, the Romans slapped them down so hard, it took them nearly 2000 years to get up again. When, 300 years later Christianity was made the one and only religion, banning the God of war that had helped them get to where they were, the
Gods of wine, love,fertility et al, Rome promptly collapsed. Historical proof that the more Gods you pray to, the better for you.

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

how nice 4 them but their profiting ruined U.S.
Posted by: JustHisWordsdotcom on Mar 11, 2008 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't want them to sell more books profiting from their traitorous support for the monsters they put into power and still help to keep there. The people they empowered are barely human money-making enterprises, and one of their main energy sources is what those referenced in the article began and publicly supported with other books, with other speeches that got the freaks elected.

I couldn't care less about their personal journey. I expect justice, and I want revenge. They should be publicly repudiated, mocked, scorned, and brought down to the size of insane ranters of idiotic beliefs which they can't tell from one year to the next whether they support.

The consequences of their bad behavior have been deadly to hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocent people and 4,000 Americans. The consequences of their actions have brought about the bankruptcy of this nation. The consequences of their actions will kill millions, quickly or slowly, before the damages can be repaired.

They are criminals and they should not profit from their crimes. They need to shut up and get to doing some of the hard work of repudiation over and over, giving free speeches, donating book profits to hungry Americans and Iraqi refugees, and to the extra needs of the