Christianists, and other myths

Yep it's a myth, not like we had Congressman flipping out over a prayer led by Hindu or anything.

I do love Google.

Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration

The council is descended from the Dallas Group. It is currently chaired by Rick Scarborough. The council's executive director is Philip Jauregui, former counsel to Chief Justice Roy Moore. In April 2005, Scarborough was quoted as saying that his group was needed because of, "Activist judges...(whose) distortions of the Constitution have brought us abortion-on-demand, purged religious symbols from public places, made our schools faith-free zones, created a so-called right to homosexual sodomy and threatened 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance. Now, judges seem intent on imposing same-sex marriage by fiat." According to the group's website, "Each progressive step down the road to the secularization of America has come not through a referendum of the people, or an act of their elected representatives, but rather at the stroke of a judge’s pen.

The group's April 2005 conference, Confronting The Judicial War On Faith, attracted many prominent conservatives. According to the Washington Post, "The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and [Rep. Tom] DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral." The event brought together lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers with theocrats, adherents of Christian Reconstructionism, a Calvinist doctrine that calls for the biblical law to rule American law.
tyanny

On a Friday panel titled "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny," a constitutional lawyer named Edwin Vieira discussed Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy law. Vieira accused Kennedy of relying on "Marxist, Leninist, Satanic principals drawn from foreign law" in his jurisprudence.

What to do about communist judges in thrall to Beelzebub? Vieira said, "Here again I draw on the wisdom of Stalin. We're talking about the greatest political figure of the 20th century He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty. 'No man, no problem.'"

The audience laughed, and Vieira repeated it. "'No man, no problem.' This is not a structural problem we have. This is a problem of personnel."

As Dana Milbank pointed out Saturday in the Washington Post, the full Stalin quote is this: "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Milbank suggested that Kennedy would be wise to hire more bodyguards.
no man, no problem

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali. Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God. You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican. According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/08/idaho_congressman_disturbed_by.php

You find one Congressman wigging out, or one extremely obscure group of theocrats, and you think that indicates the country is at risk of being taken over by Christian theocrats? What if I held up NAMBLA, or showed you the e-mails I've gotten from gay men who have said that they hope my children die of AIDS, or find gay activist groups that advocate for extreme measures, and from that concluded, "Ah ha! The gays and their liberal allies want to take over America!" You'd call me a paranoid, and you'd be right. You can't make credible assessments from mere anecdotes.

The distance between the vision some of y'all have about the threat "Christianists" pose to America, and what actually exists, tells me a lot more about the persistence of the paranoid style in American politics.

Timbo:

Why is it that we never hear about conservative Christians supporting government policies that, say, feed the poor and tend to the sick? [snip] but to lefties and nonbelievers (I'm both), the public face of conservative christianity is people like George Bush, the late Jerry Falwell and Rick Santorum. Am I just misinformed (by the liberal media)?

Timbo, I don't know whose fault it is, but you're misinformed. Bush is not to your taste, nor is he to mine (for reasons both similar and different, no doubt), but whatever else you might say about him, he's tried to put money behind social programs -- for example, the $15 billion emergency aid to Africa to help fight AIDS -- for reasons that have everything to do with his religious convictions.

I'm not telling y'all that you ought to embrace Bush, or the religious right. There are real, substantive differences. I just wish you'd see the evidence of complexity that actually exists among religious believers, especially conservative ones. Isn't it enough to oppose what religious conservatives stand for without having to inflate them into this horrible bogey?

"What is risible when it's not galling is the idea that religious convictions that lead to policy preferences associated with conservatives are somehow crypto-Falangist."

What sort of religious practice produces the conviction that preemptive war and torture are legitimate forms of foreign policy? Fascist is too nice a word for what Bush and company have done. You could almost excuse a little fascism if the global war on terror was actually producing the results we were led to expect.

You find one Congressman wigging out, or one extremely obscure group of theocrats, and you think that indicates the country is at risk of being taken over by Christian theocrats?

What percentage of the country identifies as christian?

