A Movie That Might Change Your Life . . .

[FriendofGod]

Ben, I will not respond to most of your comments due to your rudeness, but this line caught my eye:

Quotes, please? Where does the HM state that the destruction of Christianity is their goal?

Here are several paragraphs from the Humanist Manifesto, signed in 1973 (emphasis mine):

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species.

While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance.

Of course they won’t come right out and say “Our goal is to wipe out religion”, but they pretty much drew a line in the sand and said, “Religion is harmful, illusory, and an obstacle to human progress”.

LOL … as I was looking at my copy of the HM, I saw hundreds of names signed at the bottom. THERE are your “names” that you guys keep asking me for. At least some of them. These are among the people who, for the past 30+ years, have very smartly worked their ways into the fabric of society to try to push their viewpoint. And they have been incredibly successful.
DoctorJ said:

Who is “they”? Is “they” us?

Fair question…“they” are simply those who believe that sexuality should be freely expressed with little or no restriction. In order to convince society that this is true, you pretty much have to make your #1 enemy Christianity. It’s the #1 obstacle to people believing this is true.

I’m so glad I pulled out my copy of the HM. This contains many of the points you guys have been asking for ‘cites’ on. Here’s another quote from it on this point:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthadox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.

The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in and of themselves be considered “evil”. Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one.

This was written in 1973. Look at how successful they were in pushing their viewpoint! They were using the word “tolerant” as a buzzword long before it was used in the general public as a way to legitimize sexual sin. They rightly identified religion as their major opponent in getting these views into the mainstream. Unfortunately, Christians in the 60s and 70s sat on their hands and watched it happened. Only in the 80s and beyond have we been fighting back.

I find humerous the last line I quoted. Looks like this part didn’t work at all. You can’t have “tolerance” of sexual sin AND a lack of unbridled promiscuity.

Back to DoctorJ:

Way back when, Polycarp made the point that he didn’t think adolescent or premarital sex was that much more common than it was in the 50s–it’s just that people are more open about it these days, so it seems that way. Do you agree?

With all due respect for Polycarp, I disagree. You have to remember, there are people around today who grew up in the 50’s, one of whom is my mom. I’ve asked her AND several other friends of my mom’s who grew up in the 50’s this question: “So was growing up in the fifties really as wondeful as it seems?” Unanimously, every last one of them has said yes. They said people actually respected women, it was safe to walk the streets at night, entertainment was safe for the whole family, etc.

Of course there were also those who were immoral in the 50s too. There’s never been a time that there wasn’t. The main difference is that society as a whole had a respect for right and wrong. If someone was in sexual sin, they called it “wrong”, not “alternative lifestyle”. One lady I spoke to talked about a woman in her high school who got pregnant out of wedlock and it was the talk of the school. People in the 50s could still be shocked, still be offended, still be embarrassed by sexual sinfulness. Sadly, today, that’s not the case.

Pregnancy is one good measure by the way: it might be easy to pretend you’re not having sex, but it’s impossible to pretend you’re not pregnant. I don’t think anyone would dispute that teen pregnancy rates soared in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

Seriously, David B is the most consistently no-BS guy I’ve ever run across in any medium. He either puts up or he shuts up, and he expects the same of anyone who gets in the ring with him.

Well, see below …

Because he says he is a Christian, because a lot of other people who claim to be Christians support him, and because you rarely see anyone claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian going out of his way to denounce such actions.

All I can say on this specific issue is this: I’d like more info before I comment. Does anyone have a link to a news story or anything they can point me to?

Soup_du_jour, you made some good points in a funny way. I agree that it’s not just Christians who get harassed in today’s society. Good point about racism/sexism by the way. That is indeed one area where the reverse is true: things have gotten better since the 1960s (due, ironically, to the consistant preaching of a born again Christian, Martin Luthor King Jr).

Glad you’re enjoying the books. Book 4, Soul Harvest (the one you’re coming up on), is one of the best page turners in the entire series.

Jess said:

Don’t you see that almost everyone on TV is portrayed as Christian? How can you fail to realize that? Didn’t you ever notice that every TV household has a Christmas tree?

Hear me now – Christianity is the norm on US TV! I could come up with specific examples easily enough if you wish – but I’m already hijacking a previously hijacked thread.

Uh … with the exception of the usually cited shows (Touched by an Angel, etc), I don’t see this at all. When’s the last time any character on Friends went to church and declared that they loved God with their entire being? When’s the last time you saw Ally McBeal having her quiet time and reading her Bible? When’s the last time you saw Dawson and whatever-his-girlfriend-is pray together?

