The Jesus Machine and the New New Right
From the National Association of Evangelicals’ recent campaign to combat global warming to presidential hopeful (and Baptist preacher) Mike Huckabee’s frequent line about being pro-life before and after birth in explaining his support for improving public education and health care, it’s clear that the evangelical movement is branching out politically. Such developments are bending the very definition of the term Christian Right. “For the first time in 25 years, since the rise of the New Right, there is really a new New Right,” a top Washington strategist close to the White House told me during the course of reporting for my new book The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War. “When you talk about the social issues now, it's not just abortion and same-sex marriage. You also have to have something to say on Sudan and HIV/AIDS. In those [evangelical] subcultures, people want to know: What's your plan?”
In this excerpt from the book, I trace the rise of the new New Right to the push for the International Religious Freedom Act in the late 1990s—and show why Christian Right titans like Dobson are trying to keep the New Right old.
The expansion of the evangelical political agenda beyond hot-button domestic issues is owed largely to the work of a Washington insider named Michael Horowitz, who happens to be Jewish. A White House lawyer under Ronald Reagan, Horowitz continued to be an influential Beltway legal thinker into the 1990s. From his perch at the conservative Hudson Institute, a think tank, Horowitz’s work revolved mainly around promoting tort reform. It wasn’t until 1995, when he and his wife hired a live-in housekeeper who was an Ethiopian-born Christian evangelist, that he began to pay attention to the issue of international religious persecution. The housekeeper shocked Horowitz with stories of the torture he endured under Ethiopia’s communist regime—and, after the regime fell, at the hands of Muslim radicals—because of his role as a leader in the underground church. “He described to me how he was hung upside down, how they poured hot oil over him and beat him with steel rods,” Horowitz recalled in an interview. When Horowitz attempted to get the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to grant his housekeeper asylum, he discovered that the agency was leery of Christian asylum seekers who claimed they’d been persecuted because of their religion. With roughly two billion adherents, Christians are the most populous religious group on the planet. To the INS, Christians' claims of religious persecution seemed suspect on their face.
The experience prompted Horowitz to look into cases of persecuted Christians elsewhere in the world. Reports from conservative Washington-based human rights group Freedom House had documented the abuse of religious liberties under undemocratic regimes in North Korea, China, and Turkmenistan and in majority Islamic countries like Iraq and Nigeria. Religious minorities suffering in such places included Baha’is, Buddhists, Jews, and Sufi Muslims. It was also estimated that tens of million of evangelical Christians were facing persecution in their home countries, and it was these believers whom Horowitz most identified with. “Evangelicals really are the scapegoats of choice for the thug regimes around the world, just as the Jews had been,” he said. “Not because of activism, but because they were seen as symbolizing the West. And because they live beyond the reach of bribes and threats that many of these dictatorial regimes thrive on.”
Horowitz, bespectacled and white-haired, with a voice that frequently crescendos into a full-blown shout, tried talking to others in Washington about the plight of persecuted evangelicals abroad. He got little traction. “I began to see,” Horowitz said, “that the rhetorical treatment of evangelical Christians was verbatim what had happened in the same kind of dinner parties seventy years ago to the Jews: ‘I wouldn’t want one as a neighbor; they bring it on themselves; they’re clannish.’ Every damn line that justified silence and indifference as Hitler was coming to power was happening here.”
Horowitz, however, was having just as much trouble getting a hearing in evangelical circles. Many evangelical leaders were simply fixated on the culture wars. Others felt that shining a light on persecuted Christian communities abroad could be counterproductive, antagonizing already unfriendly regimes. Sensing that he was getting nowhere, Horowitz began phoning Christian Right leaders. “I said, ‘Look, I’m a Jew,” Horowitz said, recalling his pitch. “‘Silence is not the answer. It’s silence that makes it worse. I will work with you, but if need be I will shame you. You are not going to be silent.’”
Horowitz organized a conference in Washington on Christian persecution in early 1996 and invited his Christian Right contacts to attend. The event was officially sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “Mike [Horowitz] was coaching us, in some cases beating us onward with a strong whip,” remembered Richard Cizik, the Association’s chief lobbyist.