What if I held up NAMBLA, or showed you the e-mails I've gotten from gay men who have said that they hope my children die of AIDS, or find gay activist groups that advocate for extreme measures, and from that concluded, "Ah ha! The gays and their liberal allies want to take over America!"

What percentage of the country identifies as gay (and I know you guys don't like the 1 in 10 number)?

or one extremely obscure group of theocrats

*Blinks*

Obscure?

courtesy of Mr. Bottoms

The group's April 2005 conference, Confronting The Judicial War On Faith, attracted many prominent conservatives. According to the Washington Post, "The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and [Rep. Tom] DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral." The event brought together lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers with theocrats, adherents of Christian Reconstructionism, a Calvinist doctrine that calls for the biblical law to rule American law.

Aaron, according to an article from the Seattle Times from 2004 which referenced census data from the 2000 census, the number of people who identified as gay was estimated at between four and six million people, or between 2 and 3 percent of the U.S. adult population.

Now, unless you think either a) the Seattle Times is a right wing conservative publication, or b) there's been a huge increase in the gay population in the last seven years, these percentages should still be fairly accurate.

"What is risible when it's not galling is the idea that religious convictions that lead to policy preferences associated with conservatives are somehow crypto-Falangist."

What is risible when it's not galling is the idea that religious convictions that lead to policy preferences associated with liberals are somehow crypto-Communist. Or crypto-Homosexualist.

Being chronically offended must be exhausting.

Erin, thanks for the stat.

What's unfair, however, is to wave around the charge of theocracy every time someone who is politically conservative and Christian, and whose politics are informed by their faith, advocates anything.

I agree, and I don't. I do however keep track of who is who in much same way I did when the Right Wing militia nuts were everywhere. I am simply taking certain people at their word, and I am aware that unlike most of our whack jobs, these people have entire broadcasting networks at their disposal plus some cozy associations with very rich men willing to fund their causes.

Christianists are real. But, thank God, they are a sound-byte hogging minority.

Extreme secularists a could be described in the same way.

Both are self-righteous and power-hungry, and the world would be a worse place if either group prevailed (as they have done in places like Iran and the Soviet Union).

Both grouos bear watching, but both are also used for political fund-raising purposes by their opponents, and this greatly distorts the degree of their actual power.

Will, from another Will. For a serious question. What kind of religious practice created a seciety where the very ideas of pre-emptive war or torture would even be questioned at all instead of simply accepted as the way that states must act. Why, I do believe the answer to that is Christian practice. Sadly, we live in a world of compromises and sin and I can't think of a state that has not, at some time,resorted to practices such as torture or pre-emptive attacks. I'm sure such a state exists, but there are probably good reasons that I can't think of it.
The fear of Theocracy is interesting. Lets look at it for a minute. Technically the UK is a Theocracy with the sovereign also being the head of the the Church of England. Not very scary. Iran is a theocracy with ultimate power resting with the Ayatollahs, yup, that one is scary. Tibet was a Theocracy and as such was unable to fulfill the basic requirements of a government to defend its people. Ya know, its really a pretty useless buzzword to toss around, isn't it? Its also pretty unlikely that it will ever come about in the US UNLESS, the current constitutional system and government somehow collapses. Then there might be a rise of local theocracies, but for now, thats the realm of soft science fiction.

That said, I don't really agree with your point; that is, that as Christians are statistically huge compared to the gay population we should worry more about Christian extremists than gay ones.

I obviously disagree, given the historical record of course.

How many Muslim extremists were there in America before 9/11? How many did it take to kill nearly 3,000 people?

I'm not referrring to terrorist attacks, I'm talking about imposition of policy (religiously based) through the political process (will of the majority) or some corrupted version of the political process). Anyone can strap a bomb and cause death, muslims, uni-bombers, ultra-right christians, hindus, me, you...but that act doesn't give us legitimacy.

Mainstream Christianity isn't generally associated with violence and terror, and calls for America to re-discover her Christian roots, generally done in the context of political fund raising, doesn't really cause me to lose any sleep at night.

