A recent comment on this blog by Sam of insulted.org revealed a slew of views of evangelicalism that seem wildly inaccurate to me. Sam challenged me to document a position other than what he outlined, so I’ll take his allegations one by one and try to present what I consider to the the actual facts.
History of Fundamentalism
What today is called "Fundamental Christianity" arose in the early 1900s out of the Independent Baptists. In response to increasing humanist and liberal thought seeping into church life, specifically due to liberal intellectuals employing higher criticism, a bunch of Baptists broke from their denomination and formed the Independent Baptist churches. They called themselves "fundamentalists" because they wanted to maintain and emphasize the fundamentals of the faith, which they felt were under attack. These fundamentals included
- Inerrancy of the Scriptures
- The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
- The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
- The bodily resurrection of Jesus
- The authenticity of Christ’s miracles
In particular, fundamentalists rejected the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over the centuries. Fundamentalists continue to assert that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Old Testament.
Later, in the mid 1900s, a group broke away from these self-labeled "fundamentalists" because of their anti-intellectual and separatist views. This separatism involved believing that society is not worth influencing, since it is "Satan’s domain", and anyway, Jesus was returning soon, so "why polish brass on a sinking ship?" This group that broke away were eventually called Evangelicals. They believed that scholarship, intellectualism, and reason should be used in concert with faith, not in opposition to faith. And they believed that Christians should employ Christian thinking in all areas of life, including in the public arenas of learning and politics.
1. What is a fundamentalist – blind faith in a book?
Sam indicated that his definition of fundies is, at least in part, anyone who "believes more in a book than what s/he is able to see with her/his own eyes." Interestingly, this is what I call the "blind faith", which is NOT what true faith is about. I agree with Sam that believing something uncritically, without any use of reason to test what you are being told, is foolish. I am often surprised to find that many secularists, unbelievers, and even some cultural Christians (who wear the label "Christian" but have no real idea what that means) view faith in this way.
It is an unfortunate fact that many Christians actually practice and preach faith in this very manner, giving this impression. Waving the bible in the air and saying "it’s true because the bible says it is" is a classic logical fallacy – appealing to authority rather than to reason.
As Leadership U nicely outlines, there have been at least three approaches to faith and reason in church history. Both Tertullian and Augustine felt that we should use reason to come to conclusions about faith – that is, though we can’t prove an article of faith, we can determine sources that are trustworthy, and then employ and test their ideas in practice. In addition, Augustine said that reason, unaided by faith, is at best, incomplete, and that faith actually brings further knowledge, understanding, and clarity to reason. As I like to say
Before faith comes, reason is king. After faith comes, reason is servant.
So in conclusion, it is an unfortunate fact that many modern Christians, and some Xian leaders preach a type of blind faith that eschews reason. But Sam, good news – this is not faith, and most evangelicals don’t hold to this type of faith.
2. Christian fundies "believe the rationale behind the 9/11 attacks"
Despite their initial remarks on the link between American’s sinful behaviors and the terrorist attacks, both Falwell and Robertson have clarified their remarks. Falwell said
But in a phone call to CNN, Falwell said that only the hijackers and terrorists were responsible for the deadly attacks.
"I do believe, as a theologian, based upon many Scriptures and particularly Proverbs 14:23, which says ‘living by God’s principles promotes a nation to greatness, violating those principles brings a nation to shame,’" he said.
Falwell said he believes the ACLU and other organizations "which have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was founded."
"I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812," he said.
OK, not the greatest recantation – but again, he is explaining *why* such things happen – that our behavior may play into the mindset of terrorists, giving them reasons to justify their actions. This doesn’t mean that our immorality in social life or foreign policy is directly to blame, but it may be a contributing factor. Nor is this justifying terrorism – it’s a possible reason, not an excuse.
3. Do Evangelicals try to suppress others, motivated by hate?
Sam accuses:
Mainstream evangelicals hate gays, hate free women, hate my television, hate my music, hate free markets, hate the notion of individual freedom etc.
