I… think he’s coming on to us.
Sorry, duffer, but as flattering as the offer is, we’re monogamous.
I think your objections to the political actions of anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation are your business. I think it is a very important thing to object to any political force that you feel is engaged in a course of action that infringes on your rights.
But the pastoral acts of a parish leader are the fundamentally guaranteed by the concept of freedom of religion. You may well encourage His Honor in his ethical stand against political pressure, or even against the religious pressure of his congregation. But the minister is making his choice within the protected sphere of interest of his church. Unless you also feel that political expediency should be permitted to dictate religious opinion in the United States, that area should be out of your judgement, unless you are a member of that parish.
I oppose the blatant use of religion as a political force in the US, as well as in other countries, and other religions, but I do so publicly for Constitutional reasons. My reason is that I want secular government, constituted by civil agreement, and I don’t want them to intrude into my own faith. Since atheists, such as the OP have no legitimate concern over the issue of fellowship among worshiping Christians; it seems obvious that he simply assumes that the choice of the pastor is not one of conscience. While I don’t agree with the pastor, I don’t agree that public opinion should be his choice of motivation any more than political expediency.
Support the Judge, as you wish, certainly. He has shown remarkable constancy in the face of an array of influences, and remained ethical, and guided by law. We can ask no more of our judiciary than that. I admire him greatly, for the adversity he has withstood, and consider the action of his fellow parishioners to be sadly lacking in love. To them, I would be willing to witness on the matter of the harm they have done to the judge. But that would be making their spiritual lives my business, and would require a lot more involvement than just a passing one line post on a bulletin board. I would have to love them more than I do, unhappily, to be of any spiritual benefit to them.
Tris
“The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.” ~ Albert Einstein ~
Indeed, but one does not need to belie in a big invisible guy to recognize those as useful. Worse, the threat of the big invisible guy leads to other, less sensible rules:
“I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me”–So much for religious pluralism.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” So long, representational art.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”–Our whol economy is based on coveting!
And then one gets into bits about shellfish being abominations and no mixing of two fibers in a cloth.
And Poly made an excellent point, one this I think lies at the heart of the hostility here.
I think some here have taken criticism of some bible doctrines as criticisms of them personally and as a misrepresentation of their faith. “Hey, my church doesn’t teach infant damnation, you’re lying about my faith and ME!” and it goes on from there.
But you’re right, Poly, you ought to be only called to account for your own faith and not expected to defend tenets that are not yours.
You’re offering as an antidote to “right-wing Christianity” Jesus Christ Himself? As a “left-wing Christian”?
If God doesn’t exist, Christ wasn’t His Son. And yet you use Him for a cite?
I honestly don’t even know how to process this. Any help Dopers?
Miller, I’m probably too much to handle, but the fact you’ve picked up on my offer and had to comment says something, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it sweetie? 
And by the way, blasphemy is using that which is holy, in a way that is secular.
Like, maybe using faith in the Lord to motivate other people to vote the way you want them to.
Tris
“RITUALISM, n. A Dutch Garden of God where He may walk in rectilinear freedom, keeping off the grass.” ~ Ambrose Bierce ~
There does seem to be a strong belief that agnostics/atheists do not believe in these messages. That it is impossible to believe in these messages without a belief in God. That without a belief in God there is no reason to exist. That without a reason to exist, there could be no reason to live these messages.
That reasoning is, of course, bullshit. It would be nice if some (and you know who you are, and you know who you aren’t) would accept that it is possible to be a decent human being without a belief in God, that it is possible to live rightly without a punishment suspended over ones head. That it is possible to attempt to live a life that is right solely for the purpose of living a life that is right, not for the purpose of avoiding the threat of hell.
Good evening, Duffer. Yes, what Gobear says is precisely what many of us “Liberal Christians” are saying about what Jesus Christ really taught.
And you have 24 hours from the present (10:30 EST 3/29/05) to clarify the second paragraph in your post, before I suggest that you intentionally and maliciously egregiously misrepresent the beliefs of me, Siege, Tris, RT, Baker and a wide collection of other people in a Pit thread devoted to your very own self.
I may be wrong, here, but isn’t Greer’s priest himself making this a public issue? If he’d approached Greer privately and said he was no longer welcome in his parish, that would be one thing, but if he does it via press conference, it seems to me that he is inviting comments from the public at large.
