| Author |
Message |
    
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12600
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |     |
mjc, I agree with you. My point is that many of the posters here either don't know the difference between a fundementalist and an evangelical, or feel that all Christians should shut the f up. Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson have very different messages. I think the issue is that some people aren't satisfied with freedom of religion, they want freedom from religion. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 2388
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:52 pm: | |
Bob K - very well stated.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15583
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:53 pm: | |
Freedom of religion actually does require freedom from religion, for those who choose that.
|
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 571
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:59 pm: | |
"They are kids, they should be running around and having fun. They will have their whole lives to find god. They need to sin now so they can experience life and know what mistakes are. So they understand the concepts of repenting and sinning. We don't need a world full of overly pious people who have done nothing wrong in their lives and judging everyone else."
Yeah...the world needs more young sinners! God forbid we should have a world full of pious people. You don't have to encourage preople to sin, we are imperfect by nature. You don't have to go out and rob an old lady's pocket book to learn that it's wrong. If I thought that the Evagelicals were really turning out pious kids (I said "pious" not "self-righteous") I'd send them a donation.
|
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 572
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 4:07 pm: | |
"Freedom of religion actually does require freedom from religion, for those who choose that."
I think Bob K meant freedom from ever having to hear another word about religion. I don't see how Alley will ever be satisfied on this point. There isn't a single poster here who would argue that everyone shouldn't have the right to worship or not as they choose. It just seems like the mere mention of belief and faith drives some people crazy. If this is the case, change the channel.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12601
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:00 pm: | |
Joe R, thanks. Everyone in this country has the right to believe or not as they see fit. However, nobody has the right to silence others, unless there is a serious legal or social issue involved.
The strange thing about these threads, which I always seem to get in the middle of, is that I am not a religious person. At best I am a Deist who accepts the social and ethical teachings of the Judeo-Christian liberal tradition, which basically I learned in Sunday School as a little kid. While technically I am a Presbyterian (or Church of Scotland as those of us who don't accept British rule call it  ) this is more because of my heritage than out of agreement with their theology. I just am uncomfortable with people who are militant either pro or con religion and are intolerant of others, especially when they really don't know any people who they demonize.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15584
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:50 pm: | |
Thanks for weighing back in, bobk, and telling a bit about yourself. And sorry to pick nits with you. I couldn't help myself, for some reason. I really did know what you meant.
As for militants, perhaps the worst are the militant agnostics, who say, "I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!" 
|
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:55 pm: | |
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2631
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 7:13 pm: | |
Joe R.: If only I could change the channel. Unfortunately every time I change it, there is some religious nutjob killing people or changing the laws that affect me pulling me right back to that channel I don't want to be on.
Also I was never suggesting that we TEACH children to sin or encourage them to do so for that matter. If they merely live life I'm sure when they get older and "find god" they will most certainly have plenty to feel guilty about. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15587
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 7:18 pm: | |
Just wait until you have your kid, Alleygater. You'll learn that guilt is a standard tool for motivating him/her. As parents, we shouldn't overdo it, but we can't ignore it, either.
|
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 573
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 9:38 pm: | |
Tom;You are a true ecumenist! A peacemaker if I ever saw one.
Alley: We'll change the channel in November. Sounds like we both don't like the smae program, but maybe for competely different reasons. The thing about people is that they are not consistent. There are Catholics who are pro choice but who would never personally have an abortion. There are prolife advocates who are pro death penalty. I commonly find Catholics who are blissfully unaware of the Church's stance on death penalty. |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 574
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 9:39 pm: | |
Tom: You are a true ecumenist! A peacemaker if I ever saw one.
Alley: We'll change the channel in November. Sounds like we both don't like the smae program, but maybe for competely different reasons. The thing about people is that they are not consistent. There are Catholics who are pro choice but who would never personally have an abortion. There are prolife advocates who are pro death penalty. I commonly find Catholics who are blissfully unaware of the Church's stance on death penalty. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15590
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 11:08 pm: | |
Thanks, Joe R. More and more, I think we really must have that coffee or beer before long.
And a test of my peacemaking is whether my dog gets along OK with Alleygater's dog. I think they'll be fine.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 11:58 pm: | |
If Notehead is still around, I’ve been thinking about some of his original remarks. As you might expect, how a large and complicated religious text such as the Bible forms religious belief, practices, cultures, peoples, histories, etc., are huge topics. A simple answer to your question, what do you do with the scary stuff, might be to become part of a body that claims to be formed by the good stuff, the non-scary stuff, so that you can gain some perspective on and strength against the scary stuff. One advantage of this response is that in such a body you do not bear the scary stuff alone, nor do authentic members of such a body have many illusions that you could or should. But its not as simple as that either for several reasons.
How do you choose among very different groups with contradictory goals, each claiming to be religiously formed by the good stuff, even if they falsely deny they are in conflict with themselves or one another, for starters? How do you recognize the good from the evil when each claims to be good? Very carefully, as you know, and often with considerable stamina as you suffer through and endure your own mistakes in figuring out which is which.