Regarding hating gays, as I have tried to explain many times, disagreement is not hate. Regarding women, I have no idea what you mean by "hating free women." If you mean balancing their freedom to choose with a child’s right to live, then you are missing the point – it has nothing to do with disliking or disrespecting women, and all to do with respecting and protecting the helpless unborn. Hate your music? Huh? You mean misogynistic rap music? Secularists are already onto that. Otherwise, I’d say Christians are very pro music.
Hate free markets? You mean that they hate regulation? Sounds like just the opposite of what you are saying. Or you think we should have unrestricted international trade? On that point, many conservatives may be against that, but not necessarily Christan’s. In fact, a free market economy is very much in line with xian thought.
We believe that the personal and institutional ownership and control of property—always as stewards of God to whom the whole creation belongs—contributes greatly to freedom. We note as a matter of historical fact that democratic governance exists only where the free market plays a large part in a society’s economy." The Church universal is still debating the balance of values like mercy for the poor and the common good of the majority.
4. Whose moral or ethic shall we legislate?
Sam continues
I have a serious problem with religion when it believes that I need to live by that religion’s definition. As we’ve already discussed, you have no problem with this. Why? Because you already repress yourself based on your religion’s alleged demands. But why should I have to?
We agree partially here. As discussed in my post on theocracy, public policy arguments should be made on the basis of natural law and a commonly held ethic. Religious reasons, or irreligious reasons, may motivate the participants, or shape their value system, which is fine. However, if their value system can’t be argued from natural law and common ethic, they have no place in public policy. Also, we need a way to handle issues that have no clear cut morality, that is, legislation in the gray areas. Those items either need to be regulated (like tobacco), or left untouched (neither condemned nor condoned).
It is unfortunate that some people try to use the "bible says so" reason in the public policy arena. But they are within their rights to be motivated by the bible, or the Humanist Manifesto, or whatever other ideological sources shape their world view.
Regarding suppression, sure, some people are slaves to religious rules and regulations, but thank God, Christ has set us free from slavish obedience to rules! What many people fail to understand is that true spirituality changes you from the inside out – you abandon sin because you don’t want it anymore. You "discipline yourself unto Godliness" because you want to experience more freedom, and more of God. Repression is bad, but transformation is awesome. We don’t have to be slaves to our lusts for food, sex, power, or money. It’s called self-control and virtue (character), not repression. Repression is for those who lack access to the knowledge and power to change, or lack the will/desire to do the WORK required in the transformational process.
5. Do Christians want a theocracy that excludes other ideas?
Probably yes and no. Christians do want religious and personal freedom for people, but not, of course, unlimited freedom (like freedom to kill one’s fetus, for example). Christians have learned from the post-Constantine era that mixing political and ecclesiastical power corrupts both church and state.
According to a Christian view for the transformation of society, we should lead with spiritual preaching, coupled with education, and followed by legislation where needed. Unfortunately, in our times, Christians have been lazy in the first two arenas and focused mostly on legislation, which is a mistake, since we haven’t done the hard work of changing hearts and minds through appealing to people’s minds and hearts. Our lazy approach definitely feels like forcing ideas into legislation. However, since the battle for saving our culture occurs on all three fronts (spirit, soul, and body, resp.), we may just need to back off the legislation a bit until the other works catch up.
6. Unlimited or Limited Freedoms?
Sam opines that Christians want everyone to do it their way, while he believes in freedom for ALL. But if by freedom for all you mean unlimited freedom, I say there is no such thing. Everyone’s freedoms are limited due to the fact that we do not live in isolation – we have to consider others. The question is, how will you limit freedoms, and which ones, and how much? The real difference is not that you believe in freedom for all, while Christians believe in limiting freedoms, but rather, you believe in one set of rules for limiting freedoms, while Christians believe in another.
What needs to be examines is, whose model leads to life, liberty, and happiness?
I haven't even gotten to the bottom of this post Seeker, and already you've lied about what I wrote. I specifically said that either Falwell or Robertson CLEARLY support the rationate of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere did I say that all fundamentalists suppot the rationale behind the 9/11 attacks.