The conference culminated with the release of an NAE-endorsed “Statement of Conscience,” on international religious persecution, and Horowitz, Cizik, and others were soon assembling a coalition of religious groups to push for federal legislation to codify it. The coalition included such Christian Right stalwarts as Chuck Colson and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land. But what was coming to be known as the “religious freedom coalition” didn’t include just conservative religious organizations. Rabbi David Saperstein, the Washington lobbyist for the liberal Reform Judaism movement, was an early ally of Horowitz.
Saperstein acted as a liaison between the conservative core of the religious freedom coalition and the liberal groups it was trying recruit into its ranks. Soon, the International Campaign for Tibet and the Episcopal Church’s Washington office were attending the coalition’s meetings. “Before that, there had hardly ever been any interaction between the fundamentalist evangelical communities and the Jewish community,” said Saperstein, who has battled the Christian Right on issues like gay rights and school prayer. “We’re at odds over two radically different visions of the proper role of religion in American politics and public life.”
Nevertheless, the unlikely marriage of conservative evangelical groups and liberal Jewish organizations held up through the two-year process of drafting, negotiating, and redrafting the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The bill won unanimous support from both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton. Religion and politics scholar Allen Hertzke called the law “one of the most sweeping human rights statutes on the books and the only one of its kind in the world.” It created a new ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom at the State Department, required State to release annual, country-specific reports on religious freedom, and set up the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to monitor the situation internationally and make policy recommendations.
The religious freedom coalition that emerged around the law has reconstituted itself to lobby successfully for a flurry of other human rights laws, often in areas that have received scant attention from secular human rights organizations. These include 2000’s Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which imposed sanctions on countries that failed to crack down on human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor, and 2002’s Sudan Peace Act, which established a framework for negotiating the end of the twenty-year civil war between the Sudanese government and southern rebels (though it has obviously fallen short of achieving that goal). “Clearly, the driving political force that got these bills through Republican-dominated Congresses and the administration,” said Saperstein, “was the strong, assertive voice of the fundamentalist Christian community.”
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, the evangelical movement’s most powerful political figure, has been largely absent from such campaigns. Dobson devoted a Focus on the Family radio program to promoting 1998’s International Religious Freedom Act. But he was conspicuously quiet in the campaigns to push for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Sudan Peace Act, and other human rights legislation championed by the evangelical movement, including the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and the North Korea Freedom Act—even as Christian Right figures like Chuck Colson and Richard Land took on high-profile roles. On the rare occasions when Dobson has featured Michael Horowitz on his radio show, he has focused narrowly on the persecution of Christian communities abroad, avoiding broader human rights issues. “I would say, ‘Wait a minute—what about discussing Christian involvement in stopping the trafficking of women?’” Horowitz recalled of a recent appearance on Dobson’s show. “The default option for him is to come back to the standard old issues too quickly… ”
Horowitz’s characterization of Dobson’s issue set as “parochial” is one that Dobson probably would not quarrel with. “Those issues like the poor and the needy are all important to us,” he said in a 2004 interview. “But when you compare those issues . . . with killing forty-three million babies, it’s not in the same league. We’re talking the unborn holocaust here.”
But with the evangelical movement showing greater willingness to work with traditional adversaries in the pursuit of non-hot-button policy objectives, and achieving major victories in doing so, it has arrived at a crossroads. Will the movement continue to break with its history to make headway on humanitarian causes, or will Christian Right leaders swing attention back to the culture war? With Dobson’s age—he turns 71 next month—expected to force him off the political stage in the not-too-distant future, the answer depends partly on who replaces him as evangelicalism’s top political power broker. But the unique nature of Dobson’s influence through the rise of Focus on the Family makes it hard to imagine a figure that could single-handedly exert as much control over the movement as he has. Which means that the Christian Right’s humanitarian awakening might only accelerate in his absence.
Check back for more tomorrow...
Horowitz and Dobson are not the only players in the new Christian Right. Conservative talk radio was covering Slavery of Christians in areas like the southern Sudan in the 90s. It was not covered in the main stream media. In this decade, movie stars got involved in Sudan and the cameras followed.
