a) They are americans and this is their right.
b) What basis do you have for making this assertion? If you have information, you should cite it. If you have nothing but prejudice, ignorance, and fear, you should educate yourself or refrain from making baseless assertions until you have.
I agree, but if I don’t start out disagreeing with people in a post then I feel like I have missed the point of debating.
The problem with this “diversity” is that it, too, becomes The One True Way for America.
Perhaps I can draw an analogy. I have a friend who never gets into philosophical arguments. He hardly ever says something is “wrong” because of this, etc, etc. When pressed to the issue he’s told me, “Well, I just don’t believe in any one thing.” Aha!–I told him, but you do! The one thing you believe in is that you don’t believe in any one thing!
That said, I am picking nits at your post which was, IMO, pretty darn correct. It was just incorrect as being an opposite to a One True Way.
Testy
When I entered this thread I almost expected that you would catagorize ALL fundies as ALL extremists, in any position. But, it sticks to the religious fundamentalists trying to shape your life. And that is wrong, damnit, wrong!
Can I just ask you how you feel about taxation? Paying for other people’s birth control pills, roads, medicare, social security, education, etc? Did you support Clinton’s health care reform? Or are economic matters ok to be forced upon unwilling participants, just not religious ones?
I say this only because of what you dislike about the fundamentalists: their extreme position on goodness for all of man, which, IMO, is exaclty what social programs decide.
Just wondering…
The irony of your opening two paragraphs makes me laugh through the rest of your op.
Seems to me that you are a fundie yourself, and are only trying to establish your version of fundamentalism as the dominant one over the others.
Mind trying to explain to me how you are any diffferent from those you claim to despise? Because to me you look the same.
Ah, one of my pet issues.
First, a “fundamentalist” originally meant “one who holds steadfast to the core doctrines of Christianity.” It has evolved to mean fun stuff like Biblical literalism, a legislated morality based on their interpretation of some Scriptural passages, and all the rest of the things we love to ridicule.
I see no problem with someone like Duck Duck Goose or myself referring to ourselves as “fundamentalists” in the original, literal meaning. Jenkinsfan, I believe, probably would. The additional items and the attempt to be divisive by saying, “Only if you adhere to our particular viewpoint on these issues are you a real Christian” is where some of us would draw the line.
Now, down to some rock-bottom things that I think all decent people, religious or not, would oppose. My source for this is the work of Rev. Mel White, currently the leader of Soulforce, a religious protest group involved in the gay rights movement. Mr. White is gay and in a covenanted relationship with another man. Prior to coming out, he practiced denial for a long period, marrying and having a very stable relationship with his wife which included the birth of two children, one of them being the Mike White who wrote and starred in “Chuck and Buck.” Mr. White was brought up a strong right-wing Christian and became involved in the Radical Right movement as a writer and media consultant. He worked closely with Jerry Falwell, whose autobiography he ghostwrote, Pat Robertson, and others, including Billy Graham. When he came out, of course, he became anathema to them.
One key point that he brings out is that the leaders of the Christian Right subscribe, in varying degrees but sincerely, to the Reconstructionist ideology and particularly to the work of the Chalcedon Foundation. See
http://www.chalcedon.edu for background on this. It is, I think, worth noting what they claim to support and not support – and, divested of the view (which White claims to be accurate) that they wish to convert America into a theocracy, they wish to replace our freedoms with the “freedom to live upright lives under a civil law derived from the Bible” which would not require religious conversion (though it would encourage it) but would ban “only certain socially-improper behavior.”
Because people like Wildest Bill will support the stance of these religious leaders without examining closely where they are leading (and I don’t mean to tar Bill in particular; I’ve posted this before where he could read it, so he may have examined it and thought it through), and because most of Middle America wants a “don’t rock the boat” stable society, the net result is that the hidden agenda of these folks, as spelled out by the Chalcedon people, is IMHO a major threat to America as we know it.
While there is much to disagree with on the site that was linked to above I still find no evidence that these people are trying to set up a theocracy, establish a state-sponsored religion, curtail first amendment freedoms or outlaw certain sexual preferences.
Here are some quotes from that site:
I still have not heard any evidence that these people are trying to do anything other than exercise their constitutional rights to have their views represented. Secret religous societies intent on controlling the world are not a threat to our society whether they be "fundies’ or elders of zion.
I certainly do not want to misrepresent anybody, even those whom I consider to be perverting my chosen faith. However, I am quite inclined to believe a man who worked closely with public figures for the same objectives, and who later changed his mind about those objectives, as to what those public figures really think. I believe the Rev. Mr. White qualifies here.