Seeker/Every Other Christian Seeker Has Offended On My Behalf,
1. Point taken. Christians aren't necessarily blind faith believers in the Bible. Although it certainly seems that they are predominantly blind faith believers in the Bible. For instance, at no point do you question your own notions of homosexuality, which are informed by the Bible. But about the history of Christianity, I know little and care less. I'm not sure that I've said otherwise.
2. Again, Falwell CLEARLY supports the rationale behind the attacks. If we didn't allow women to vote, for gays to be gay, for whatever-else-Islamists-consider-sin, then they wouldn't have attacked us. In other words, Falwell pleads, just do what I tell you to do and they won't attack us. Seems AWFULLY sympathetic to me. And theocratic.
3. a. Seeker – the fact that you believe that gays have a responsibility to change their own biological orientation indicates precisely where you stand on issues of homosexuality. You believe that they have a responsibility to change themselves, which is informed only by your Biblical belief that gays are bad. So please, let's stop lying: (Most) Evangelical Christian gays. It isn't love to tell them to change or go to hell. And denying gay couples marriage rights further informs any decent person of your hatred.
b. The notion that women have jobs seems to be particularly concerning to some Christians. And I think you know that. But really, if you believe so stridently in the idea of freedom for women, why aren't you out there pounding on the blacktop for real sex education? The kind of education that PREVENTS the abortions that horrify you so much? But of course, you don't believe that women should use contraceptives because, as we know, you're a woman who should get to make that decision. Oh wait, you're not a woman, but you're going to go ahead and make that decision for them.
That is precisely what I'm talking about.
c. Music – why are there warning labels on records? Why can't I watch certain videos on music video channels? Because pro-censorship Christians complain that popular music undermines their alleged morals. I don't complain when Michael Smith or whatever that douchebag's name is singing on the three Christian channels that I pay for in my cable lineup, so (Some) Christians need to back off what MTV2's playing.
d. Free-markets – Christians LOATHE free-market ideas when it suits them. Rather that giving that "Daniel" show on NBC a chance to sink or swim, (Some) Christians actively pursued a ban on the show. If Christians genuinely believed in a free-market, they would allow whatever was popular to BE POPULAR, instead of pursuing bans based on the idea of protecting Christianity. (Seems remotely similar to another religion's desire to protect their holy men from negative portrayals, although I can't for the life of me remember the details. Can you?)
For instance Seeker, pornography is IMMENSELY popular. Adults love it. Christians offended by it use children as their own shields and demand that anything even remotely pornographic be taken off the airwaves. Shouldn't the market dictate what makes it to the airwaves?
4. Do me a favor Seeker and point me toward the gay-couples "set free" by Christ in regard to their pursuit of marriages? Oh wait. Gay people don't count. The only people "set free" by Christianity are the people who believe that Christianity sets them free. I see Christianity as a series of regressive repressions based on fear.
5. Christians want freedom for everybody? Nonsense. They want freedom for themselves. That's why we see these ABSURD school prayer initiatives across the country. How is free for a Jew to have to sit silently and listen to a Christian prayer. And where on Earth are the Christians when it comes to defending the religious freedoms of others? Because obviously you'd have no problem if your child had to sit through daily Muslim prayers at school, right? You'd be ALL FOR THAT in the name of religious freedom? Nonsense.
6. I believe that human beings are capable of making their own decisions, particularly when those decisions don't hurt anybody else. Does that mean that I believe in "unlimited" freedom? Of course not. I find that a good limit on freedom is when another person is hurt. You find a good limit on freedom to be wherever you damn well please depending on the situation.
I have higher hopes for our nation. You don't.
Sam, you are not reading closely enough, so let me clarify.
1. Falwell and Terrorists
I have no idea what your beef is – I quoted you directly. I never used the word "support". You are reading something that is not there.