I'm not worried about mainstream either, the fundagelicals however,...there is a quote about fearing stupid people in large numbers, especially if they can vote en masse.

And that's not because I'm a Christian, either, as the sort of theocrats who would try to seize power, if they really existed, wouldn't tolerate my Catholicism for long.

They'd have much more tolerance for you than other religions, homosexuals, and atheists.

Ya know, its really a pretty useless buzzword to toss around, isn't it? Its also pretty unlikely that it will ever come about in the US UNLESS, the current constitutional system and government somehow collapses.

But then no one is seriously saying that the US will collapse into a Christian theocracy. (We do have some people panicked about the Muslim baby gap though).

I can't speak for anyone else, but during the period I tracked the militia movement I never thought they'd seize Indiana or take over Manhattan.

What I did think they would do is run for dogcatcher, school boards, city councils, eventually working their way into the political system to tilt small but important legislation their way. Wait a minute... I'm sorry, that was the Christian Coalition's game plan.

We are saying listen to what these activists say, watch what they do, and most importantly who they influence with support and/or money.

It's unfortunate that Rod has not done his own research into this issue. If he had done so he would have found out that there are indeed a number of outspoken, popular leaders in the evangelical Christian movement who are very open about their desire to impose a theocracy in these United States.

For example, he could have easily found The Chalcedon Foundation, (http://www.chalcedon.edu/), and its founder R.J. Rushdoony. Of interest is this interview of Rushdoony, posted at http://forerunner.com/revolution/rush.html. Note the following exchange.

-----
Question:-- In a Christian republic based on biblical law, would non-Christians be banned or would they have as much freedom as they have now?

R.J. Rushdoony: Calvin in Geneva there are points where I would disagree with him Calvin was born and raised a Catholic. The Catholic model was still in the minds of the reformers. They wanted to reform the Catholic Church. That was their goal. So they began with the belief that the society had to be Christian. Now Calvin in Geneva never commanded the city. He was an outsider brought in as kind of an efficiency expert to make a city that was a business community function. Prior to his coming, drinking, gambling and fornication occupied too much of the people's time and efficiency was going down hill. They liked Calvin because he brought about efficiency. He made people sober, God-fearing. But they didn't like it for themselves. The rulers of Geneva were happy with the results, but unhappy that Calvin expected the same type of behavior of them. The libertines were really very close to controlling the city most of the time. They brought in Servetus to challenge and oust Calvin. During the time of the trial, Calvin actually had his bags packed ready to leave. But the Catholic model was still in the background there.

With Cromwell it was different. Cromwell was faced with churches who wanted an established national church still the old Roman model. The Presbyterians, who were the most powerful group, were emphatically for an established group. That to them was salvation. The Separatists disagreed with them, but the other groups wanted to command the establishment. Cromwell wanted not a church establishment, but a Christian establishment. He wanted England committed to a Christian faith, not to a church. That's what he worked for. He had to fight the churches. It was the churches that defeated Calvinism and most of all the Presbyterians. It's the great blot in Presbyterian history that they brought in Charles II, a thoroughly degenerate man, and believed he would keep his word to them that he would go along with their idea of an establishment. Of course, he broke his word to them and 2000 clergymen had to leave the Church of England. Over a course of time, the Presbyterians virtually died out in England.

----------

Why is Rushdoony important? His philosophy, as continued by his son-in-law, Gary North, outlines the tenets of the Christian Reconstruction movement that has been embraced by the modern Christian evangelical movement.