If you can give evidence, I’d love to see it! Really. I am always encouraged when I see trends turning. Maybe I’m just watching the wrong shows. Maybe there are solid characters on most other shows that are passionate born again Christians. I’d love to hear about it if it’s true!

And now back to DavidB, my sparring partner ;). You said:

You made the claim that Christians have been unfairly portrayed. It is therefore up to you to back up that claim. You cannot expect me to somehow provide evidence for the negative – especially when every example I might give you will be taken by you as an “exception” or used to show that “things are getting better.”

Nope, won’t work. You did not merely say, “FoG, I disagree with your assertion that Christians are unfairly portrayed in the media.” You made your own claim, which was (emphasis mine):

You ask for us to show you something that would prove your statements wrong. We show it.

You have now made a claim of your own: that your pointing out of Christians being portrayed positively on a couple of TV shows recently disproves my point that Christians have been portrayed negatively for 30+ years. I didn’t claim to have evidence to convince you of my claim. You are claiming to have evidence of yours. I am just saying that your evidence is weak. Had you said, “Well FoG, here are a couple of examples of Christians being portrayed in a positive light. It doesn’t prove anything, but …” then I wouldn’t be pressing the point. You decided to use weak evidence to try to “prove” me wrong, and I’m just calling you on it pal ;).

As for me never intending to prove it, you said:

Good. But then why even bring it up in a forum called “Great Debates” if you didn’t expect to be called on it?

Well, I don’t mind people saying, “I won’t believe what you say until I see evidence”. That makes sense to me. But it came up, and I’m not going to shy away from declaring my view just because I don’t have a mountain of proof handy to convince you guys. Why can’t you just say, “Okay FoG, that’s your view but I don’t see any proof, so I’m not buying it” and leave it at that?

Cervaise asked:

Should our media show us as we wish ourselves to be, or as we are?

As we are. The problem is, the media doesn’t do this. Sure there are many who do sleep around, etc etc … but there are many who don’t. How frequently do you see couples wait until they are married to have sex, and be portrayed as admirable for doing so? There are many many people like that, PRIMARILY Christian but also non Christians. THAT is part of “who we are” that never gets shown.

You also said:

I know the fundie view is that “this behavior should not be shown to be okay.” Unfortunately, that’s an opinion.

Well, the Bible depicts sinful behavior all throughout, but always shows the consequences. I think it’s disingenuous to show sinful behavior without any consequences. It deceives people that don’t know any better into thinking that there are no consequences!

I have no problem with storylines that imply sexual sin (heck, the movie that started this thread, Left Behind, shows a married man carrying on an affair with a single woman). But consequences should be shown, as in LB, so no one is left with the foolish impression that you can “get away with it”. That’s dangerous!

[David_B]

FoG was asked by Ben:

Where does the HM state that the destruction of Christianity is their goal?

He responded:

Here are several paragraphs from the Humanist Manifesto, signed in 1973 (emphasis mine):
…
Of course they won’t come right out and say “Our goal is to wipe out religion”, but they pretty much drew a line in the sand and said, “Religion is harmful, illusory, and an obstacle to human progress”.

Yes, and? You quoted one question and answered a different one. They do believe that religion is harmful. Does that mean they are out to destroy Christianity? No. I believe that tobacco is harmful, but I’m not out to destroy the cigarette companies. I believe that too much fat is harmful, but I’m not out to destroy McDonalds.

You have made a leap in illogic, and claimed that it answers a question that it doesn’t. This is pretty much your modus operandi around here, and I, for one, am getting fairly tired of it.

LOL … as I was looking at my copy of the HM, I saw hundreds of names signed at the bottom. THERE are your “names” that you guys keep asking me for.

Oh, bullsht ( added so your precious ISP won’t block you from this page and give you an excuse to avoid responding to this message). We asked you for names of people who want to throw Christians in jail and the like. These are merely people who hold a certain philosophical position.

These are among the people who, for the past 30+ years, have very smartly worked their ways into the fabric of society to try to push their viewpoint. And they have been incredibly successful.

You know what’s funny? I know some of these people (not many, but a few). They sure don’t think they’ve been very successful. Yet you “think” they have worked miracles (or anti-miracles, I guess).

In your continued attempts to shift the burden and try to weasel out of your earlier claims, you said:

Nope, won’t work. You did not merely say, “FoG, I disagree with your assertion that Christians are unfairly portrayed in the media.”