2. Do christians only consult the bible on homosexuality?
No, this is your straw man. Christians agree that sexual orientation is probably both genetic and environmental. Those who deny either of these are probably fanatics. I don't just consult the bible, but also believe the arguments from nature against homosexuality, as well as the psychological development models that try to explain it in terms of dysfunction. I am not blind to the failures in ex-gay therapy, nor to the failures of science to determine any genetic cause. All the evidence is not in. I may consult the scriptures, but I also look at evidence. If you paint me otherwise, that's your convenient error.
I'm sorry that people have the impression that the xian position is "change your sexual orientation or you are going to hell." That is NOT what the ex-gay, nor churches preach (except for the hateful ones). The true gospel is "believe in Christ, and you will not only be forgiven, but given the power to become like him." The xian message to gays is "you were not born that way, and God wants to give you the power to heal your emotions so that you are no longer a slave to sin, and to make you whole so that you can love as God intended." Healing and inner change are part of maturity, not salvation.
3. Do evangelicals hate that women have jobs?
Um, that's really a twisted way to view it. Xians are concerned that both men and women value monetary and job success as the measure of success rather than on parenting. Sure, evangelicals may prefer that women stay in the home, but they have scientific and sociologic reasons for doing so. Children need strong bonds with both parents, and perhaps esp. mothers in the early years.
Evangelicals are not trying to limit women, but to free them to love parenting and not devalue motherhood by telling them that they are not a success unless they have a career. There are plenty of christian books and seminars for career women, how to balance career and parenthood, etc. Your charicature is about 10-30 years out of date.
In fact, in my home, both my wife and I work. We are sorry that she can not be at home for our second child, and we are planning for HER to continue her career while I stay home. If I and christians are so anti-woman, why would I do that? Because your characterization is wildly inaccurate.
4. Restricting Abortion
Look, it's simple. Christians want to save children who are being killed, and who have no protection. Today, we limit a parent's right to kill a born child. Christians believe that the child has the right to life while still in the womb. You disagree, I get that. But xians don't hold this position because they devalue women or want to control or take away women's rights – that's just ludicrous, and you can not back that up with quotes. So stop saying that opposition to abortion means people hate women – it's a non-sequitur, and not backed by any facts. It's all about protecting an innocent helpless child. That's very xian.
5. On public banning of shows
I note that in a free market, we can allow the market to speak. Did they seek government action against those shows? No, only to sway public opinion. That's perfectly valid in a free society. If I think something is harmful, I have the right to speak up about it. Will you deny me that right?
Christians and School Prayer
Sigh. There you go again. Actually, allowing public prayer is fine with me. Mandating a moment of silence is fine. But xians are actually very split on the school prayer thing – me, I am against it.
And actually, Christians regularly defend the rights of Jews, and are huge supporters of Israel. How many Christians are calling for the closing of Temples, or mosques? None that I know of.
IN CONCLUSION
I have addressed nearly all of your specific grievances, and yet you continue to fall back on broad-brushed accusations. You accuse christians of doing things whenever they "damn well please." I'd say you hold to your misinformed opinions and ignore evidence to the contrary as you damn well please. You are welcome to do that. But don't call it logical or reasoned. Call it sectarian opinion based on personal values. But not reason. Not fact. Just twisting of the actual facts to support your negative views of faith.
Scary stuff. Especially when you try to rationalize abandoning reason in favor of faith. Sounds like something the Taliban, say, or bin Laden would say. Reason the "servant of faith," indeed – that about says it all.
Maybe we don't want to be one of you pod-people christian-zombies with your phoney science and bigoted notions of sexuality. There's not a shred of evidence to prove your god or your messiah exists or that any of your dogma is anything more than the fevered dreams of ignorant nutjobs. If so, provide it.
Truly, you sound like a cultist, reasonable on the surface but irrational under. For the record, I no more want your "healing" than I want a Dianetic makeover.
1. What my beef is with Jerry Falwell supporting terrorist ideology? Gosh Seeker, I can't think of a single reason for why I'd have a problem with Falwell suggesting that the rationale behind 9/11 was a correct one. Are you serious?