Gary North outlines the fundamental belief of Christian Reconstruction in this newsletter from 1979.
http://s155777461.onlinehome.us/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/occupy/7910.PDF

-----------

To occupy is to do business: God’s business. Not only in
the realm of leading lost souls to Christ. Not just in the
everyday affairs of life. But in ell areas of life. The Christian’s
obligation to occupy is based upon the nature, attributes and
commandments of the Lord Jesus, upon His sovereignty,
authority, love and law. It is necessarily founded upon His
saving grace. But God’s grace does not stop at the salvation of
the individual’s soul. For God also graciously provides the
saved sinner with personal motivation for godly living, by
abiding with him, by providing immutable standards of conduct
via the revelation of His law, and by providing eternal and
temporal rewards for obedience and service.
God’s word commands all men to obey His law, and
commands believers to be active in serving Him, in producing
the increase of God’s things. The Lords law applies, clearly,
to all men, whether or not they desire to live under and obey
that law, whether or not they desire to undertake the risks
involved in serving Him. And, if we are to take the content of
Jesus’ parable seriously, His law applies not only to all men
individually, in their personal lives, but also to all men collectively,
in their lives as citizens of a political order.
Obedient service is the very framework and content of
the God-ordained duty to occupy. As such, it is also the very
essence of the Kingdom of God. Obedience by all men;
active service by Christian men. Obedience is required of all
citizens active service is especially required of those
given power and authority by the Lord (cf. Ro. 13:1 -8ff).
Jesus’ parable is an instruction and mandate to rulers, as
well as to citizens: God’s law is the standard of law (Matt.
5:17-2 1; 28:18-20, etc); rulers are to be a terror to evil works,
not to good ones (Ro. 13:1-14).
Christian occupation is not passive contemplation.
Neither is it mere personal holiness — although it necessitates
both contemplation and personal piety. Nor is occupation
minimal acquiescence, as in the case of the wicked servant.
Occupation is an active, comprehensive duty. We are to
produce profits for our Lord, not just to “hold the line.” Jesus
does not make this duty conditional upon time orcircumstance,
nor upon our calculation of the imminence of His
return. Those who are lax in their performance of this duty will
be punished. But — thanks be to God — those who are
diligent servants, using what the Lord has given them to
further His Kingdom, will be greatly rewarded.

-------------

Again, why are these two people important? Because their writings influence and inform the positions of more outspoken members of the Christian right, people like James Dobson, Rev. D. James Kennedy, Rev. Pat Robertson, the Late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and many others.

If you doubt this simply go to a Worldview Weekend seminar when it comes to your area (http://www.worldviewweekend.com/) and listen to the speakers. Many of them use themes drawn directly from the writings of Rushoony and North. (Go ahead and take their test...see if your view of the world is Biblical: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php)

It's unfortunate that Rod and others dismiss the Christian Reconstruction movement in this nation as a threat to our liberties. Perhaps these quotes from other such "believers" might influence you to do some of your own research into the topic, Rod.

----
"When someone comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)--when someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate. However, this does not mean that individuals should be punished for holding heretical views, the views that Baptists think are heretical or Lutherans think are heretical and so forth. It simply means that those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed. You would, therefore, be open, I believe, to hold Muslim views or Hindu views in the privacy of your own home, provided it was not a Christian home that you've now come into to subvert and draw away from Jehovah. You would be able to hold these views as a private conviction. But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state. Before people who are non-theonomists get too terribly upset about this view, I would at least ask them to reflect on this fact: every civil order protects its foundations. (Greg Bahnsen, "An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen," Calvinism Today, Jan. 1994, p. 23. )

------------------

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God's rule." (George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51.)

--------------------

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. " (Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87.)

-------------------

"The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16)."

--------------------

What about the integrity of the church? What if someone who is not a member of the church publicly curses the church? Is the State required to apply the same sanction? The person may not be covenantally subordinate to the particular church, or any church, unlike the subordinate child who curses a parent. There is no specific reference to any civil penalty for cursing anyone but a parent or God, nor is there any civil penalty assigned for using God’s name in vain. Then is there a general prohibition against cursing? On what grounds could a church prosecute a cursing rebel?

One possible answer is the law against assault. Battery involves physical violence against a person, but assault can be verbal. A threat is made. A curse is a threat: calling the wrath of God down upon someone. Another approach is the law against public indecency. A third: cursing as a violation of the victim’s peace and quiet. Restitution could be imposed by the civil magistrate to defend a church or an individual who is victimized by cursing. (Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 59-60 )

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are stupid?