Saying that christian conservatives should move to non-hot button issues. The Republican party was founded on hot button issues, namely slavery.
March 20, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
They say hate is a real motivator - too bad compassion - hope, faith and charity don't affect people's votes.
When 'Christianity' enters politics, they throw Christ overboard because he weighs them down.
Even the '98 persecution act - is it anything more than good intentions? How do you measure any good they've done? Wouldn't, given limited resources, it be better to support political freedom instead so that bad regimes could change? It would be killing two birds with one stone.
March 20, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note; "2000's" Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Unfortunately for the victims, the Republicans took control of the White House, now they had it all. I suggest you look at the case of the Marianns and Tom DeLay, Abramoff etc. and see the follow up to the Act. Forced labor, forced prostitution, forced abortions
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/plea_to_congres.html
"A 23-year-old woman sold into sexual slavery in the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth of the United States, told her story of kidnapping, rape and a lucky escape to members of Congress today, as part of an effort to expose lax laws and officials accused by reformers of tolerating rampant human trafficking and sexual exploitation."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
"So compelling was the case for change the Alaska Republican marshaled that in early 2000, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski worker reform bill.
But one man primarily stopped the U.S. House from even considering that worker-reform bill: then-House Republican Whip Tom DeLay.
"DeLay would tell The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin that the low-wage, anti-union conditions of the Marianas constituted "a perfect petri dish of capitalism. It's like my Galapagos Island."
Contrast that with what then-Sen. Murkowski told me in a 1998 interview: "The last time we heard a justification that economic advances would be jeopardized if workers were treated properly was shortly before Appomattox."
Its grand that honorable people like Michael Horowitz see evil and try to bring about change, unfortunately, so much gets done by the political machine that is simply window dressing. Mr. Horowitz's biggest impediment to correcting evils that exist
are the people in the political system who pass bills for public relation reasons then don't follow up.
As to Dobson; The philosophy preached by many of today's evangelicals and fundamentalists has little in common with the philosophy preached by Jesus Christ.
March 20, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that there are some Evangelical Christians - 'born again' by the blood of Christ - who are also Liberal Democrats (like me). We believe that the NeoCons have hijacked our religion to promote their political causes.
Because of the brainwashing program the NeoCons have directed at Evangelical Churches, there is extreme pressure in those churches to vote with the NeoCons or be labeled as 'not a real Christian'.
Those of us who have not bought into that lie have consistently and aggressively lobbied for the USA to refrain from invading other countries, and to pay more attention to the needs of those in this world who are dying from oppression and starvation. We also believe in the right of individuals to exercise their God-given free will without opressive restraints to their civil liberties.
As a result, many of us have been driven out of our churches and ostracised.
Don't write off all Evangelicals just because the NeoCon Republicans have conned many of our brothers and sisters into believing that they are "God's Party". We hope for a brighter future, when the blinders finally come off and they realize how badly they've been used.
March 20, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who was raised southern baptist and whose parents remain strongly southern baptists (but honestly, I would be more likely to vote Republican than they would) I understand where you are coming from.
However one of the reasons I left that church was because I could no longer stand the self-righteous moralizing that flowed from the mountains of Republican-inspired hate and ignorance. Though I did rather enjoy the look of stunned horror/shock on the faces of people when they found out I was "hardcore liberal." (Abortion rights! Gay Marriage! Universal Health Insurance! No Iran War! Impeach Bush!)
But there is another problem. Many feel that discussion of politics in church as part of the institution is wrong and that places another hurdle because it ties your hands while the other side goes on its merry way. That is for example on reason I didn't say much.
March 20, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about conservative talk radio covering the crisis in Sudan going back to the '90s... Interesting to note that Horowitz believes the evangelical push for the International Religious Freedom Act and other human rights legislation gets little media attention because--he says--the mainstream media is biased against conservative Christians and is genetically unable to give them credit for doing good works, particularly on an issue that has traditionally been the province of liberal human rights groups. Others, though, say the media simply don't give human rights issues like the genocide in Darfur much coverage, regardless of who's involved. It's just not sexy enough.