2. Being born gay isn't sin. How on Earth can you believe that something was capable of creating every little aspect of this world and then totally forgot about sexuality? There's simply NO CHANCE that if you're right about God existing that he'd make a boneheaded move like accidentally allowing for something that he hates. When I make a hamburger, I don't accidentally fill it with cinnamon. That'd be gross, and I'd hate it. Same theory applies to God single-handedly creating the world.
Why can't you just let gays be gay, and happy, and married? Why don't you expend some of your energies on problems that actually need attention?
3. Seeker – why don't you quit your job? Why doesn't your wife continue to work? Seems strange. In fact, why don't more Christian males stay at home and raise the family. Couldn't have anything to do with preconceived notions about differing responsibilities between men and women? Naaaaaaah. I'm just crazy.
4. I believe my argument centers around the fact that (Some) Christians couldn't care less about doing what's right in the abortion fight. If (Some) Christians actively promoted education about birth control, actively promoted teaching accurate sex education designed to snare the kids who aren't turned on by abstinence education, then surely the abortion rate would decline. But you don't care about the rate declining. As I have argued numerous times before, (Some) Christians don't care about living children. They only care if the child is born. After that, the child can live in crippling poverty. Why you wouldn't do everything you could to help those kids who ARE going to have sex is beyond me.
5. The market didn't get a chance to speak. I certainly didn't. The show was canceled long before anybody got a chance to watch it. Why? Because the American Family Association is convinced that it should get to decide what shows Americans do and don't get to watch. Which is stupid and anti-market. Just as your stand against pornography is anti-market.
6. Wow. Defending Jews. Good one Seeker. How about defending my religious right to ignore religion? And back to my favorite standby, how about letting your kids listen to Muslim prayers all the time. You're all for that, right?
Conclusion:
I still believe in an America for everybody, especially for individuals who don't hurt other individuals through their behaviors. You believe in a Christian nation, for Christians.
1. Falwell my agree with Muslims that the U.S. is rife with immorality, but your interpretation that he “supports terrorist ideology” is a huge leap. I’m sure he does not support killing people who are immoral. Your beef w/ Falwell is overstated, and an illogical interpretation of his statements.
2. Listen, we are all born sinners – and just because our sin has caused all kinds of sicknesses to creep into the genome doesn’t mean that God created us that way. Your assumption seems to be that whatever is natural is intended and good. That would include such biological tendencies such as aggression, bipolar and ADD, diabetes, and cancers. Your conclusion that IF hx is genetic (no proof yet), then it is intended by God, is based on your assumption, which I find incorrect. Hx is a sin regardless of it’s biological or environmental factors, just like any other personality disorder. Heck, maybe we should even classify atheism as a biological disorder ;)
3. Why spend energy on resisting the push for mainstreaming gayness? Look, if they were not pushing their agenda onto America, I would have other things to focus on. You feel like it’s not a priority. Fine, go support what you think will make things better. “Gays aren’t hurting anyone” is your mantra, not mine.
4. I would rather work and have my wife stay home w/ our young children, but she is just starting and enjoying her career, while I have been in I.T. for 15 years and am tired of it. I want to go back to school, home school my kids, and become a pastor. So while she is enjoying her work, I will retool myself. It’s as easy as that. Good thing I’m not hung up on gender roles like those other xians, eh? :p
5. Look, xians in the pro-life movement have been doing more than just fighting in the courts. Right now, for example, there are more pregnancy support centers, run entirely by donations and without federal funding, than there are Planned Parenthood locations. Christians are involved worldwide in hunger and medical relief. Your accusation that they only care for the unborn is incorrect, and not borne out by the facts. You just see more in the news about abortion because it is contentious, and because the liberal media are more concerned about keeping the baby killing mills open than feeding the hungry.
Regarding birth control, most evangelicals are now behind the ABC program, which includes condom use. The fact that liberals have pushed the condom and abortion methods of birth control, while negelecting self-control, is a pathetic misguided crime against our youth and culture.