And you will note in the quotations above that they believe that “the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law” by which one may reasonably assume reference to the Mosaic code’s “moral” portions and some use of St. Paul’s and Jesus’s how-to-do-it admonitions. While their examples of “certain socially destructive practices” were ones most people would agree with, such as murder and robbery, it takes very little effort to establish that sexual promiscuity, gay sex, the conduct of Wiccan rituals, etc., would be seen in the context of a Christian commonwealth as being “socially destructive.” In support of that assertion, I point to threads over the last few months that have effectively accused Esprix of setting out to single-handedly destroy the moral fabric of American culture, a tough task even for him. (Granted that based on his MPSIMS thread on his San Diego sex life, he does seem to be giving it his best shot! ;))
In sum, whatever they may protest about their high and lofty intentions, what they want to do is to so influence the legal apparatus of this country as to make it a representation of what they consider Christian moral standards, and what we liberal Christians and most others unite in considering Pharasaic legalism in unnecessarily regulating the behavior of others to meet one’s own views of what is “proper behavior.” At least Martha Stewart doesn’t lobby Congress!
There is a great leap from “biblical civil law” to what you accuse them of wanting. Their own site explicitly denies they want what you say they do. I would think they know more about their goals than you do. Their site describes their political beliefs as “Christian Libertarianism”. Can you provide a quote in which they or any one else advocate using positions of power in the government to establish a state sponsored religion, curtailment of first amendment rights, or outlawing certain sexual preferences?
Yes. Please re-read the quotation provided by Polycarp.
- Establishment - The institution of Biblical civil law is the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. It enshrines in law the religious beliefs of one group, and enforces those religious beliefs on the rest of society. 2) They wish to establish a “Christian state”. Christianity, last I checked, is a religion. Hence, if the state endorses and enforces Christianity and its beliefs, it is a state-sponsored religion.
You seem to have an incorrectly narrow definition of “establishment of a state sponsored religion.” Establishment does not simply mean “giving money to a particular church”.
-
Curtailment of first amendment rights - If the law is Biblical civil law, it will deny the right of non-Christians to engage in practices that are not in accord with the law as set down in the Bible.
-
Outlawing certain sexual preferences - I admit that they do not explicitly mention homosexuality in this quotation, but what “certain dangerous, socially destructive practices” do you think they are referring to? As I have heard Falwell, Robertson, and the like state that homosexuality and homosexual practice are dangerous and socially destructive, I believe it is a wholly logical assumption that they are referring to homosexuality, and intend to outlaw it.
-
“Their own site explicitly denies they want what you say they do.” So? If I say that “all them [insert minority here] are ignorant and criminal, but I’m not a bigot”, does that mean I’m not a bigot? After all, I explicitly denied it. If Rev. Sandlin truly believes that their intent is not to “persecute or suppress any religious belief”, they haven’t read the rest of what he wrote.
Sua
You are presuming to know what “biblical civil law” is better than the people who are trying to achieve it. What evidence do you have that the establishment of a state religion. They seem to believe that what ever “biblical civil law” is, it does not mean imposition of beliefs on other people. The site is obviously intended for supporters, why would they lie to their supporters as to what they want? They seem to me short on specifics as to what they do want, but they specifically deny they want what you say they do.
WRT the OP - In the end, I think it is not fundamentalists that are the problem. It is fanatics who cause the unrest and who seem to want to force everyone else to follow their way - or else.
from dictionary.com:
It is this “unreasoning” and “immoderate” “excessive devotion” that causes the problems the OP perceives. At least, IMHO.
Testy_ I still do not think that you answered Puddle’s query. He asked for a POLITICIAN that expoused those beliefs, and all you could come up with is Robertson- who is, at best: a “wanna-be politician”. See, folks with those kinds of beliefs are very rarely elected to any postion of power.
Next- “I do not think that word means what you think it does”. There are millions of Fundamentalists who have no desire to force or coerce others to beleive the way they beleive- in fact- most of them. As CKdex pointed out- the Hasidic & the Amish- both extreme “fundie” groups- have no desire to make others convert. You are not ranting about “Fundies” you are ranting about “radical extremists”, or as Dogsbody just put it “fanatics”. And, yes- any group of extremists/fanatics, either religous or political can be dangerous. There are legit, non-violent “pro-life” groups- and there are the one whos assasinate Doctors & bomb clinics. There are environmentalist orgs to whom the world owes much- and then there are the ones who “monkeywrench” & bomb. There are peaceful political groups in Eire who work towards unificatiopn- and then there are the cowardly terrorists who bomb schoolbuses. Comparing all “Fundies” to those who desire to coerce or force others to accept their beleifs- is like comparing the Nature Conservancy to one of the terrorist environmental groups.