First, I asked you to prove it. Then, of course, you didn’t. Then, I noted that there were examples proving you wrong. Then you changed your position to avoid admitting error. Now you are trying to say that because we proved you wrong with your basic claim, we have to somehow further prove a negative with your enhanced claims.

I’m sorry, FoG, but I’m tired of this schtick. You already admitted that you have no intention of backing your claims. That’s one thing. But now you’re p*ssing me off.

You have now made a claim of your own: that your pointing out of Christians being portrayed positively on a couple of TV shows recently disproves my point that Christians have been portrayed negatively for 30+ years.

No, FoG, I did not say that. I said that we have proved your original claim wrong.

You know, a lot of people have noticed your increasing intellectual dishonesty. It’s really getting annoying. It’s getting to the point where I’m beginning to think it’s not accidental – that you are simply a liar.

I am just saying that your evidence is weak.

Then prove it and back up your original claim.

You decided to use weak evidence to try to “prove” me wrong, and I’m just calling you on it pal.

It only took a few examples to prove you wrong because you never put up anything to prove yourself right.

Well, I don’t mind people saying, “I won’t believe what you say until I see evidence”. That makes sense to me. But it came up, and I’m not going to shy away from declaring my view just because I don’t have a mountain of proof handy to convince you guys. Why can’t you just say, “Okay FoG, that’s your view but I don’t see any proof, so I’m not buying it” and leave it at that?

Because then we’d be saying that pretty much all the time whenever you sit down to your keyboard. This forum is called “Great Debates.” Debates are when one side puts forth evidence for their claims and then the other side does likewise or shoots down the first side. It’s not called “Let’s All Agree to Disagree.”

I’m not sure if you’re really unable to comprehend this simple concept, or if you’re just continuing with your campaign of dishonesty. Right now, I’m leaning toward the latter.

[Soup_du_jour]

They do believe that religion is harmful. Does that mean they are out to destroy Christianity? No. I believe that tobacco is harmful, but I’m not out to destroy the cigarette companies. I believe that too much fat is harmful, but I’m not out to destroy McDonalds.

I agree. However, the HM takes a more decisive stance on religion than you take on McDonalds or cigarettes. If you state in a manifesto that McDonalds is a hinderance to human progress, than it would logically follow that you want McDonalds to go the way of the dodo.

I don’t know about your opinion. I, however, believe that everything that is a hinderance to human progress should be eradicated. After all, I LIKE progress.

[FriendofGod]

Okay, DavidB, let’s follow this logically from the get-go:

You said:

Have you read Mind Siege? Do you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy of “humanists” to create a socialist one-world government, destroy Christianity, take our children away, throw religious people in jail, etc.?

I responded:

I think “worldwide conspiracy” is overstating it, but good grief you’d have to be blind to not see all of the individual elements listed above creeping slowly into American culture and life.

Regarding persecution I said:

We aren’t experiencing anything close to that in America today, but there are many people in the good ole USA who would love to see it happen.

Someone else said “Name one” and I responded with this, the example which led to the stir we are in now:

I’m basing my statements on decades of reading and on just plain observation of our culture. Look all around and the evidence is clear: the mass media has no problem whatsoever ridiculing the beliefs of born-again Christians, yet they would cringe if any other religious group was similarly ridiculed. There is a slow, careful, subtle effort that’s been underway for 30+ years to make it appear that Christians are a little bit nuts. Anytime common sense biblically based ideas are put forth in the public arena, they are scoffed and laughed at (ie, abstinence until marriage, etc).

So there is my claim: that the mass media has no problem ridiculing born-again Christians, and that it’s been a subtle effort underway for 30+ years.

You then said, in response to my claim that you’d have to be blind not to see it:

Well, then I guess I’m blind. Care to show me the way?

I responded with sex in the media as one example, concluding with this:

My point: this is an outright attack on the Christian principle that sexuality was created by God to be enjoyed by a husband and wife. This idea has been ridiculed and attacked as “old fashioned” in every way imaginable. Now, there is a counter-revolution underway with the “True Love Waits” campaign, but my point is that this subtle shift didn’t occur by accident.

Your response:

Oh, please. Just because standards have changed does not make it “an outright attack” on your religion.

