You know, it always causes me giggles when Christians complain of how ill-used and oppressed Christianity is in this country. Because, y’know, having the only religion for which government shuts down on your major holidays isn’t enough due diligence. Still, it can’t help the perception of your faith when your major spokesmen in this country are áššhølëš. Kind of skews perceptions of you. Consider Pat Robertson, bastion of Christian charity, advocating the covert assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Oh yeah. I seem to recall, from my limited familiarity with the New Testament, that Jesus advocated such thinking. Right between “Love thy neighbor” and “The meek shall inherit the Earth,” he espoused,
“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”
I can understand why Pat Robertson is such a prominent religious figure. Every time the guy opens his mouth, people say, “Chriiiiiiist.”
PAD
• 
I’ve been lurking for awhile and I “decloaked” to ask why is it ok to use “Christian-in-chief” with sarcasm?
Because Bush has made comments in the past such as God told him to bomb Iraq? that part of the neocon agenda is tied directly to what the hardcore Christian right wants?
So if we give yuou a list of evil non-Christians it may be enough to get you back in the fold?
No, but that may give me the names of other clubs that I don’t want to join.
Dawn, technically, speaking, Christian in Chief is pretty accurate. Bush is and admitted Christian, of the born-again evangellical variety, I believe, and he’s in charge. It’s like calling the Pope Catholic.
Real problem here is his toppling of the activities of certain evangelic churches in his country.
And Pat Robertson is an evangelical minister.
Hmmmmmm.
Klingon-In-Chief….
You want a Christian Leader condemning what the doofus said? I’m small time (currently pastor of three small, rural churches), but I’ll gladly oblige.
In no way, shape or form does Mr. Robertson reflect the teachings of the Christian Faith, and I wholeheartedly condemn his hate filled statements. They are an affront before God and man, and are inappropriate for any Christian, much less a man who has positioned himself as a leader.
Klingon-In-Chief….
Not a chance. Klingons have honor & would rather kill themselves than disgrace their race.
If “Christian-In-Chief” is considered to be “anti-Christian,” then it explains why Christians are complaining that Christianity is under attack: It’s because they have a chip on their shoulder the size of Alaska, since this country is so obviously de facto Christian. When I was in high school I had a math teacher who deliberately scheduled tests on all the major Jewish holidays and made a point of saying that only a doctor’s note would be an acceptable reason for missing the exam (as opposed to, say, being in synagogue.) So I don’t have a lot of sympathy in that regard.
That said, referring to Bush as the “Christian In Chief” cannot remotely be considered anti-Christian. Number one, it’s simply a play on “Commander-in-Chief,” and number two, Bush has used his faith to explain his motivations and thinking. He uses his faith in the same way that he uses the flag and 9/11: To justify achieving his ends. And since faith became SUCH a huge frickin’ issue in the last campaign, it’s abundantly clear that he is a de facto religious leader since that’s one of the reasons people voted for him. “Christian-In-Chief” is simply a short-hand way of summing all that up.
“Bulltish? You lyxdexlic?”
You know, that would be a great button: “For Dog’s sake, Pots all the Bulltish!”
PAD
I often wonder how sincere Bush’s faith really is, or is it, like 9/11 or the flag, just another prop he uses to justify his actions.
if he can take the time to repeatedly crab about Cindy Sheehan (“I have to go on with my life.” God almighty) then he can cut five minutes of a busy day of picking up brush to say that Pat Robertson is a douche bag.
The big difference is the amount of hounding from the press on the ridiculous Cindy Sheehan story vs. maybe a question or two about Robertson. Blame the media, neither story deserved the uproar or coverage that they have given them.
I understood it was a play on words and Bush brings it on himself, but wouldn’t certain people call it anti-semitic if “Jew-in-Chief” were used?
The Sheehan story got a lot of coverage for a number reasons. One is that few things are more compelling than a grieving mother. Two is that it came out in a relatively slow news cycle when people had become sick of missing college girl stories. Three is that the more the Bush administration bungled their response, the more the story grew.
The Robertson story has just surfaced and is only in the first stages. Whether it ends up getting two or more weeks of constant coverage depends on a similar set of factors.
Peter, though I’m “only” 38, one thing I’ve found is that my own High School experience is not the same as the current one. That said, if your teacher had been a member of my congregation and I’d heard about it, I’d have given her an earful.
Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of “visible” way, but in a far more subtle way. The “attacks” (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil. That said, as I’ve told my churches more than once, the attacks here in the US are nothing more than annoyances. Other parts of the world? Another story entirely.
In any case, boneheads like Falwell, Robertson and the like do far more damage than anything else.
“Real problem here is his toppling of the activities of certain evangelic churches in his country.”
i think the real problem is that he’s nationalized the oil wealth of his country. there are a lot of folks who still want to be fighting the cold war and think that any effort to redistribute wealth must be stopped at all costs.
he’s effectively said that oil is a great national treasure, and it should be used to benefit the people, not just a handful of wealthy elites and foreign investors.
i get the feeling that for Pat Robertson, as well as many other “people of faith,” economics trumps religion everyday.
on a related note:
PAT ROBERTSON URGES U.S. TO COVET CHAVEZ’ WIFE
http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1202&srch=
“Blame the media, neither story deserved the uproar or coverage that they have given them”
My point exactly.
Gary, I’m not sure that changing notions on the nature of good and evil are real threats to Christianity. Quite frankly, I think this country deciding that slavery is evil (well, except for Pat Robertson who invests in slavery in Africa) and that women and minorities deserve the same rights as white male property owners (again, excepting Robertson) have been positive additions to our notions of good and evil.
However, societal mores do change over time and with it come changes in religion (Protestant Reformation, etc). These are threats to Christianity only if it withdraws from the modern culture and refuses to acknowledge this fact.
That said, there are several people who make a fine living exploiting the fear that there is an organized campaign against Christianity in this country. They’re called Republican political consultants.
Den,
What I was referring to was not so much a matter of dealing with specific questions of good and evil (where it is clear that we can gain a great understanding), but the deeper questions of “is there such a thing as good and evil at all?”
Of course, one part of the question is that the groups that call themselves Christian any more make for a fairly wide grouping, but if you take the traditional view that the core message of Christianity is “the death of Christ for the sins of the world,” there is an implied challenge in there. The existence of true good and (especially in this case) true evil does play directly to that.
It only gets more complicated than there, since even those who would say “there is no black and white,” will still have things they clearly call evil (the holocaust as the easy example.)
Me, I’m just glad that the little toad is getting so much negative attention for it. Rumsfeld distancing the DOD from him is a start.
I do have to disagree with Bill that this will help conservatives “remove the idiots from their ranks while the left keeps all theirs,” though. This is hardly removing Robertson from the ranks.
When I see Bush, Frist, et al. refusing money from Robertson or his foundations, and when I see them saying “thanks, but no” to his offers to rally the shee…faithful the next time election season rolls around, THEN I’ll think that the right is serious about purging people like Robertson from the fold.
Until then, he’s just the wacky rich uncle you hit up for money when it’s convenient and try to dismiss at other times.
TWL
“Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of “visible” way, but in a far more subtle way. The “attacks” (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil.”
Most attacks on Christianity in the U.S. are courtesy of the entertainment world. And yeah, it’s far easier to find representations of “bad” guy Christians in entertainment than good ones. It happens.
But frankly, if the worst “persecution” Christians face in this country is the Da Vinci Code (the non-Christian Left Behind)…then hey…I think we should be considering ourselves pretty lucky. There are countries where being a Christian can mean prison/death. Instead, guys like Falwell and Robertson whine as if we were getting locked up.
I just wish they would go away…far away.
WWPRD? Lie. Not quite from the same book of rules that you would get WWJD.
This is what he said today about how his words are being twisted.
“Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should, quote, “take him out,” and “take him out” can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.”
You ever wonder about the airheads that keep sending him cash no matter what because he’s just such a good man of God?
“What I really meant was ‘take him out to a nice dinner and movie.’ And then shoot him. I mean, with a camera! Yeah, that’s it.”
You ever wonder about the airheads that keep sending him cash no matter what because he’s just such a good man of God?
Well, that’s what happens when you don’t have a Commandment beneath “Thou shalt not kill” saying “Thou shalt not kidnap either”. 😉
Mr. McClellan- I’d disagree that it’s solely Christianity that’s come ‘under attack’/’undergoing cultural shift’/etc. There’s been a downward attendance trend in almost all the major religions both nationally and abroad for the past two decades. I’m no social scientist, but it seems to me that this cultural shift is more ‘anti-religion’ than ‘anti-Christian’ in nature. That it is percieved as ‘anti-Christian’ probably has more to do with Christianity being the largest religious denomination in the country (and thus, has the largest number of people feeling its affects) than it has to do with any sort of specific anti-Christian sentiment or agenda.