Despite some imbalances in their approach, I’d say that xians put their secular counterparts to shame when it comes to helping children.
5. Yeah, maybe the AFA is a bit hard core. But being anti-porno seems ok to me. Child porno, espl, should be outlawed (and is). So is your stand against child porno “anti-market?” I know, you think that your “victim” rule covers this. Maybe so, but are you saying that there are no victims in the adult porn industry? There are plenty of young girls trying to make a living, support a drug habit, whatever, who get caught in that industry. Being anti-porno is not being anti-market. It’s protecting people from exploitation. Now me, I might be convinced that porno should be legal but regulated, but I’m not convinced yet. Anyway, your contention that xians are taking away your freedoms is overblown.
6. You have a right to ignore religion, but you don’t have a right to enforce your value system over mine just because I am religious. We both must argue in the marketplace, using arguments from natural law and ethical reasoning. As I said, I may have a religious motivation, you may have an anti-religious one, but in the end, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are legislating based on values, not religion or anti-religion, that we can agree on. You don’t have a right to exclude my values if I convince others based on natural law and common ethics, even if my motivations are religious.
CONCLUSION:
Your characterization of my goals is your own biased twist on reality. I agree with you that you believe in “freedom for all”, but your principles, imo, are anti-religious, and you would condone things that are questionable, forcing your values onto the rest of us who would rather have government stay out of the gray areas.
1. Oh no no no Seeker. You're right. Jerry Falwell definitenly doesn't support the killing of the immoral. Please, continue to tell me about how Falwell's heart is full of love for his fellow man.
The fact of the matter is that the first thing out of his mouth aftr 9/11 was an endorsement of a restrained American culture that shoved gays back into the closet and kept women at home. How you can't see that as an endorsement of what the terrorists believed in is beyond me.
2. Good one Seeker. Classifying atheism – which I have stated on numerous occaisons that I am not – as a biological disorder. All I'm saying is that your totally irrational hatred of gays (not disagreement – I disagree with you, and I'd never strip you of your freedoms to be treated equally) is ridiculous.
3. Things hurting America: terrorism, child-abuse, our drug laws, violence, rape, murder. Things not hurting America: homosexuality. Of course, you conflate homosexuality with every other evil on Earth, so what can I do? And for the millionth time, asking for equal treatment under the law isn't forcing you to watch two men have sex. For Christ's sake Seeker, these are fellow human beings asking for equal treatment.
4. You're the one who said your wife was finding a way to go home. I'm glad that you're willing to go home and let your wife work. (Of course, that idea stems from…ummm….what's that -ism? Womanism? Ladyism? No no, feminism! Oh my God, Seeker you're almost kind of feminist about a particular issue. I'll keep quiet though.)
5. Seeker: if (Some) Christians cared about living kids, then they'd strenuously argue for anti-poverty measures, for education for parents, for welfare measures that make sense, for public transportation, for daycare, for universal health insurance. (Some) Christians don't care what happens to children after they're born.
6. Can you point me toward the liberal who advocates abortion? Who encourages children to have as much unprotected sex as possible and then as many abortions as possible? Of course you can't.
7. Of course there are victims in the adult pornography industry. There are victims in the coal industry too, and I don't see you advocating that it be outlawed. If a woman willingly wants to participate in pornography, who are you to say no, especially considering the huge market that exists for porn?
The issue is simple: (Some) Christians are pro-market, so long as the market is buying goods that Christians like. As soon as that shifts – as it has recently because pretty everything produced by (Some) Christians is pretty damned boring – then those pro-market Christians disappear.
8. Again for the millionth time Seeker, my position isn't anti-religion. It's anti-you, but again, I'd never restrict your rights. Ever. You would happily restrict mine.
Making arguments based on the majority rules idea is stupid. The majority believed blacks and whites shouldn't get married, that slavery was a good idea, that women shouldn't vote, etc. Lawmaking should be based on allowing Americans to exist as equals, particularly in situations without victims. You obviously disagree.