Those who accept a “Fundamental” or “Literal” meaning of the Bible or other work are not dangerous. Those who desire to force or coerce others to beleive the way they do- are. Even if their belief is political, not religous.
Main Entry: bib·li·cal
Pronunciation: 'bi-bli-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin biblicus, from biblia
Date: circa 1775
1 : of, relating to, or being in accord with the Bible
2 : suggestive of the Bible or Bible times
Main Entry: bi·bleMain Entry: bi·ble
Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported
Date: 14th century
1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported
Date: 14th century
1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
Hence, “biblical civil law” is “civil law of, relating to, or being in accord with the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament.” As I can read, I know what biblical civil law is.
“we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law”
– “Setting the Record Straight: What Chalcedon Really Believes” by Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin
Main Entry: 2Christian
Function: adjective
Date: 1553
1 a : of or relating to Christianity <Christian scriptures> b : based on or conforming with Christianity <Christian ethics>
Hence, a Christian state “is a government based on or conforming with Christianity”. As I informed you in my last post, Christianity is a religion. Hence, the intent of Rev. Sandlin is the establishment of a state religion.
If the law of the land is based upon a religion, it imposes those beliefs on people who do not belong to that religion. Res ipsa loquitur.
- The site is obviously not intended for just its supporters; it is just as obviously intended to gain new supporters.
- I’m not accusing them of lying - in fact I have made no judgments whatsoever about their ideals, goals, etc. And, in point of fact, there is a distinct possibility that their goals, if enacted, would fall short of their definition of “state religion”. It would not, however, fall short of Merriam-Webster’s definition.
And Clinton specifically denied having sexual relations with that woman. And I am firmly convinced that to know me is to love me, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, I’m not accusing Rev. Sandlin of lying - he may firmly believe what he is saying. But the imposition of religion-based law on non-believers is, by definition, the imposition of the religion’s beliefs on non-believers and, as such, is enshrining in law that religion over other religions.
Puddlegum, once you get past this utterly silly denial that the Chalcedon want to establish a Christian state (and again, they use that very phrase), we can start having an actual debate on the following issues:
- Can they achieve this?; and
- Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Shall we please go onto the debate now, Puddle?
Sua
OK, important fact: Pat Robertson is not a politician. He is a religious figure who once ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche ran for president too, that doesn’t make him a politician. You’re only a politician if you WIN.
So, John Ashcroft who was a senator just a few months ago could be called a politician. Hell, even Jesse Jackson in his capacity as non-voting representative from DC could be stretched to be a politician.
But Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Ozzy Osbourne, Marilyn Manson, and Charles Dickens are not politicians even if they advocate political beliefs.
Case closed.
Um, these people bother me!
So what happened to loving your enemy and not restraining those who do evil? And since it doesn’t “accuse” the Christian, I suppose only non-Christians would be “restrained and arrested.”
Very very disturbing! Not to be confused with Christianity.
Although, they go on to say they don’t believe in using force to get their way:
So they’d have cops without guns and they’d quote scriptures at you until you gave up!!
They’d never take me alive! :eek:
Do the Christian Reconstructionists want to establish a theocracy in which religious liberty would be annihilated?
Yes. Without a doubt.
I have a more extensive collection of quotations from a wide variety of theocratically-inclined ultra-fundamentalists (including some non-Christians) on the web page Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation.
It should be noted that I’m mainly talking here about the intent of Christian Reconstructionists (and the others I quote on that page), and not necessarily their actual capacity to put their views into effect.
Puddlegum, you really need to go to Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation. There you will find quotes by various authors explicitly calling for the establishment of Christianity as the state religion; the curtailment of first amendment rights; and the death penalty for homosexual acts. Wherever possible I have links from that page to the web sites of the original authors, and full bibliographic citations where that isn’t possible.
Thanks for noticing that I tried to avoid a global slam on all fundamentalists. In answer to your question, I have a serious dislike of almost ANYONE trying to run my life, take money which I earned without my consent, or organize me in any other way. It especially irks me when someone tells me that “it’s for my own good.” That IMHO is adding insult to injury. Having said all of that, there are certain things which obviously have to be paid for in common, roads are one of the things you mentioned, a military is another and there many other examples that a few minutes thought will provide. One of the few things that makes a politician even remotely tolerable is that at least he can’t claim moral superiority or that “God says this is what we should do based on MY interpretation of the Bible/Koran/whatever.” Or worse yet, “I’m here because God WANTS me to be here,” with the obvious but unspoken addendum that if you disagree you are, in effect, arguing with God. Hope this clarifies where I’m coming from. What’s your opinion on people taking money off of you for the items you mentioned?