Inherently, or by willful action and words?

As so often happens, that you think this way tells us more about you than about "fundagelicals."

Thank you Dr. Rod.

Seriously, it's telling that so many secularists can't be satisfied to disagree with religious folks who disagree with them; they have to disparage the intelligence of such people.

I guess you didn't read the combox in the link I provided. You should feel honored though Rod, I don't disparage your intelligence, but you must admit, there's a good segment of the Christian crowd that are very fundamental and very vocal and could care-less about things like science, and constitutions and stuff.

I know "fundagelicals" who are physicians, who have advanced degrees, who could think their way around me and anybody else in this room.

I've known physicians that believe the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs were on a big boat with 8 people and bunches of other animals.

For that matter, it's just not true that the fundamentalist Muslims, who believe some pretty bizarre things, are "stupid;" many of them are quite intelligent.

Ok Rod, I see where the confusion is, I should've said ignorance instead of stupid, my bad, so sorry.

And consider communists back in Marxism's heyday: you'd have to be a fool to believe much of that stuff, but some of the most intelligent people going accepted it as, um, gospel.

Yep guns to heads will make you wanna believe whatever they're telling you to believe.

And of course, there's the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. The poor old stupid fundamentalists and Catholics couldn't hold an intellectual candle to the society's brightest lights, but they were far wiser than the progressives.

WooHoo the catholics got one right regarding science (well not even so much the science which isn't really the argument) for once, champagne on me everyone. I think the list of what they've gotten wrong is much longer.

Left and the right should strike a deal. The left will agree to stop obsessing about Christian theocracy and the right will agree to stop obsessing about a Muslim theocracy, the likelihood of both being about the same.

This would be a big step towards stopping your country from going down the tube and taking the rest of us with you.

When I attended my sister's Catholic wedding this summer, included among the prayers of the faithful were words like these (paraphrasing from memory): "That President Bush and the leaders of our country would use the power God has given them to govern in accordance with God's will, we pray to the Lord..." If that wasn't explicit enough, the very next one was something like, "For an end to abortion and a return to Christian family values, WPTTL..."

It is completely ridiculous that "the utterly secular, Mammon-serving Republican Party" should be the one that Christians turn to when they want a more Christian morality in public life... and yet, for the price of a little lip service to the pro-life cause and a few references to "family values" in speeches, nearly everyone who attended my sister's wedding will be voting Republican for the foreseeable future.

"It's unfortunate that Rod has not done his own research into this issue. If he had done so he would have found out that there are indeed a number of outspoken, popular leaders in the evangelical Christian movement who are very open about their desire to impose a theocracy in these United States."

Outspoken? Yes. Popular? No way. I'm willing to bet that 99 44/100% of the Christians in the U.S. have no idea who Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen are. Even among the bookish, well-informed set, these guys are a backwater of a backwater. In addition, North lost a lot of credibility with his dire predictions about Y2K. Rushdoony has died. David Chilton died, but was on his way to becoming Orthodox anyways, so his continued influence in the Christian Reconstruction would have been doubtful.

"Again, why are these two people important? Because their writings influence and inform the positions of more outspoken members of the Christian right, people like James Dobson, Rev. D. James Kennedy, Rev. Pat Robertson, the Late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and many others."

This is true, but in the process of being read and utilized by these guys the stuff is watered-down considerably. Having moved in these circles somewhat in the 80s and early 90s, I can attest that any Reconstructionist ideas filter down to the average Joe Christian in a very attenuated form. There are more hardcore activist types, no doubt, but they are few and far between.

"It's unfortunate that Rod and others dismiss the Christian Reconstruction movement in this nation as a threat to our liberties."

No, what's unfortunate is that people like you continue to transmit the myth that this tiny, insular group of half-baked scholars pose any threat to civil liberties whatsoever. This is like saying that the neo-Nazis pose a threat in wanting to revive the Third Reich.

Furthermore, it's an attempt to paint the average Christian conservative with an radical extremist brush. When in doubt, demonize the enemy.