But another problem about the scary stuff is, what if its there, in these texts, so that people can learn how to recognize it in their real lives? What if the scary stuff is there because life is, because it is fraught with frightening and mortal encounters that may annihilate you and those you love? Very high stakes, life, after all.
So when it comes to prohibitions, classically, for example, the decalogue, what do you do with the scary stuff in it? Aren’t they very intolerant rules, after all? Yes indeed. But the implicit question is what things, in a religion, are tolerated and what aren’t and why? In considering these questions, a theist would acknowledge pretty quickly that commonplace ideals of tolerance in western culture, for example, often conflict with religious prohibitions (as well as exhortations) of various kinds. Then what do you do? What is the source of your belief and convictions, the religious text and authority or the ubiquitous if thin understanding of tolerance and its consequences, such as when a sense of political tolerance is treated as a stand in for or displaces a religious sense of charity that also expects something rather than nothing of people, and expects it passionately. What do you do when the passionate claim of religion on you for the good conflicts with the laissez-faire political tolerance of countries descended from Mill’s ideals of democracy? Do you choose religion over political theory, and if so, what does that mean in the way you live your life?
As much as John Stuart Mill reacted against a long and violent legacy of religious wars in Europe, many evangelicals in the west today, are reacting against what they perceive to be a hollow space, if not growing rot, that has taken hold in Mill’s pleas for truce. In doing so, they embody a religious populism vis-a-vis his intellectualism, with all the strengths and limitations that can entail. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2632
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 9:50 am: | |
Tom, our dogs met, and if memory serves me correct they were wholly indifferent to eachother. My dog is usually like that at the dog park, aloof and by my side more often than not -- so I wouldn't take it personally. So I would say that your peacekeeping skills are still fully intact. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15595
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:02 am: | |
I was kidding. But that's OK.
Anyway, before we wind down totally, let me just warn you and everyone else and myself that one of the worst things we can do these days is to be dismissive and intolerant towards a large group of people (or individuals for that matter). We tend to do that to those we don't understand. If we dismiss and are intolerant of evangelicals (fundamentalists, whoever) because they are dismissive and intolerant of us, then we are no better than they are.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3818
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:23 am: | |
SOrising: that was a fine post; I appreciate it. We can never know whether the authors of these texts deliberately included some highly contradictory passages as a test, or because they were written by many people with many different views, or for some other reason, but I think it's a moot point. What matters is our response.
BobK: I will admit that I have apparently always misunderstood the term "evangelicals" and now I regret titling this thread with that word. I had always thought that the term specifically denoted a commitment to spreading one's faith, actively trying to "save" people by convincing them to adopt your religious beliefs. In a nutshell, I thought evangelicals, by definition, practiced evangelism. The adults depicted in the Jesus Camp trailer seem to be using rather extreme methods to inject their religion into their kids. Maybe it strikes me as so awful simply because I grew up in a house where we didn't holler at each other very much. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2638
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 12:33 pm: | |
It's not that I don't understand them, it's that I do understand them and that I don't like what they are CONSCIOUSLY doing. The issue is that they have a very specific agenda which runs completely in my face and contrary to what I believe our country and society as a whole has agreed upon. As for the whole whole two wrongs don't make a right concept, I reply with, "WELL THEY STARTED IT!!!" I also never claimed to be BETTER than they are. Who gets to judge something as abritrary as "better" anyway?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15599
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 1:30 pm: | |
It's a choice between building bridges or burning them. I believe it's possible to build them without agreeing. What do you think?
Who started it, whatever "it" is, is as irrelevant as it was when my mother told my sister and me to stop fighting. I believe in treating others as you would want them to treat you, even if they don't. What do you think?
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2645
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 3:04 pm: | |
Even if they don't...? Well then I would think you were foolhardy.
An eye for an eye. Fool me once, shame on you...
You know, in the Real World, I can be nice and work on my bridge building skills. Online I can work to help burn the bridges right down to the ground and HOPEFULLY we can all start to rebuild them anew. It's funny we are both idealists in our own ways. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 389
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 4:12 pm: | |
The movie looks interesting, but the prospect of a Christian theocracy coming to power in America is about as likely as me being elected to the Maplewood Town Council, Abe Foxman inviting Mel Gibson over for drinks or a Republican President enforcing our immigration laws. (And the first two are probably more likely than that last one). The twin juggernauts of popular culture and capitalism have pretty much smashed traditional religion in the West, except for some isolated pockets here and there. And most of them just want to be left alone. I suppose that people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do serve a useful purpose though. They can act as fund-raising bogeymen for groups like the ACLU, SPLC, etc.
This writer reviews several recent books on this topic and I think that he makes a lot of telling points. I am just giving the link because the article is a little long, but well worth the read:http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0607/articles/douthat.html
Cheers |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 575
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 4:22 pm: | |
"The issue is that they have a very specific agenda which runs completely in my face and contrary to what I believe our country and society as a whole has agreed upon. "
Alley- I challenge you to name one thing that the country has agreed on? Sure in our system we agree to be bound by the wishes of the majority (whatever majority means...witness Election 2000), but we never have anything like agreement on the rectitude of a particular course. So then, what is it that the Evangelicals do or say which runs counter to national (not local)concensus?