In a later post i said:

Back to the main point: what I was trying to say is this: there are combined factors in the media and in society in general that is working toward a certain mindset about Christians: that they are all a little bit nuts, they’re dangerous, they’re not “tolerant” enough, they want to take away your rights. It’s been very effective. When’s the last time you saw a religious person portrayed in a positive light on a network TV show or movie? (NOTE: The exception seems to be Catholics. For whatever reason, thats the one denomination the networks seem to like). I have actually seen rare exceptions. I still remember watching an LA Law episode in it’s final season where they gasp introduced a fundamentalist Christian woman who was … pretty, intelligent, and good at her job! I was in shock. I remember reading an article about it in TV Guide. They said it was in response to the very real and understood complaint of Christians to being marginalized in the media. It’s very similar to what’s happening with gays on network TV today only they’re slightly more successful. I’d say virtually half of the TV shows today have a sympathetic gay character. Sympathetic born again Christian characters are nowhere to be seen, but crazy so-called “Christian” characters can be seen from time to time, as usual.

Again, my claim is very clear: Christians are rarely portrayed in a positive light on TV. Note that even at this point I mentioned specifically that there were obviously some exceptions.

You retorted (on 2 separate posts):

How many years has Touched By An Angel been on now?

I happened to watch The Practice last night, where they dealt with several religious folks … So, I would have to say that the last time I saw a Christian portrayed in a positive light on TV was last night.

At this point I got to catching up on responding to your comments. You had said that standards changing had nothing to do with an attack on my religion. I said:

It’s not just standards changing. There is very specific and outright hostility toward Christianity and what Christians believe. Christians are portrayed on TV & movies as buffoons, or swindlers, or immoral, or take your pick. On top of that, Christian principles are attacked and lampooned as well.

Your response:

Yet you haven’t been able to give us examples of this sort of behavior. The best you’ve been able to come up with is that the standards of what can be shown on TV regarding sex have changed, which you seem to see as some great attack on Christianity . . . Sexual standards have changed on TV, but that doesn’t make it a “decline.” And even if it is considered a decline, that doesn’t make it an attack on Christianity.

Later I had this to say:

As for Christianity in media … irony of ironies, last night on ER they portrayed Christianity in a positive light! I was actually quite impressed . . . I hope the tide is turning. The LA Law season with the BAC woman was to Christians what Ellen’s final season was to gays. Hopefully the beginning of a turnaround. Some of you in this thread have mentioned other exceptions which is encouraging. There are little positive signs everywhere.

In other words … as I said from the get-go, there are exceptions. Sure Christians get portrayed in positive ways at times. In fact, as I indicated above, I hope there’s actually a turnaround happening and that it’s occurring more. This doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened for 30+ years up to this general time period.

When I got to your comment about seeing the Practice, I said:

LOL! Well, you and me both. Did you see my comments on ER? I don’t see this as invalidating what I said earlier, but rather as an encouraging sign that things are finally starting to sloooowly change.

Up until now, we’re having a reasonably adult conversation and disagreement. Here’s where things start to get wacky:

DavidB responded to the above quote (emphasis mine):

You ask for us to show you something that would prove your statements wrong. We show it. Do you accept that you were wrong? No! You somehow manage to twist it to show that you were right but that things are improving. Huh?! Face facts: You were wrong.

Whoa! Suddenly, DavidB goes beyond polite debate to an attack mode. My response a few posts later:

You point out a few examples of Christians being portrayed in a positive light, and then try to make that equal “proving” that Christians have not been portrayed in a negative light for 30+ years in the mass media? That is genuinely laughable. You’re usually better than that.

David, you are the one who chose to go on the attack at this point. You made a very large claim: that I should back down and say, “Yeah, you’re right David, I was wrong. Christians haven’t been portrayed unfairly for 30+ years in the media, all because of Touched by an Angel and an episode of the Practice, and … oh yeah, the exceptions that I myself mentioned early on”. Did you really expect me to bow to this ridiculous challenge? How on earth can you keep a straight face and call this “proof”?

Your first retort:

You cannot expect me to somehow provide evidence for the negative – especially when every example I might give you will be taken by you as an “exception” or used to show that “things are getting better.”

DavidB, if you hadn’t started acting like you had evidence for “the negative” side of this debate, I would not have challenged you. But it was your choice to take a handful of examples, hold them up, and say “See??? See??? You’re wrong! Back down FOG!” You acted like you had proof that my claim was wrong, as seen in your statement: “You ask us for something that would prove your statements wrong. We show it. Face facts: you were wrong”. As long as you act like you have proof, I’ll hold you to a standard of proof.