Greg: "That President Bush and the leaders of our country would use the power God has given them to govern in accordance with God's will, we pray to the Lord..." If that wasn't explicit enough, the very next one was something like, "For an end to abortion and a return to Christian family values, WPTTL..."

I don't understand why this means that they want a theocracy. I pray every day for Bush and the nation's leaders, as I will for the next president, and the one after that. I pray that they govern in accordance with God's will. Isn't that what someone who believes in God would do? I mean, if you believed that the universe was governed by an all-powerful being, it's perfectly normal that you would hope the leaders of your nation would govern in consonance with that being's will. In fact, it would be weird not to pray that.

Also, why is it weird to express a wish that the country would live by the values you think are true? Who doesn't believe that?

It seems to me that you want to stigmatize the thoughts of these people, not their actions. Assuming for the sake of argument that you believe we should be governed by a wholly secular, liberal order, how fair to you would it be for a religious person to suspect you of wanting to impose your views on unwilling others? Not very fair at all, I'd say. In fact, I'd suppose that people were overreacting to your perfectly legitimate (if mistaken) point of view.

I don't follow your second point, Franklin. Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I asked who doesn't believe that society should ideally live by the values they think are true? Isn't this true for all people -- secular, religious, left, right, vegetarian, meat-eater, me, thee? For example, I wished you shared my faith in Jesus Christ, and I even pray for that, but I would not want to live in a country in which the government or private institutions felt it had the right to try to compel belief. If merely wanting your fellow Americans to share your values is somehow morally suspect, then we should look with suspicion upon anyone who advocates for a political candidate. Which, of course, we don't, and shouldn't. So why, then, is it peculiar and threatening for Christians to pray that the country would embrace their values?

"If merely wanting your fellow Americans to share your values is somehow morally suspect, then we should look with suspicion upon anyone who advocates for a political candidate. Which, of course, we don't, and shouldn't. So why, then, is it peculiar and threatening for Christians to pray that the country would embrace their values?"

It's the values that are suspect, not their origin or the act of sharing them. Sharing values is fine. When someone simulataneously professes faith in Jesus Christ and uses lies and deception to launch pre-emptive war, then the morals of that person are suspect. In short, lying and equivocation render your morals suspect.

Rob nails it: "Frankly, Christianity is scandalized by people who claim the title but don't act accordingly, and always has been."

and again: "I can't speak for the other religious traditions, but "Christians" who are not striving to live up to the principles of the faith regarding ethics and behavior are not really worthy of the name, IMO."

Theocracy is not what scares me, what scares me is the people who claim the title Christian and don't act accordingly.

Rob, I must respectfully point out the large number of those who remain in the "gullible or misinformed" category despite specific evidence uncovered in the intervening years.

My moral compass twitches at the combination of likelihood of wrongdoing, incredibly low approval ratings (rebutting the "g or i" part), and the lack of action by Congress and the judiciary. Why haven't articles of impeachment been brought? Why does the judiciary roll over and play dead for the executive?

Please forgive me, but I see moral bankruptcy on a mammoth scale, alot of it swept under the rug for the sake of political expediency and "loyalty" to the present administration.

Sorry about the multiple posts...

I wonder, reasonably I hope, about the 75-80% number. If, as I think I should, I give Rob and Will's plaint the respect it deserves and take it to its logical conclusion, maybe that proportion should be in the 25-35% range.

If nothing else, it would shed a very different light on the founded-on-Christianity and "this is a Christian nation" dialogues...

"When you can come up with a widely-accepted, simple and accurate method of identifying those who rightly belong under the heading of "Christian", thereby providing a solid comparison point for finding those who don't belong, I will express sympathy for your plaint.

In the meantime, why should I question any person who self-identifies as Christian?"

You certainly don't have to question anyone if you don't want to. And there is no "widely-accepted...method" of identifying Christians.

One can, however, read Matthew 5:38-48 and readily see that what the Bush administration is doing is not in compliance.