So tell me – what does your America look like? Ideally?
1. Falwell
Sam, being pro death penalty is a different subject. He’s not for killing gays or innocent people or unbelievers, like the Islamists. Your efforts to paint him as sympathetic to terrorists is inaccurate and just plain malicious and misguided. The reason I don’t see his response, as poorly timed as it was, as sympathetic to the terrorists is becuase, unlike you, I am not looking for ways to find fault with him, nor am I looking for words to twist to fit my low view of faith. Also, I am not ignoring his condemnations of the terrorist actions.
2. Opposing Homosexual Legislation is not Hate
A million times over, your definition of hate is inaccurate, if not juvenile. You have a different moral standard, and condemn others for not agreeing with you. I say you are wrong, while you say I am hateful. Get the picture? You are the hypocrite here.
3. Feminism and Christianity
As many other Christians have written, I feel that feminism did some really necessary and good things, and delivered our country, and Xianity, from an unhealthy overly patriarchal view. However, as with all movements that are past their prime, it was later taken over by radicals, in this case, lesbian feminazis who hated men and boys, who tried to erase the healthy distinctions between men and women, and bought into the culture of death that is called the “pro-choice” movement. That’s why organizations like Feminists for Life get my support.
3. Equal Treatment for the Immoral
This is not just a simple civil rights issue, and as long as you and the gay community refuse to see that, you’re kidding only yourselves. The only right they are denied is the right to a legal marriage, and because of the consequences to society (official approval of their maladaptation), you can’t just flip the switch as if it doesn’t matter. The fact that gays have laws protecting them from violence, job and housing descrimination, and such, is fine. That’s a live and let live attitude, without officially condoning homosexuality as morally OK. Marriage is not in the same league. We disagree here, fine. I’m sure you’ll find a reason to call it hate. I can’t get you to use the english language any better, so I should stop trying.
5. Concern for Kids = Support for Socialism?
You misunderstand the reasoning for christian opposition to the welfare state – it’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we do care to support solutions that are effective, efficient, and something other than “forced compassion.” Rather than welfare, we need programs that are a hand up, not a hand out. Our programs need to help people help themselves, and to deal with more than just their monetary or even educational needs. Faith-based programs are much more successful, lest wasteful financially, and deal with the whole person.
And while the need will always outstrip the resources to fix it, we need to deal w/ poverty at it’s roots, a place that government is not able to do. People need personal mentors, spiritual guidance and faith, encouragement to build virtue and character, self-esteem based on positive self-worth that comes from loving and investing in one’s character and skills, and many other things. Christians don’t support the socialist view that “government must solve all of our problems, and is the savior of the people.”
Some social programs are necessary, of course. But your argument that if I don’t support huge entitlement programs, I don’t care, is incorrect. I just don’t think that your solution is the right one.
6. Liberals Who Support Abortion and Encourage Safe Sex
You’re kidding right? You don’t consider Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other organizations to be “liberals who support abortion?” Who encourage “safe sex” among teens? Who promote pro-gay, pro-sexual-experimentation textbooks in schools? Who poo-poo abstinence as something that no one can do?
– UNICEF FUNDS GROUP PROMOTING ABORTION/PORN FOR CHILDREN
– WHO Accused of Promoting Abortion in Africa
– Planned Parenthood’s Opposition to Parental Notification–
Look, I don’t have time to play semantics with you. I’m sure that liberals don’t really love abortions, and they offer many other services. But the bottom line is, they do not care about the unborn or their rights, and have no desire to balance a woman’s rights with the unborn child’s. That’s not a religious question, it’s ethical and moral, and one that needs further public discussion, rather than the dishonest dodge of “that’s a religious question.”
7. Coal and Porn Industries are the Same?
I get your point, but you are missing the point. The victims of porn aren’t just the participants, but the people who get addicted and mess themselves and their families up. And for the record, I think porn falls into that gray zone that we should regulate, not make illegal – things like tobacco, alcohol, and guns. I still think it’s morally wrong, but because there is some disagreement, I think we should regulate and leave it at that.