My response was:

You have now made a claim of your own: that your pointing out of Christians being portrayed positively on a couple of TV shows recently disproves my point that Christians have been portrayed negatively for 30+ years. I didn’t claim to have evidence to convince you of my claim. You are claiming to have evidence of yours. I am just saying that your evidence is weak. Had you said, “Well FoG, here are a couple of examples of Christians being portrayed in a positive light. It doesn’t prove anything, but …” then I wouldn’t be pressing the point. You decided to use weak evidence to try to “prove” me wrong, and I’m just calling you on it pal

Your latest response (emphasis mine):

First, I asked you to prove it. Then, of course, you didn’t. Then, I noted that there were examples proving you wrong. Then you changed your position to avoid admitting error. Now you are trying to say that because we proved you wrong with your basic claim, we have to somehow further prove a negative with your enhanced claims.

Wow. So you are blatantly making the claim again: that your flimsy evidence proves that my claim is wrong. David, I am challenging you for one reason only: you have said that I should back down because you have proven my claim false, which you plainly have not even remotely come close to doing. I’ll quote my claim from the top:

There is a slow, careful, subtle effort that’s been underway for 30+ years to make it appear that Christians are a little bit nuts.

How does the handful of examples prove your case? You still have not shown this.

And what’s with “changing my story”? Can you show me where I changed anything?

You responded to this quote of mine: “You have now made a claim of your own: that your pointing out of Christians being portrayed positively on a couple of TV shows recently disproves my point that Christians have been portrayed negatively for 30+ years.” Your response was:

No, FoG, I did not say that. I said that we have proved your original claim wrong.

Uh, hello. This IS my original claim, that Christians have been portrayed unfairly and negatively for 30+ years. Go back and re-read this summary.

You said:

It only took a few examples to prove you wrong because you never put up anything to prove yourself right.

Once again, you keep stating you have “proven me wrong”. Howso? You still haven’t shown at all how what you said proves anything wrong. I’d love to see you try.

It’s getting to the point where I’m beginning to think it’s not accidental – that you are simply a liar.

I am embarrassed for you that you would stoop this low DB. You usually have a little more class.

DB, I don’t know why you insist on taking a good ole debate and poisoning it with this kind of stuff. You could have simply made your observations and admitted, “This is a smidgen of evidence for my claim, but I don’t really have any more real evidence to show than you do”. But for some reason that genuinely bewilders me, you just snapped and turned it into, “See!!! See!!! I was right and you were wrong!!!” You usually aren’t like this.

Ok, enough of my analysis. DavidB, I will summarize my thoughts at the moment with one simple challenge:

Back up your claim that what you said “proves” me wrong, or stop saying that it proves me wrong. If you want to believe I’m wrong, have at it, but stop claiming you have proof when you have none.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Soup_du_jour *
If you state in a manifesto that McDonalds is a hinderance to human progress, than it would logically follow that you want McDonalds to go the way of the dodo.

There are lots of things that I believe hinder human progress: tobacco companies, Britney Spears and the Republican Party are three. But I have never advocated the elimination of any of them.

You see, I tolerate a lot of things that I disagree with; this, I believe, is a fairly typical secular stance.

I hope that FoG and Soup don’t wish to destroy everything they disagree with.

[Menocchio]

You have to remember, there are people around today who grew up in the 50’s, one of whom is my mom. I’ve asked her AND several other friends of my mom’s who grew up in the 50’s this question: “So was growing up in the fifties really as wondeful as it seems?” Unanimously, every last one of them has said yes. They said people actually respected women, it was safe to walk the streets at night, entertainment was safe for the whole family, etc.

Uh huh. Women were actually respected in the fifties. When having a career outside the home was virtually unheard of, and they were expected to be chaste homemakers. Y’know, you can still be objectified w/o being made a sex object.

Men, of course, were allowed to play. Just not with good girls. You acknowledge this, of course:

There’s never been a time that there wasn’t. The main difference is that society as a whole had a respect for right and wrong. If someone was in sexual sin, they called it “wrong”, not “alternative lifestyle”.

First off, you’re talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about heterosexuality. Different GD, I’ve never heard of a straight couple “living in sin” being called an “alternative lifestyle”. You’re right of course, people are allowed to have sex more feely now. This is not the media’s fault. Rather, the media has changed with the attitudes. And what they “called” it, wasn’t necessarily how they felt about it. Like I said, men were allowed to have premarital sex. It was called the double standard (we got the long end of the stick on this one, son, don’t argue :)).

One lady I spoke to talked about a woman in her high school who got pregnant out of wedlock and it was the talk of the school. People in the 50s could still be shocked, still be offended, still be embarrassed by sexual sinfulness. Sadly, today, that’s not the case.