How did the press get the letter to Greer from his former pastor anyway? Is it known that the letter got to the press via the pastor or someone in official capacity of the church?
It sounds like duffer is merely expressing disbelief that gobear is citing the example of Christ as an antidote to right-wing Christianity. Since gobear does not believe in God, it’s basically like saying that some ancient philosopher is the antidote to right-wing Christianity. That’s a whole lot of power to give to just another philosopher.
duffer seems only to be pointing out the incongruity that gobear is using Christ as an example when **gobear does not believe in a deity. duffer doesn’t appear to be saying that Jesus was a right-winger or whatever.
YMMV, and I could just be wildly misinterpreting duffer’s post. I attributed no malice to it myself.
Well, I have no information about how this came to be in the news. I would find it tasteless, to say the very least for a pastor to do such a thing publicly, whatever the issue of contention is.
If he did it in the press, he has made it secular by his own choice. Public criticism of his act is then entirely appropriate, because he made it a public act. Public criticism of his political act, that is. The actual pastoral act is still the business of the parish. How they feel about making the matter of the judge’s faith in the Lord into a political commentary is a question of faith they must examine. Perhaps they have. Perhaps there was popular support for the Pastor’s action. It is not uncommon in community Baptist congregations to have an advisory group of elders who very strongly influence pastoral decisions. But I don’t know any of that.
All I know is that a private religious organization has asked a member to disassociate himself from them during a very public controversy. It still seems a private matter to me, so far.
My concern, in the sense of Christian fellowship, is entirely for the Judge, and I hope that compassionate Christian in that community are reaching out to him with assurances that God isn’t having a press conference to discuss the state of his soul.
Tris
I got here to late to make this point so thank you Polycarp for making this point.
I was raised Southern Baptist and went to an SBC university as an undergrad. The point made above about SBC beliefs is what bothers me so much about the actions of this pastor. As I was taught, throwing Judge Greer out of the church for his legal decisions in this case goes against everything I was taught as a young person about what Baptists believe.
It’s basically saying that the actual ancient philosopher that was the basis of Christianity is the antidote to right-wing Christianity. I have no doubt that Jesus existed; I have no doubt that he said some fine things; I have no doubt that he was not god. I have no doubt that right-wing Christianity as exemplified in this country today (literally this very day) is the antithesis of what Jesus the philosopher promulgated.
And how things have changed, not in word, but in practice.
I am curious as to how a Southern Baptist could reject all of the BFM. The bits about Christ as the Son of God and the Holy Bible being inspired by God are pretty non-controversial among SB folks, and could probably pass muster among Episcopalians. 
You may well be right, and I for one would be very happy to see Duffer say that is what he did in fact mean. He has some views I disagree rather strongly with, but he’s never been one to engage in dickheaded trollery on this board. But what I read that paragraph as saying is that “Liberal Christians don’t really believe in God anyway.” And I trust nobody who’s been around here for a while has any problem in understanding why that would piss me off greatly.
Very well. Let me just state that I have not the same sense of incredulity at gobear’s statement as duffer appears to have. While I do not necessarily agree that Jesus is the antithesis of right-wing Christianity (as far as I’m concerned, Jesus didn’t seem to have a specific political bent), I don’t have a problem with a non-theist citing Jesus as a philosopher.
What does my belief have to do with anything? You asked for cites of “left-wing” Christianity, and I offered the example of its founder, who told his followers to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, who forgave sinners and dined with the dregs of society. Jesus said to love another, yet he oddly forgot to mention cutting the capital gains tax.
Is Duffer saying that a non-believer may not discuss a religion’s tenets? Or that one must believe in the veracity of its claims to discuss those claims? I can talk about The Lord of the Rings quite ably, yet I assure you I do not believe in the existence of orcs.
I read it more as “gobear doesn’t believe in God anyway”, which given that gobear has said that he doesn’t believe in God earlier, isn’t a value judgment upon one’s belief status.
Even if someone said liberal Christians don’t really believe in God, why would it matter? It’s only one more opinion, and as a Christian, why does the opinion of anyone but God matter? Sure, such an opinion would be rather insulting, but it’s just a drop in the bucket overall.
He did mention something about “rendering unto Caesar”. Perhaps he was misquoted.
Jesus was pretty silent about things that didn’t seem to exist in his time. How would we know what Jesus would say about capital gains taxes?