"I take it that if the government punished adulterers, you'd be okay with that since, "Theocracy is not what scares [you]""

Let me clarify, then. I should say the prospect of some future American theocracy scares me much less than the ongoing trashing of Christianity by those who profess Chrisitianity and yet ignore what Chirst taught when it does not serve their immediate political or rhetorical interests.

"Again, why are these two people important? Because their writings influence and inform the positions of more outspoken members of the Christian right, people like James Dobson, Rev. D. James Kennedy, Rev. Pat Robertson, the Late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and many others."

Actually, this is flat wrong. The Reconstructionists [cue Dramatic Prairie Dog], to the extent they still exist, are Calvinists who hate the dispensationalism preached by the likes of Robertson and Falwell, and vice versa. It was actually people close to Falwell, bless 'em, who first raised the alarm bells about the Reconstructionist movement.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

"why, then, is it peculiar and threatening for Christians to pray that the country would embrace their values?"

Right on, Rod. Christians can pray all they want for us nonbelievers. No problem there. And christians are, of course, free to act on their beliefs too. Go for it!

What is a problem -- and where the myth of the Christianists does seem more real -- is when Christians take the next step: acting to impose their beliefs on others. I'm thinking of the recent "intelligent design" court case in Pennsylvania, where a couple of right-wing christians got themselves elected to the school board. Then they tried to make this intelligent design nonsense mandatory in the district's science classes. Thankfully, a sensible judge (a conservative Bush appointee, by the way) ruled against them.

This is a real example of real Christians really trying to establish a kind of theocracy within their school district. And this isn't an isolated incident. In many places in the U.S., right-wing christians are insinuating themselves into positions of authority, with the express intention of imposing their beliefs on the public. I don't think any reasonable lefty is afraid that the right-wingers will take over the entire U.S. government and impose biblical law. But we do fear and oppose these kinds of creeping attempts at theocracy.

By the way, let's not assume that a Christian theocracy is impossible. Yes, the current theocracies are mostly Muslim ones. But it wasn't that long ago that Christianity held the same sort of political power. In Ireland, within the last generation, it was impossible to buy condoms and divorce was effectively illegal.

This is one reason why the current "separation of church and state" is so wrongheaded.

So which religion gets to promote its views in class this week? Boring Protestants like myself, Wiccans, snake handlers, those speaking in tounges folks? Then there are the Christian Scientists, the Scientologists, Hasidum, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics?

Who goes first? And when little Johnny asks in Mary Jane is going to hell what does the teacher tell him?

I think I like things the way they are, your religion, your beliefs, in your own place and manner of worship. I do think some school boards are too hyper sensitive about letting students bible study or whatever study have access to their facilities.

And then there's the yearly battle over some valedictorian kid at graduation preaching salvation that could probably be resolved with a disclaimer about his or her views being their own and not the school's.

You yearn for good old days that weren't quite so good for everyone.

Do you think Jewish people want to go back to the days of exclusion and demonization as Christ killers? Do Catholics really want to go back to fire and brimstone sermons about Papists and Freemasonry claptrap?

No, these are the good old days, right now with the most freedom and religious co-existence this country has ever seen.

Franklin, my post probably should have read, "This is one reason why THE CURRENT understanding of "separation of church and state" is so wrongheaded." Thus, I agree, in general, with your response. My concern is with the contemporary error that equates "separation of church and state" with "separation of religion from politics." The two are not the same.

'It says alot that you find the statement so innocuous, given the whole history of ID and its "wedge" to change the very definition of science.'

Oy vey, here we go again....

Oy vey, here we go again....

What, you're going to tell us it's really, really, really about science beacause you read that article in Touchstone by Fr. Reardon again?

Franklin,

:)

"What, you're going to tell us it's really, really, really about science beacause you read that article in Touchstone by Fr. Reardon again?"

Nope, just that it's really, really, really not about theocracy, and if you think it is, you're paranoid and should probably seek professional help.