What? You’d rather she had an abortion and told no one? Poor girl. Sounds like she needed Christian love and support, not judgement. If my (hypothetical) daughter were to become pregnant, I’d rather she not be an object of rumor. Her reality will be harsh enough already to serve as an object lesson without that.

Pregnancy is one good measure by the way: it might be easy to pretend you’re not having sex, but it’s impossible to pretend you’re not pregnant. I don’t think anyone would dispute that teen pregnancy rates soared in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

Pregnancy statistics from that era are notoriously misleading. Lots of girls got disappeared for a while, and then returned with a new “younger sibling”, or else they went off to homes for unwed mothers were their babies were taken from them. all away from unprying eyes. Finally, there was always abortion. If only the infamous back alley abortionist of NARAL’s nightmares.

Uh … with the exception of the usually cited shows (Touched by an Angel, etc), I don’t see this at all. When’s the last time any character on Friends went to church and declared that they loved God with their entire being? When’s the last time you saw Ally McBeal having her quiet time and reading her Bible? When’s the last time you saw Dawson and whatever-his-girlfriend-is pray together?

The problem is, FoG, the examples you cited are very bad television. Ally McBeal reading a Bible? Borrring. I’d rather see her dance w/ Tina Turner. Friends going to church? Well, if it’s taken seriously then it’s out of context for a screwball comedy, not to mention very hard to make entertaining/touching/meaningful for a wide audience (Even just a wide Christian audience. Is Ross Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Is he a literalist? What’s his stand on justification? The Trinity? Women preaching? et cetera, et cetera}. If it itself is presented in a comedic manner, then we’re back to making fun of Christians! This is why “Touched” and co. are a very vague brand of semi-Christianity.

If you want a show that shows the trials and tribulations of Christians today, then you should’ve watched “Nothing Sacred”. Unfortunately, it went deeper than vague “God Loves You” truisms and platitudes and was promptly booted off the air by a combined force of offended Fundamentalists (Protestant and Catholic) and apathetic viewers who just wanted to have fun, not a sermon, liberal as it may be. You just can’t win!

If you want a realistic show about a regularly Churchgoing family that prays often. Watch “The Simpsons”.

[Measure_for_Measure]

You’ve actually made a number of assertions in your posts, most of which (IMO) have been effectively skewered. (Thanks for taking the time to do the summary though.)

However, one of the points you made was (emphasis mine),

Look all around and the evidence is clear: the mass media has no problem whatsoever ridiculing the beliefs of born-again Christians, yet they would cringe if any other religious group was similarly ridiculed.

Now, I wouldn’t call that persecution, but it does seem to me to be a plausible complaint. In the remainder of your summary though, you allude to attacks on plain, unmodified “Christians” as opposed to the born-again variety.

I suspect that if used the phrase “Fundamentalists” or “Born Again Christians”, that at least some of your claims would be strengthened. How about it?

[FriendofGod]

I suspect that if used the phrase “Fundamentalists” or “Born Again Christians”, that at least some of your claims would be strengthened.

Good point. Of course when I say Christian I mean born again Christian, but I suppose it’s a good idea to clarify exactly what I mean. Thanks for the tip ;).

Mennochio, interesting points that I have no time to do justice on, so I’ll have to comment tomorrow.

[Monty]

So, FoG; you’re saying that not all members of Christian denominations, not even the ministers, are Christians in your view?

[Monty]

FoG: I forgot to ask you - have you been ordained?

[ITR_champion]

On the topic of whether the loosening of sexual morality in the media constituted an attack on Christianity, I’d just like to point out that Christians tried to establish themselves as the authority on the topic of sexual behavior in the media by using the Production Code and others means during the 50’s. This backfired because TV shows, movies, music, and books, especially those aimed at young people, wanted to defy the sexual standards. Although this may have come across as an attack on sexual standards, it really wasn’t. Throughout history, many artists have reacted to censorship by defying it, knowing that this process holds a special appeal to young people. Some artists will always react in opposition to authority figures, regardless of who those authority figures are.

Anyway, one reason why artists “attack” Christianity so often is that they know that they can get a reaction. Both tehy and their fans enjoy watching the responses that such works of art get. But the point is never to damage the institution of Christianity. To say that movies such as “Dogma” are attmepting to hurt Christianity would be like saying that “Saturday Night Live” has spent 8 years trying to hurt Bill Clinton.