Insofar as the blurring of the ‘Good vs. Evil’ line, well, that’s going to get worse before it gets better. Humanity has entered a radical new paradigm where the communication of and interaction with new ideas/thoughts/viewpoints happens with much more fequency and simplicity than it has ever happened before, and we’re still feeling those growing pains; there’s simply too much to fight about. Thanks to the rampant proliferation of devices like video cell phones and high speed internet access, our world is connected like it’s never been connected before. Would Robertson’s recent crackpot remarks have generated this kind of media buzz 20 years ago? It would’ve maybe made page nine in some regional newspapers, and maybe Andy Rooney would’ve said something about it at the end of ’60 Minutes’, but that’d be about it. Nowadays, with 80 different major news outlets all trying to get your attention, and everybody’s blog or website commenting on it, it becomes a major media trope. With more and more people talking, is it really that much of a surprise that there are increasingly more shades of grey available?
I’d agree that there are some pretty stark blacks and whites out there. The Holocaust was unquestionably a solid ‘black’, but I’d argue that people like Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and MLK offered some pretty solid ‘white’ for the world to see (yes, I’m fully aware of the inherent ironies in the last part of that sentence; what can I say, it’s your metaphor). But the expansion of the ‘grey’ areas in between is something I feel organized religion has to acknowledge and compensate for, because most organized religion still thinks strictly in terms of black or white.
Which is not to say that religion should make ‘grey’ an acceptable designation; I’ve always advocated that religion should always strive to bring out the best in people, rather than encouraging the mediocre. Rather, I think that the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mentality of black vs. white is turning more people away than it is helping people who need help. That same attitude of ‘you’re either A or B; you can’t be anything but’ is what’s ruining American politics… but that’s a whole ‘nother post.
“I understood it was a play on words and Bush brings it on himself, but wouldn’t certain people call it anti-semitic if “Jew-in-Chief” were used?”
“Certain people?” Probably. Certain people considered it anti-semitic when I used the objects on a sedar plate as villains in one of my Trek novels. Sometimes, though, a joke is just a joke. Speaking for myself, if Leiberman ever took the office, and used his Judaism as a holier-than-thou club whenever possible, I’d be perfectly capable of referring to him as the Jew in Chief.
“Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of “visible” way, but in a far more subtle way. The “attacks” (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil.”
That’s not an attack, quotes or no quotes. The way I see it, Christianity dictates that questioning is automatically a bad thing. Faith must be absolute, and if it’s not, that’s a sin. In Catholicism, the Pope’s word cannot be questioned and he can never make a mistake because he’s infallible. As opposed to Jews who are so aggressive about challenging everything that it’s often said Jews answer every question with another question…and that’s not far wrong.
It is human nature to question, to challenge, to say, “Wait, but what if…” Christianity has set up, as part of its own credo, the concept that questioning is bad, with the ultimate smack down being, “It’s God’s will. Now shut up.” My attitude is: That’s Christianity’s problem. People aren’t launching attacks. They’re just doing what comes naturally. Saying that when people question, they’re doing it as an aggressive attack on Christianity is like saying that when they mášŧûrbáŧë, they’re doing so in a deliberate endeavor to pìšš øff the Church.
PAD
BrakYeller, the irony I saw was that when I was in college, there was a guy who used to yell and scream in front of one of the largest classroom buildings about how everyone was going to hëll. One day, he said that Ghandi was in hëll because he was evil.
That said, there are still many things that are clearly good and clearly evil and I agree with your short list. But I think that people are seeing more gray areas not just because of a blurring of the definition of good and evil compared to other times. I mean, take a look at some of things the crusaders did in the name of all that is good and holy. It’s that many of the issues faces us a society are more complex then ever before. Look at stem cells. Some fear that they will lead to more abortions. Others point to their potential to relieve so much suffering among people already born. Which is good and whish is evil?
Those that keep saying all people need to do to shut PR up is stop sending him money…he owns his own fricken TV show. He could probably continue broadcasting for the rest of his life even if he stopped getting donations today.
I don’t think we need to shut him up, just stop taking anything he says seriously.