Never having lived any more than 30 miles from NYC, I have found that the Country west of the Rahway River is a very different place. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2652
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 7:05 pm: | |
Ummmmm...I thought our country was FORMED from it's genesis as a place where there could be religious freedom. Isn't that why people came here? But along with that, our founding fathers also guaranteed us THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I thought this was agreed upon on a national level by our politicians as well as there being a consensus amoung the masses. There are countries that are run by religious leaders. If you don't like the foundation on which our country was built feel free to move to any one of those countries. Please. |
Charlton
Citizen
Username: Charlton
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 4:51 am: | |
God (allah, etc, ) fell asleep at the wheel years ago - we humans are on our own, and we're not doing very well. Infact we'll make ourselves disappear without earthquakes, tsunamis, armaggeddon etc. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3795
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 7:14 am: | |
Actually, the "an eye for an eye" quote is misused and misunderstood. It originated in a society where the typical punishment for minor infractions was death. So "an eye for an eye" was an effort at moderation.
It has now evolved into justification for revenge, it seems.
Unfortunately, my memory is too dim to cite the details, but it does give new perspective to the argument.
By the way, Jesus said "turn the other cheek." I don't see much of that at all in the fundamentalist camp these days. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 11:43 am: | |
"In a nutshell, I thought evangelicals, by definition, practiced evangelism."
"Evangel" has evolved from an ancient Greek word meaning "good news," a word early Christians used to proclaim their faith. (Hence, "evangelists" for the four named gospel writers and earliest members of the church.) Your theological understanding of the word is correct, Notehead. As you know, however, what evangelism is today among Christians (as among Muslims) is extremely varied. And yes, the methods used to teach the children in the film seems extreme and suspect for many reasons.
Misunderstandings are commonplace, however. The German, "Evangelische Kirche" is most accurately translated as "Protestant Church." The ambiguity of meaning persists, e.g., in the name, "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", the largest Lutheran body in the US which, like the "Evangelische Kirche" of several European nations is "evangelical" in the theological sense, but usually not in the sense people often use the word in the US, given that vernacular usage employs it more and more exclusively in a political sense, where its meaning atrophies in proportion to its remove from its theological sense, and its common (especially journalistic) meaning is most non-sensical or unstable. Its more confusing, however, because there obviously is some overlap between the theological meaning and the activities of evangelical Christians, however varied they are.
So, you did enter a nest of linguistic and conceptual confusions and uncertainties, Notehead, when you named this thread as you did.
|
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 577
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 11:36 am: | |
"There are countries that are run by religious leaders. If you don't like the foundation on which our country was built feel free to move to any one of those countries. Please."
That's not very nice, Alley, asking me to leave the country. I'll think about it, but I'll probably decline your invitation. This debate has no beginning or end. We all like religious freedom and separation. These people express themselves religiously, someone in the media takes an interest in it and makes a documentary about it. You don't like the people portrayed, feel threatened by their expression and want to kick them (and anyone who disagrees with you)out of "your" country. Doesn't sound right to me. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2665
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:05 pm: | |
Lots of people have told me to jump off a bridge or take a long walk off a small pier, many times over the years. I try not to take it too personal. I get under peoples skin sometimes. I understand that. But I didn't actually mean you personally Joe. It was more the royal "you". I also don't suspect from your moderate stance on religion that you want more religion in our government so I don't think you even were truly being addressed in the comment. It's not like I said, "hey Joe, get out of my country." But I see your point. You think I should be more tolerant and not want to kick people out of the country. But I didn't actually say that we should kick them out, I just implied that I would rather these people didn't try to fix a system that wasn't broke. Rather than them try to enforce their will (or is that god's will?) upon others, maybe they should go somewhere that is more to their liking. I think it is acceptable for me to express my wishes that they would. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5833
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:19 pm: | |
I was always brought up to think that "Protestant" derived from "protest," i.e., Luther's protest against the abuses of the renaissance popes. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 12:54 am: | |
Yes, tom. In Germany (and other western European countries) the majority of people are either Catholic or Protestant. The "Evangelische Kirche" there (and elsewhere) is a blend of several protestant/reformers' theologies, not only Luther's. Aside from the problems created by translating the "Evangelische Kirche" as the "Evangelical Church" (in American English especially) often suggesting something far afield from what the original renaissance reformers/protestants meant (which in Luther's case is actually far closer to Roman Catholicism than most people realize today), there is also a smaller "Lutheranische Kirche" or "Lutheran Church" as well. Yet the ELCA in this country is a member of the Lutheran World Federation, not the REformed Alliance (Presbyerians, Old Dutch Reformed/Reformed Church in America, and others).
You are correct that Luther was the first major late medieval reformer of the church he was an Augustinian monk and priest in orginally, the Church of Rome. As I said, rather complicated and confusing..... |
|