March 20, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate has been a real motivator, and it's interesting to see the role that anti-immigration fervor is already playing in the '08 presidential race, particularly on the GOP side. But the two overtly Religious Right candidates of the '08 cycle--Huckabee and Brownback--seem to be going out of their way to emphasize love over hate, another sign of the New New Right's ascent. For more on this, check out this week's column by Time's Joe Klein on "Second Commandment Republicans": http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599708,00.html
March 20, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the note on DeLay's role in holding up the worker reform bill. Particularly interesting to me because DeLay as House Leader symbolized the Christian Right's success rising to the top ranks of the GOP and government. DeLay was a hard drinking freshman Rep. until he saw James Dobson's parenting film "Where's Dad?" The film began his transformation into becoming a born-again Christian.
March 20, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a rhetorical question; How the fk can any rational human being believe Tom DeLay is a born again Christian?
If he truly is a born again Christian, then someone needs to save us from the born again Christians.
March 20, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a liberal evangelical, how well or poorly do you rate the Democrats' performance in reaching out to you and other religious Americans?
March 20, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who was raised in the Baptist church, I'd be interested in hearing your take on President Carter's and President Clinton's plan for a "New Baptist Covenant":
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24745
March 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was raised a Catholic, today I'm an atheist. In a way I envy people who get a positive reinforcement believing in God. Hopefully, I would never ridicule them for their beliefs. So, no, I don't write off all Evangelicals but I do have trouble with those on the right.
Its seems the farther these evangelicals are on the right the more hypocritical and the more dangerous they are;
Jerry Falwell, selling video tapes, 'the Clinton Chronicles, "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling that followed in Clinton's trail. He was selling this tape along with another, "Clinton's Circle of Power" as a $40.00 set to his faithful. His dealings with Jim Bakker of PTL, his criticism of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement calling it "the Civil Wrongs Movement", his travels to South Africa under Botha and making speeches in support of apartheid. Man of God my ass.
I also have trouble with the right wing evangelicals attack on gays, especially when I discover that one (or more) of their stars, Ted Haggard, regularly pays visits to male prostitutes.
And I have more trouble when right wing Christians proselytizing intimidates cadets at the U S Air Force Academy, challenging and threatening Jews, Catholics and others who aren't "born agains".
And lets not forget Tom DeLay and that other great born again, Jack Abramoff's pal and co conspirator, Ralph Reed.
So I'll steer clear of the right wing Christians, it might be contagious
March 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dobson's winning the culture war because he's right and liberal Christians (liberal Evangelicals?) are wrong.
Religions are only as good (powerful, worthy of belief) as their explanations of the world are thought to be true. The Mosaic religions have failed. Few Westernized people are any longer willing to trade life for the promise of an afterlife whose form and function they can't even imagine. Very few any longer believe (here, actions speak louder than words) in a Supreme Being and as against the laws of quantum physics, indeterminacy, and chaos theory, certainly not in a providential one.
The result is that having only one life to live and with our deaths staring themselves in our faces we naturally turn to individualistic pursuits many of them hedonistic. Unfortunately, hedonistic activities tend to cost money, something most of us have less and less of.
Dobson knows that envy and jealousy are the great motivators. For his folks -- those who don't have the wherewithal to join in the modern pursuit of happiness -- derogation of that individualistic style of being is the next best thing. And Dobson's great at pouring it on.
March 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dobson isn't winning; in fact he's losing big time. And the harder he clings to George Bush the more screwed he and the "old religious right" are. They're going to go down with that ship, singing "Nearer My God To Thee" the whole way.
Now the new Religious Right may be interesting. We might even get them to embrace universal healthcare and some other truly Christian policies instead of the endless diatribe about gays and abortions.
March 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Delay is evidently a still-born again Christian. I think Jesus told a parable about people who hear the Word gladly then go right back to their old wicked ways.
March 20, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A two-part post, and I apologise to anyone who truly adheres to Christian ideology for what is posted here. It is not directed towards you.