That’s the reply the administration should (but won’t) make to cool the international uproar. “Yeah, that Pat. He’s a wackjob. Hahaha. He just spouts off whatever comes into his head at any moment. I mean, did you know he once claimed God told him to run for president? You’d think if God wanted him to run, he would’ve won.”
Den,
Yeah, the Admin should say that as loud as they can. Then more people could point out stuff like this…..
“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”
July 16, 2004: President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era
Jim..just to be clear…someone speaks, in your name, representing your god, and says something compleatly against all that you believe…and not some wackjob on the street, but a major public figure…rather than stand up like a man and say, “You, sir, are wrong.” you instead shrug it off that it’s not worth making a fuss about.
Well, you sir are wrong, and you are complaisant in all that he does.
It doesn’t matter whether you are heard or not. You, as a claimed man of G-d, stand up and say that he is wrong.
Or do you agree?
“If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”
Yeah, this was “misinterpreted”.
Of note, not even Disney can shut Robertson up..in the terms of sale of what was the Christian Family network and is now ABC/Disney Family channel (home of the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers) is a clause that the 700 Club can not be canceled unless Robertson wishes it.
“If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”
Yeah, this was “misinterpreted”.
So, now Robertson shares a pew with Blue Oyster Cult?
“If he really thinks we’re the Devil,
Then let’s send him to hëll!”
– Blue Oyster Cult, “Divine Wind”, Cultosaurus Erectus (1980)
In Catholicism, the Pope’s word cannot be questioned and he can never make a mistake because he’s infallible
Sorry, no, that’s incorrect. It’s not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the “Immaculate Conception” but it’s still wrong.
You can question and disagree with the Pope’s word. The Pope can make mistakes. Infallibility is something that is invoked ex cathedra under extremely specific conditions. It has to be specifically invoked and is usually regarding some matter of religious dogma (the aforementioned Immmaculate Conception is regarded as an example).
As the Wikepedia entry sates “Many Catholics and non-Catholics wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the use of papal infallibility is quite rare.”
Now you may well believe that any and all claims of Infallibility are as so many horsefeathers. Fine, no problem, even some Catholics have issues with the concept. But please don’t leave the impression that dissent within the church is disallowed by the infallibility of everything the Pope says. That is not the Church’s teaching.
“Sorry, no, that’s incorrect. It’s not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the “Immaculate Conception” but it’s still wrong.”
Yes, I know. That’s Mary. I learned that from watching “Win Ben Stein’s Money.”
“As the Wikepedia entry sates “Many Catholics and non-Catholics wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the use of papal infallibility is quite rare.”
I find that an interesting clarification. Curiously, it’s also almost irrelevant to reality. The belief may be “wrong,” but the fact that so many people DO believe it means that they act in that fashion, and feed into the concept of “Never ask, never question, and anyone who does is wrong.”
PAD
“Sorry, no, that’s incorrect. It’s not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the “Immaculate Conception” but it’s still wrong.”
Yes, I know. That’s Mary. I learned that from watching “Win Ben Stein’s Money.”
Just as an aside, wasn’t Ben’s meltdown in that episode a thing of postmodern beauty?
“It’s not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the “Immaculate Conception” but it’s still wrong.”
wasn’t the Immaculate Conception the conception of Jesus?
in which case i’d say, Mary HAD the Immaculate Conception, but Jesus WAS the Immaculate Conception. or, to be less semantically tortured, Jesus was the product of the Immaculate Conception.
By the way….how many of the rest of the Religious Right (Dobson, Kennedy, et al) have distanced themselves from Robertson’s initial comments?
As an atheistic and unbaptized spaniard who was schooled in catholic institutions from 6 to 18, I can say:
a) Catholicism leaves room for dissent. Jesuists are a good example, as well as the fact that I got straigh A’s in my “religion” class even tho Ive allways defended abortion rights, divorce and darwinism in class.
b) If the catholic church looks so old fashioned and disconected from the times, it’s because liberals decided to leave the church instead of keeping the centuries never ending fight to renew it. The fact that it was the first church to adress the problem of urban workers in the industrial revolutions just tells you how “outdated” was not so long ago. And I consider myself a liberal, btw.
c) Evangelic churches give me the creeps. They are a relatively new phenomena here, mostly imported by south american inmigrants, but the kind of intransigence and political tendences they show reminds me to the talibans.