8. Xians are boring and make boring things
Well, can’t argue much with you there. However, I’m not anti market, nor am I going to limit anyone’s ability to protest or sway the market.
9. Anti-what?
Ok, look, you say you aren’t anti-religious, but you despise religion and anyone who wants to apply conservative values in the marketplace. I’ll stop calling you anti-religion, but in practice, you seem to have a very low view of anyone who takes faith seriously – you would be fine if we all went back in the closet and kept our christianity to ourselves. In fact, you treat christians like christians treat gays – “just keep your values to yourself, thank you!” You want us to be a bunch of harmless, inert Grandmas that bake cookies on Sundays. Sorry, but you’ll have to deal with real Christians.
10. Rules BAsed on the Majority
I agree with you there. We must appeal to reason, ethics, and objective truths.
Hey tom and aaron, jump in any time ;)
1. Falwell – According to you, being pro-death penalty ISN'T a different subject. Here's what you wrote: I'm sure he does not support killing people who are immoral. Aren't those on death row immoral? Or do I somehow misunderstand?
2. Hating Gays – Your "opposition" to gays extends to the point that you want to reduce them to second-class citizens Seeker. That is hate. I dont have a problem with your position on gays until you start demanding that legislation create a lower caste for gays. Hence, I am not being a hypocrite. I have no problem if you don't like gays, but you cannot demand that they be treated differently from you.
3. Lesbian feminazis and boys? Certainly the language of love Seeker. How you can claim that I don't treat my opposition fairly when you call women you disagree with "Nazis" is absolutely beyond me. (Or, to put that another way, maybe you're the hypocrite.)
4. Gay Marriage – Legal marriage affords those married numerous other rights other than simply being married and you know that. You can somehow look at you and your wife and see a relationship that is "better" than the stable loving relationship of two men or women. I guess you describe that as "disagreement."
5. Yeah, gosh Seeker, if only the poor would be more Christian, then they'd really have enough money to go get the medicine that they can't currently afford. That's the ticket. I forgot how many things you can purchase with a positive attitude. This is stupid – you don't want real solutions to poverty, even though my some accounts your Bible is all about the need to find solutions to poverty. Your solutions accomplish absolutely nothing. Predictably.
6. Everytime you discuss abortion Seeker, you'd like your readers to believe that liberals ENCOURAGE women to get as many abortions AS POSSIBLE. I'm simply pointing out that you're a liar. Nobody happily encourages abortion. Nobody cheerleads women into getting unwanted abortions. But some women – victims of rape, or incest, for example, or women who are too young to have children, or financially unprepared, or whatever – should have the option to say, I don't want to have this child. I would argue that women better educated in regard to safe sex would be more likely to have safe sex, which would then cut down on abortions. But you oppose even that – except in your ABC method, which seems to ignore women's contraception. I'm simply arguing that there is more than one way to prevent abortion, only your side has no interest in it because it doesn't conform to your tightly held view of life.
7. I didn't miss the point in the coal-porn argument. I gave you an example of your logic, and then you said I missed the point. I think you wrote without thinking first of the implications of what you were writing.
8. The Christians opposed to that Book of Daniel show never let the market make a judgement on the damned show! They simply said that they were being offended, and how dare anybody offend a Christian? Oh, precious Christians, they must never be offended. Ridiculous.
9. I do not have a hatred of religion. I have a hatred of religious people who believe that everybody else needs to be similarly religious. You are free to practice your religion, and I am free to be free of religion. The point is that at no point do I force my values on you. (Just as gay marriage doesn't force values on you. You are free to IGNORE gay marriage and even hate it.) You WOULD force your values on me through legislation. How you can't see the difference is beyond me.
And as for Christians keeping to themselves, that is precisely what they should do. They should not force their religion on the unwilling or disinterested. And your threat of dealing with real Christians? I do, right here.
10. If you want to appeal to reason, be reasonable Seeker.