I get on a backwoods Florida road, headed north. At some point, I will encounter a street sign, or I’ll notice a change in licence plates, or on the cop cars, and I’ll realize that I’ve made it into Georgia. But only in the past tense: I may have crossed the line five minutes ago or an hour; I don’t rightly know.
Which is not to say that some people don’t take the sorts of roads that had big painted signs saying “Georgia State Line.” But I didn’t.
You might not be able to out-shock them, the conservative Christians, but you could take aim at the problem, the bias of the media. Yell and scream at them for portraying such a lopsided representation of Christianity. Seriously, this is a problem and until it’s addressed, conservative Christians have dominated the debate and the progessive/liberal Christians are SOL.
You know, when folks start passing laws, I don’t care what their religion is then either. I care about their laws!
Just sayin’, ya know.
Tris
Cite for me saying any such thing?
Not all Christians are on the right, and not all Christians who are on the right are schmucks. Only the vocal minority of Christian Theocrats on the right bug me, the rest are ok in my book.
It’s not Christians either. It’s a pack of crazy people who happen to be Christians.
Take it back from them. Memetic combat is a bitch.
Emphasis on some very bad people. Those specific people who misuse Christianity and/or use it towards theocratic goals, they’re bad. But there are specific people in space/time, and the problem is not that they’re Christians, but assholes.
Truth be told, it’s your house (If you’re a Christian) and your job to put it in order. I can’t really suggest anything, because it’s not my place to. If someone as a Christian feels that the public presentation of their religion is somehow wrong, then I’d wager they should deal with it somehow. But that’s my opinion, and they can do whatever they want.
However you feel like within the limits of the law.
And the opposite would be the vocal minority, right?
Yes, so?
Cite for me saying any such thing?
[/quote]
You asked, so I provided. Or are you now suggesting that the Right Wing aren’t the ones trying to rule our lives?
As should be obious, not everybody on the Right Wing (whatever exactly that is) does not want to turn the country into a Christian Theocracy. As a result, there are right wing Christians who do not fit into your model. There are also right wing non-Christians who do not fit into your model. As such, we cannot discuss the entire ‘Right Wing’ of the nation as if they’re one solid ‘group’.
So, of course that’s what I’m saying.
The ‘Right Wing’ is not trying to rule our lives, some people in it, especially theocratic Christians, are.
Ugh, what a long day. I see that this thread has veered once again, but I’d like to add two things regarding earlier discussions:
gobear, I don’t really expect you to respond to my post in re: your “negative generalizations”. I have a feeling you probably agree that at least a few of them were over the top. But let me add this: I too have said some pretty stupid and nasty things in this thread; I’m more than happy to admit my complicity in fueling the flames. And I apologize for any and all instances where I attacked you maliciously. I still think you’re wrong and a hypocrite, but I certainly could have expressed that in a kinder way.
Secondly, this quote from you:
I posted the first line of Matthew 25: 31-46 earlier, but I’d like to put the entire passage here. I think it is probably one of the clearest passage describing the requirement for virtue in Christianity.
What’s the opposite of the No True Scotsman? Because apparently you define all groups so broadly they have no meaning. If they’re not trying to rule our lives then how is that the several states passed anti-same-sex marriage amendments by overwhelming majorities?
The “True Scotsman,” of course. 
And how is “theocratic Christian” a term with no meaning? I think it’s a very apt description of Ashcroft and other such assholes. It clearly differentiates people who think their flavor of Christianity should be enshrined in the law, and the other 2 billion Christians.
Sorry, chief, you’ve got the wrong guy. Like many Catholics, I’m now an atheist. But even though I’ve severed my ties to Christianity, I’d not say it’s not my place to comment on internal issues because they do effect me as a member of society. If all of this strife were kept in church, we’d not be having this discussion- but it spill over and poisons our civil dialog.
I have one group over here trying to run my life under the guise of Christianity…and there are, suspiciously, very few public voices proclaiming otherwise, and those that are are fairly anemic. So what am I to think?
Bear in mind, I’m not talking about specific people- but as a political force/movement/whatever, Christianity is pretty much what **gobear ** has claimed it to be. But I’d love to be proved wrong.
My two cents… I may have already said this, but if so I’ll say it again.
When I talk about Christianity with a capitol C, I talk about the conservative Christian culture. Christians with a capitol C refers not to followers of Christ, but people who are part of the culture. Lowercase c christian is someone who follows Christ.
Obviously, most Christians are christians, but the uppercase C would mean I’m talking about the cultural aspect.
The problem is that it wouldn’t really be practical for widespread use because it would be too confusing for people who don’t pick up on why the first letter is sometimes uppercase and sometimes lowercase, whereas if it’s just me using it the worst that would happen is people would think “That guy is weird” and ignore me.
How’s about you just say “conservative Christian” when talking about conservative Christians? Or better yet, “fascist Christians”? Or how about “fascists who use religion as a guise”? Or even “assholes”?
Then the rest of the world will know who you’re talking about and will be less likely to be offended. Unless they’re assholes, but then that’s the point. 
If by ‘have no meaning’ you mean that I define groups in such a way as members aren’t interchangable, then yes.
That was about what marriage is, and is not. Talk to me when they’re trying to manadate a state religion, as some of 'em are.
Figured that was a possibility, so I included the qualifier.
I disagree, the actions of vocal members affect you because they try to impose their views on you. But the issue I was talking about, perception of Christianity as a whole, that really doesn’t effect you.
What can those who keep it in church do about those who don’t? I’m not quite sure, but I feel like opposing the theocrats while letting the other Christians sort things out for themselves.
Exactly that. That there are people who are theocrats, and there isn’t vocal opposition.
First, I don’t know how you can be proven wrong as you’ve already accepted that that’s what Christianity is. I’d ask you, what would constitute proof that it is not as you view it?
And, there’s no point in talking about a disembodied political view, except if your’e talking theory. Actual people do actual things, and yes their motivation matters, but it’s still within the context of their actions.
I don’t know why you want to coin a new phrase “theocratic Christian” when the Religious Right already includes them, as well as some Jewish theocrats. The Religious Right are the ones who want to impose their worldview on everyone. We don’t need to narrow it down any more.
There is no doubt that the RR got the measures on the ballots, but what I want to know is how the hell did this get passed in places like Michigan and Oregon?
Probably been debated elsewhere, but it clearly wasn’t just Christians who got this thing through, considering the “overwhelming majorities”.
Ahhhh, well the Religious Right =/= the Right Wing.
Although if talking about specific people I still think it’d be better to call them theocratic Christians since as per your claims there are some theocratic Jews on the Religious Right too. I’d wager that the theocratic Jews don’t have many positions in common with theocratic Christians.
On some reflection it seems that y’all have spent six pages arguing over a lack of qualifiers like some, many or most. I’d be willing to concede that we could be a little more specific, if you could acknowledge that the “theocratic Christians” are the ones controling the public political face of Christianity. Now the question is, are you willing to allow that to continue to be the case or are you going to do something about it? (Ironically, fundamentalists were once seperatists and eschewed political activity.)