By the way….how many of the rest of the Religious Right (Dobson, Kennedy, et al) have distanced themselves from Robertson’s initial comments?
As of the last article I read, Dobson et al. had said through their various spokesmen that they were “too busy to comment.”
Uhhhhh huh.
TWL
Indestructable man,
Actually, the doctrine goes like this– Jesus was the Virgin Birth. Obviously his conception was supernatural but since he existed prior to his birth (Jesus being an aspect of God), his “conception” is more of a posession or incarnation.
Mary was conceived normally, that is, through sex. What made her conception Immaculate was that she, alone among humans, carried no trace of sin or evil. The idea is, since Jesus is at least physically human and made of her flesh, she had to be perfect.
None of this is in the Bible but it became a Catholic tradition early on and it was made “official” by one of the aforementioned Infallible Proclamations back in the 1800s.
It’s one reason that Mary is so big with Catholics. For one thing, one could never truly aspire to be as good as Jesus–I mean, you’re kind of doomed to failure–but you COULD, theoretically, be like Mary.
I find that an interesting clarification. Curiously, it’s also almost irrelevant to reality. The belief may be “wrong,” but the fact that so many people DO believe it means that they act in that fashion, and feed into the concept of “Never ask, never question, and anyone who does is wrong.”
Well, I know a lot of Catholics and that doesn’t describe a single one of them. Dissent within the Church is pretty common and’ despite another idea that many may have, it isn’t all that easy to get excommunicated. (there’s an amusing web page from some poor guy at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5599/excomm/excomm-home.html where he is asking readers to harass his former church to grant him an excommunication.)
If I remember correctly, the logistics of Immaculate Conception go like this:
1) Every descendant of Adam and Eve is born with Original Sin: they ate the Fruit of Knowledge, and passed it on to their children, and we inherited it.
((Yes, this is kinda boggle-worthy, don’t worry about it just now.))
2) Himself felt that, if He was going to have a portion of His Being born into the world as a mortal avatar, the Original Sin might make an awful mess of things.
3) Solution: Make sure the source of the mortal body — an as-yet-unborn nice Jewish girl named Miryam, member of the House of David — gets the spiritual version of prenatal surgery, causing her to be conceived and born without having (or carrying) the Original Sin.
So that’s the story of Immaculate Conception. Jesus wasn’t “Immaculately Conceived” because he wasn’t going to be inheriting from any carriers of the stain of sin: Himself never had the problem in the first place, and Mary was miraculously made Original-Sin-free at the moment that her soul was fused to her flesh.
I’m not going to get into the whole thing, just now, about how Mary symbolizes the idea that God loves us like a mother loves her child. God loves us other ways too. It’s a big sidetrack to the original conversation, though.
*****
I’ve noticed that a lot of people who dislike organized religion also tend to think priests in general are unnecessary to an individual’s spiritual relationship with the Deity in whatever form. I have to disagree with that.
Sure, not all people need a learned, professional intermediary who will actively and obviously participate in a conversation — but there’s nothing inadequate or shameful about those who do need that kind of help, on an occasional or regular basis.
Sometimes a person just needs an outside perspective, given by someone who has devoted LOTS of time and effort and thought to Deity’s quieter communications — maybe even an entire career worth of time and effort and thought.
It doesn’t obviate the responsibility of the individual to judge the professional’s opinions and advice against one’s sense of Deity, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t write a program without occasionally referring to the notes of those who’ve studied how the programming language was made.
Whups! I’m a slow typist, and Bill Mulligan already explained it better than I could. Sorry!
“With unmistakable clarity and an apparent lack of self-consciousness, Robertson simply called for an assassination, presumably to be undertaken by U.S. military forces in violation of U.S. law.
In so doing he gave the Venezuelan leader a propaganda gold mine, embarrassed the Bush administration, and left millions of viewers perplexed and troubled. More importantly, he brought shame to the cause of Christ. This is the kind of outrageous statement that makes evangelism all the more difficult. Missing from the entire context is the Christian understanding that violence can never be blessed as a good, but may only be employed under circumstances that would justify the limited use of lethal force in order to prevent even greater violence. Our witness to the Gospel is inevitably and deeply harmed when a recognized Christian leader casually recommends the assassination of a world leader.” – Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Never heard of this guy but I like him.
Very impressive statement, that. Sure beats the weaselly sort-of apology Robertson’s been hammering all day.