[Dr.Rieux]

Actually, Menocchio, Ross is Jewish–you must have missed the Hanukah episode this season.
“I’m the Holidy Armadillo…”

[Czarcasm]

FoG, you’ve stated that the media has ridiculed Christians. True enough. But the media ridicules everybody. The difference is that the media also goes out of it’s way to support Christianity in particular. There are television shows dedicated to it, both fictional and non-fictional, and there always have been. You cannot listen to the radio in any major(or for that matter small)city and NOT find stations dedicated to Christianity.

Why don’t you give me the names of television programs specifically dedicated to atheists?
Can you name any nationally syndicated radio program that is spcifically dedicated to atheists that have a respectable number of cities listening?

Go be a martyr over on the LB Board. We are NOT buying it here.

[Ben]

Once again, FoG shows himself to be the master of fundie etiquette. If FoG ignores my arguments and twists my words out of context- that’s just him being a sweet little Christian. But if I roll my eyes at his dishonesty- well, my goodness! No point in talking to Ben if he’s going to be rude!

You fundies are masters of appearance over substance, you know that?

We believe, however, that religions that place the Book of Mormon above true Scripture do a disservice to the human species.

While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for where we will spend eternity. No posthumous baptism will save us; we must turn to Christ ourselves.

Mormonism is surely not the only obstacle to human progress. Other false religions also impede human advance.

In the area of sexuality, we believe that tolerant attitudes, often cultivated by liberal religions, illegitimately legitimize sinful conduct. The sinful nature of extramarital sex, polygamy, and homosexuality should be recognized.

FoG, do you agree with these statements?

**I’ve asked her AND several other friends of my mom’s who grew up in the 50’s this question: “So was growing up in the fifties really as wondeful as it seems?” Unanimously, every last one of them has said yes. They said people actually respected women, it was safe to walk the streets at night, entertainment was safe for the whole family, etc.

**

If you were white and Christian, that is. But hey, if all the white Christians are having a good time, then it’s a utopia, right?

**Good point about racism/sexism by the way. That is indeed one area where the reverse is true: things have gotten better since the 1960s (due, ironically, to the consistant preaching of a born again Christian, Martin Luthor King Jr).

**

First of all, if it’s a “good point,” then why do you claim that the 50s were wonderful? If it was only wonderful for white Christians, that’s far from being wonderful IMO.

Secondly, how do you know MLK was really a born-again Christian? It seems to me that you’re clearly committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you want to claim someone for your side- then they’re a real Christian. If they might reflect badly on Christianity- then they’re not a real Christian.

Do you really think that the evil secular humanist conspiracy has some sort of detector that lets them tell who is really a true Christian and who isn’t, and only persecutes the former?

-Ben

[Ben]

FoG, would you care to answer this one?

*Originally posted by Ben *
**

*Originally posted by FriendofGod *
**I’ll admit I’m wrong if I am indeed wrong. Don’t expect me to back down on such flimsy evidence. **

Really? Did you ever admit that your false prophecies come from Satan? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember you saying that the words which came out of your keyboard originated with the devil, even when I quoted the relevant Scriptures to prove it to you.
**

-Ben

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**
The fact is, FoG, that while you’ve been engaging in vague hand-waving about nebulous anti-Christian sentiment, the rest of us have provided solid examples of Christians being bigoted- sometimes murderously so- towards non-Christians. To wit:

1. A Christian community tried to hound an atheist professor out of his job.

2. One President declared that atheists should not be considered patriots or citizens.

3. One President and one Congressman declared that the First Amendment does not give Wiccans the right to practice their religion. The Congressman actively worked to prevent some Wiccans (in the military) from freely exercising their religious rights.

4. One homosexual was beaten, stripped, tied to a post, and left to freeze to death. (While the murderers may or may not have been Christians, the anti-gay rhetoric of Christian bigots isn’t helping.)

5. One parade for religious tolerance was stoned by Christian protesters, because some ministers whipped them into a violent frenzy by telling them that it was their duty to “suffer not a witch to live.”

6. One girl was suspended on the suspicion that she had cast a hex on a teacher.

And so on. FoG, I want six solid examples from you of anti-Christian bigotry in America which are at least as bad as the six I have listed here.

-Ben **

And you know something, FoG? I still want six solid examples from you. Whining about how I’m so “rude” isn’t fooling anyone.

-Ben

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Ben

Do you really think that the evil secular humanist conspiracy has some sort of detector that lets them tell who is really a true Christian and who isn’t, and only persecutes the former?

No, that’s FoG’s job, as first revealed to us in the “Christianity and Tolerance” thread - only he seems to be able to determine who’s really a Christian and who’s only pretending for their own sick, twisted, nefarious, Atheistic reasons.