Your this-is-just-like-that relativism does not comport with reality. A Christian theocracy is not just as likely as an Islamic theocracy Christian theocracies don’t exist anywhere. Islamic theocracies do exist: in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the UAE. Others like Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Indonesia are halfway there. Probably Turkey will capitulate to Islamic rule in our lifetime.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against my point. The simple fact there are a number of Muslim theocracies in existence today says nothing about the likelihood of an American Muslim theocracy.

Last sentence should be "...as the atheists are about having all those crazy theocrats...etc."

"And as you can see, this *proves* that God doesn't exist!" And I have a BIG problem with those sorts of scientists when they are science teachers in the public schools.

And the amount of times this has happned can probably be counted on one hand, roughly the same number of teachers who abuse their positions by going off on pro-Christian rants.

Erin, I always appreciate your responses, but I honestly think the blame (regarding evolution that is)is more on your compatriots side than on the secularists, becuase for many, it's not that the scientist/teacher is saying Goddidntdoit at the end of the presentation, but that they are NOT saying either:

1) and this proves the literal word-for-word creation account in Genesis
2) Praise God for starting this process

For many of your compatriots, neutrality is the same as positive atheism.

Btw, D. James Kennedy had a massive heart attack in late December 2006 and, from what I can find, has not resumed active work. A number of prominent Dominionists have exited the stage. Maybe there's a dynamic next generation of leadership, but I haven't heard about any of them. The point is that this does not appear to be a movement with a lot of momentum within evangelical circles.

As much as I disagree with his views on government, Kennedy has done some good stuff. Evangelism Explosion training is a great way to learn useful ways to communicate key concepts in sharing the Christian faith. It also got me to do some things that were way outside my comfort zone, like walking up to complete strangers and telling them about Jesus. I'm not convinced that this approach works very often, but it may be helpful in terms of planting some seeds.

Aaron and Franklin, I don't have any problem with neutrality or silence; but I'm surprised that you haven't heard from parents of children who were told in school that "of course" God didn't make the world, because science knows how the world was made, and we know God didn't make people, because science can prove that people evolved, etc. I've heard these stories all too often to brush them aside as uncommon, but would be happy to learn that they really did represent a few isolated incidences of teachers stepping out of bounds.

To be honest, Franklin, this is why I see public education as ultimately doomed to extinction. Education will either be religious or secular; it will never be truly "neutral."

A fascinting observation, Erin, and one with which I heartily agree.

To bring this tangent back to the main topic: what do we do with public ed in the meantime? Do we let it fail, and give the religionists their chance? Return to the first millenium model of only churches being able to provide education to the masses? Let those with the money dictate the directions of education?

I can envision one compromise model would likely leave many dissatisfied, but still meet the original mandate for public education. Pare down all public schools to work and life skills training. No math beyond algebra. No science beyond the basics (it's snarky, I know: we wouldn't want little Johnnie to think he will float to the ground because he doesn't know how gravity works). No rote memorization of history, just cover the highlights. If people want "enrichment" for their children, let them pay private (and religious) schools for it, or clamor for community institutions like the community college, but at the secondary level.

Set the expectation: public school will do this, and no more. It will not permit any outside interests, religion, politics, social activism, even sports. Spend the money for the greatest number of children, and spend no more than that. Parents will know from pre-K on that they will not have any religious competition in the schools, period. They will also have time in the day (with such a truncated offering, three or four hours per day would be plenty) to impose their personal desires on their children's education, whether it be in a church (as only happens now with after-school programs) or a synagogue (which already happens with many Hebrew schools). The difference: they will not have a central, governmentally built and maintained structure to look to for these things.

Schools could be physically much smaller. No more athletic fields, or natatoriums, or gymnasiums, or even libraries. They would be much less expensive to maintain, and much easier to expand or contract with changing demographics. And, cynically, we'd no longer be forcing talented people with a passion for teaching to take lower pay to fulfill their passion, because they'd no longer be needed. Some of them will be hired by private schools, and for better pay one would think, but in the end the whole cycle of education will have to change, and in large part because it has heaped upon it the ever-growing unreasonable expectations of parents, and especially of religiously devout parents.