Thanks and all the best to you.
Testy
puddleglum, what exactly do you think you’re proving? You ask for proof of a claim that the OP never made, and every time someone posts evidence, you dismiss it as not being explicit enough. What do expect, a signed declaration from President Bush declaring “I am a Christian Fundamentalist in all senses of the word, and I wish to oppress, in every sense of the word, every non-Christian. Everything that Testy has said or implied is true. puddleglum is wrong.”? Do you really think that you can find quotes from fundamentalists saying that they don’t want to oppress non-Christians proves anything? They’re fundamentalists. They’ll say anything that is convenient. That’s part of being a fundamentalist/fanatic. If you can’t see the manifest truth of the statement “Christian fundamentalists are a serious threat to our relgious liberties” already, then I don’t think that any evidence will convince you, any more than any evidence will convince a fundamentalist that the Bible is wrong. You also have an annoying habit of using the word “you” as if there were only one other poster in this thread. If you wish to address a comment to a specific person, the intelligent thing to do is to preface the comment with the person’s name. You also repeatedly have accused people of making claims that they have not supported, but not citing any such claims. If you see a claim that you believe has not been supported, then quote it and then ask for evidence. Your practice of saying such things as
“but they specifically deny they want what you say they do.”
“There is a great leap from ‘biblical civil law’ to what you accuse them of wanting.”
“What basis do you have for making this assertion?” [preceded by multiple quoted assertions]
“You accused Robertson and others of trying to accomplish specific things”
makes it very difficult to tell just what claims you are challenging. I don’t know. Maybe that’s you intent: to simply confuse your opponents as to what you disagree with, so that they can’t argue against you. While this may make you able to come away feeling like you won, it doesn’t really accomplish anything beyond that.
Lemur866
You have a strange definition of “fact”. Apparently it refers to whatever helps your case.
Politician:
1a One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
If the definition of “politician” were to exclude Robertson, that would make the matter of whether or not someone is a politician irrelevant anyway, since people like Robertson do cause significant harm, and it is the harm that these people cause, and not the actual positions that they hold, that matters.
Thank you for that, you’ve obviously studied the matter in great depth. I have no dislike of religious people in general, even fundamentalists as you define them. My remarks about “fundies” are strictly pointed at the other type, the ones wishing to legislate my country into a 21st century version of the dark ages.
My own background is one of extreme religious fundamentalism, son of a hell-fire & brimstone Baptist preacher, lived in West Kentucky, etc. so I understand these folks quite well.
The “Legislated Morality” you mention gives me the willies. As I mentioned in a previous post, I live in a theocracy at the moment and it is unpleasant to say the least. Oddly enough, it is even MORE unpleasant for moderate believers of the dominant faith here. As a “foreign infidel” I miss out on many of the worst aspects of the legal oppression practiced here. Mr. White has my sympathy for what that’s worth. Having been on the inside of the fundamentalist crowd I believe that, short of renouncing his sexual orientation, he will NEVER be accepted by that crowd. After all, his lifestyle is defined as “evil” by the revealed word of God as inerpreted by various “spiritual leaders.”
The “blind-faith” aspect of religious fandamentalism is something that bothers me. Uncritical acceptance of an argument from authority seems a short road to a pitiful existance.
So, what to do about the threat that such people pose? I believe that the answer to this is education. An emphasis on logic and the requirement for proof to back up a statement. Fundies oppose such education bitterly and are having an alarming degree of degree of success. An example would be the teaching of creationist science in Arkansas. Now, people can make jokes about Arkansas being a nest of rednecks or say the average IQ has dropped due to serious inbreeding or something but that’s not the case. The reason IMO that such legislation passed is that the people who opposed it were unable to come forward for fear of being defined as “evil,” “an East-Coast-Liberal” or, God save us, even a supporter of Carl Sagan. S
Anyway, thanks again and best regards.
Testy.
I did give you a direct quote from Pat Robertson saying he wanted the Republican party in fundamentalist hands by a certain date. To me at least, it logically follows that he and his friends would make changes favorable to Christian fundamentalist agenda. Why else would they bother? After all, politics is a hard game.
I think you are correct in asserting that it is their right to attempt to sway the political process if they can. It is also my right, and possibly even a duty, to stand up and disagree. To attempt to block them if I can and persuade others to do the same.
Regards
Testy