Would a :rolleyes: be redundant here?

Esprix

[Menocchio]

Dr. Rieux

Actually, Menocchio, Ross is Jewish–you must have missed the Hanukah episode this season.
“I’m the Holidy Armadillo…”

Okay, then Chandler, or whoever. Can you tell I’m not an authority of Friends?

Actually, this strengthens the point of what some people have been saying, in a roundabout way. A quiet brand of Christianity is assumed for all characters until explictly stated otherwise.

[pldennison]

These are among the people who, for the past 30+ years, have very smartly worked their ways into the fabric of society to try to push their viewpoint. And they have been incredibly successful.

Maybe they’ve been successful because what they say constitutes a much better way for human beings to live and relate to each other than your silly, antiquated fantasy world.

You have to remember, there are people around today who grew up in the 50’s, one of whom is my mom. I’ve asked her AND several other friends of my mom’s who grew up in the 50’s this question: “So was growing up in the fifties really as wondeful as it seems?” Unanimously, every last one of them has said yes. They said people actually respected women, it was safe to walk the streets at night, entertainment was safe for the whole family, etc.

Wow, what a great sample–the Pat Boone Appreciation Society. Yeah, that’s indicative of life in the 50s. Of course, if you were black, or a Communist, or gay, living in the 50s was akin to living with a sign that said, “Please, beat me up!” And women working outside the home? Forget it!

My parents grew up in the 50s too, Foggy. My father grew up in Brooklyn, NY, where he got to see beatings, rapes and stabbings in his neighborhood and at school on a daily basis. My mother grew up poverty-stricken in rural NE Ohio. I can assure you that life was not sunshine, lollipops and rainbows in the 50s.

The only conclusion I can come too is that your mother and her friends actually grew up on the set of the “Leave it to Beaver” and “Ozzie and Harriett” programs. I mean, really, do you think none of us know anyone who lived in this era? Who do you expect to swallow your tripe?

{quote]. That is indeed one area where the reverse is true: things have gotten better since the 1960s (due, ironically, to the consistant preaching of a born again Christian, Martin Luthor King Jr).
[/quote]

. . . a man who, even in the face of all his wonderful accomplishments in the field of civil rights, was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife. Imagine that–people are fallible, and born-again Christians are as bad as the rest of us

Uh … with the exception of the usually cited shows (Touched by an Angel, etc), I don’t see this at all. When’s the last time any character on Friends went to church and declared that they loved God with their entire being? When’s the last time you saw Ally McBeal having her quiet time and reading her Bible? When’s the last time you saw Dawson and whatever-his-girlfriend-is pray together?

Who says that’s what the definition of “Christian” is? You?

Your combination of Messiah complex and martyr complex, and your ability to create for yourself fantasy worlds of the past that never really were, simply continue to amaze.

[Kimstu]

FoG: This IS my original claim, that Christians have been portrayed unfairly and negatively for 30+ years.

Um, FoG, there seems to be one glaring inconsistency in your arguments that I don’t think anyone’s specifically addressed yet. To wit: you complain that Christians (at least conservative Christians who share the particular brand of Christian values that you support) are often portrayed negatively in the media. But when others complain about negative behavior on the part of actual self-identified Christians, such as tormenting the children of an atheist professor or declaring that Catholics or Mormons aren’t Christians or showing up for hate protests at the private funerals of homosexuals, you simply respond dismissively that “those people aren’t real Christians.”

But there’s nobody officially in charge of picking out who’s a “real” Christian and who’s not, any more than there is for most other groups; neither you nor anyone else has authority to speak for Christians as a whole. Our society generally accepts the self-identification of groups of Christians, like that of groups of Asian-Americans or Irish-Americans or Buddhists or pagans or whoever, at face value: we don’t apply formal membership qualification tests as a prerequisite to calling people whatever it is they call themselves.

So my question is: if such “un-Christian” people (and there are indeed a lot of them out there, almost everybody on this thread has at least one story of a personal encounter with such negative and uncharitable people) are loudly identifying themselves as fundamentalist Christians, and loudly claiming that their uncharitable behavior is what God demands of them as fundamentalist Christians, then how can you expect that fundamentalist Christians will not often be portrayed negatively? Why is that the fault of the so-called “demonic”, “anti-Christian” media rather than of the self-proclaimed Christians who bring the negative stereotypes to life? Seems to me that in accusing the media and secular society in this case, Christians are complaining about the mote in their neighbor’s eye and ignoring the beam in their own, to coin a phrase.