Maybe this’ll actually be a real slam on his reputation. That may be too much to hope for, however.
TWL
I know I’m going to get reemed for saying such things, but I feel that it’s something that needs to be said.
It’s not fair to critisize and pick at the notion that Christians feel ‘ill-used and oppressed’. I admit that this country was heavily dominated by Christians for a long time; but right not there seems to be a major back lash towards anyone who claims to be Christian (even if their liberal or conservative). It seems that Christians are the designated scape goat. We can’t crap on other religions, so it’s ok to crap on Christianity.
As a Christian myself, I must say that I resent people making assumptions of me. Pratically every day I’m slamned in the face by people who have an axe to grind about Christianity. I’m confronted by accusations about my faith and people who crap on Christianity for reasons I have nothing to do with, either personally or as a Christian. No, I’m not crazy; no, I don’t believe what Pat Robertson believes; no, I don’t blow up abortion clinics; no, I’m not against gay marriage or gay people in general. Making assumptions isn’t a good thing, because there’s always one that proves the assumption wrong.
Also, it seems that you’re making a blanketed statement about Christians as well. Saying that we’re all like Pat Robertson is like saying that all Muslim people are more than willing to strap a bomb to themselves and kill for Allah.
As far as major spokemen of Christianity being áššhølëš; can’t the same thing be said of the Jewish leaders in Isreal right now?
All in all, I love your work, but this attack against Christians really makes me sad. I thought you were a bigger person than this.
Jennifer, there are plenty of people (most of whom self-identify as evangelical Christians) who do appear to believe that all Islamic men are indeed suicide bombers in the making.
And it’s not “an attack against Christians”; that’s the sort of statement that tends to make us all look a little silly. It’s an attempt to apply the same logic to Christianity that is generally applied to Judaism or Islam, presumably in an attempt to point up the stupidity of the argument. It would take a lot more than the posts here to make me feel like my faith was under any real sort of attack.
Here’s a thought, back on the original topic, that occurred to me right before I went to bed…
If Robertson has such a hard-on to see Chavez taken out, why doesn’t somebody take up a collection, give him a gun and a plane ticket and let him see how he fares?
Now for the part where I make sure I’m wearing my flame-proof underwear…
First off, just let me say, when you’re in the vast majority and have all the real sociopolitical power, I have to wonder just what definition of the word “oppressed” you’re using.
Now, speaking AS a Christian, IF Christianity is “under attack,” (and that’s a very big “IF”) maybe it should be. After all, an unchallenged faith is worthless. You have to realize that most challengers have no particular beef with Jesus or his teachings. What they have a problem with is continued church endorsed persecution (tell any gay person or pagan that they aren’t persecuted and see how long and hard you get laughed at), fear based religious teaching (let’s be honest, the main concern of most “Christians” is not helping others, but simply avoiding Hëll), and all the pork in most religious dogma (mášŧûrbáŧìøņ and eating meat on friday are sins? C’mon, get serious…). I can’t remember the last time, if ever, I heard somebody in government or otherwise try to justify a “Christian Morals” policy decision by actually referencing the actual teachings of Christ!
Overall, I think the people whining the loudest are just taking it too personally when their religion is questioned. If somebody says that all Christians are Klan members, then, yeah, you are justified in telling them they’re full of šhìŧ. (tish?) But when it’s said that “The Church” is directly responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and indirectly responsible for a lot of other crap, even fairly recently, well, I’m afraid they’ve got the backing of history on that one.
-Rex Hondo-
“If Robertson has such a hard-on to see Chavez taken out, why doesn’t somebody take up a collection, give him a gun and a plane ticket and let him see how he fares?”
…Okay, scary mental image.
“I’m your worst nightmare. A Christian with a gun and a television slot.”
Brrr… Makes me glad I’m athiestic. Nutbars like this bozo convinced me a long time ago that no religion was worth it.
And can I please, please, PLEASE stress that it IS, indeed, possible to have absolutely no problem with Intelligent Design philosophically, but still believe that it has no place whatsoever in the classroom. Christianity as a whole isn’t doing itself any PR favors on this one…
Whew… Sorry. Spillover from another discussion, but seemed to fit in with the side discussions.
-Rex Hondo-
Robertson Apologizes
All I can say is that it took him long enough. My guess is that all the condemnations people were looking for from religious leaders on the right took place in “the back room” and they let him know he needed to apologize.