Part one is in regards to the callousness that many right-sided evangelicals seem to have in regards to the reprehensible manner that detainees have been treated by the American government, and their apathy when confronted with the Bush alliance with the butcher of Andijon, Islam Karimov. If the terms are the support of religious freedom, it is an act of extreme hypocrisy to ignore these evil acts. It is capitulation to blind stupidity to not understand how both have aided recruitment drives by America's enemies, and greatly increased the numbers of humans likely to be killed in Mr. Bush's War Upon Terror. There is no Godliness to be found upon an Earthly battlefield, instead there is only death and great suffering. Almost all of this pain is borne by the undeserving from allies, enemies, and natives caught up in the hostilities. The adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is one of the great lies told to soldiers. If you found your Lord on a battlefield, you worship a bloodthirsty demon who will never be satiated. Your god is manifest evil.
I have taken great umbrage when offered two common rationalisations for the righteousness of Mr. Bush's War Upon Terror, one found in the many words of Paul. This being Romans 13:1-6:The arrogance, and pride which piggybacks upon the claim that this is a justification for Mr. Bush's immoral war is in my mind transparent. Firstly, there is nothing within this admonition that places a higher degree of God serving in Mr. Bush's acts, than it does in Saddam Hussein's. It does not reference specific powers or rulers, but instead clearly addresses all rulers, all powers that be. Additionally, the phrases "rulers are not a terror to good works", and to "not be afraid of the power" seems to make much more sense when used as a justification for not going to war against Iraq.
Second, persons who use these verses as a justification for war, always omit what comes after, as well as what came before, and especially in this instance, the context is germane. Romans 13:8,9 states:
This directly contradicts those who claim their soldiery, their participation in Mr. Bush's travesty of unjust war, is by the command of God. This thought is given even more credence when considering the last five verses of the preceding chapter. Romans 12:17-21 is an extremely strong warning about engaging in violence, and offers clear guidelines on how Christians should treat their enemies:
The other often used passage is Matthew 10:34, sometimes with 35 and 36 added:
There is nothing to be found in this text that justifies taking up arms against another human, and instead is an attempt to describe the the depth of sacrifice that must be made if one is to walk this path in their life. The verses following these are illuminative. Matthew 10:37-39:
Before anyone who claims the faith, and disagrees with my analysis posts, honour dictates that I at least attempt to level the field a bit, for I will engage. I hold a great advantage, as I do not claim the faith, but I was schooled in the rules, and I will hold you to your end of the bargain. I will put the fire to the very soles of your feet. I can judge, you cannot. If I perceive it as giving me an advantage, I can lie, you cannot. I can let fly ugly slanderous attacks upon your character, as well as the character of your spouse, your children and your friends, causing you to suffer greatly, but you cannot retaliate in kind, and instead can only return my gift of pain with forgiveness and understanding. For I truly believe that if you disagree with my assessment, then you have secretly in the dead of night, hollowed out that cross you carry on your shoulder, then refilled it with cork, and you are a reprehensible poseur filled with pompous religiosity who needs to be exposed for the evil that resides intertwined within your being.
March 21, 2007 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And do not forget Abramoff himself who found ethical inspiration in Orthodox Judaism, kind of "born again Jew".
March 21, 2007 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me a piece of evidence that atheists are more hedonistic than theists.
Among Western nations, USA is most religious. It is also worshipping SUVs (thou shall drive the tallest and heaviest vehicle you can afford), McMansions (thou shall buy the largest house on a largest lot that you can afford) etc. racking up the largest consumer debt in the process.
But be frank that you see nothing particularly wrong about pre-marital sex and you are a hedonist.
March 21, 2007 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Baptist, though my core beliefs are certainly aligned with theirs.
It seems that what Clinton and Carter want to do is emphasize the traditional mission of the church - ministering to the poor and the lost. I agree with that 100%.
March 21, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel that the Democratic Party has done anything significant to court the 'religious left' or even the 'religious middle'. And there are millions of voters out there in these two categories.
I believe the Dems would have the most success among the more moderate churches, like the Presbyterians and Methodists. There are already plenty of liberals and moderates in these churches, and reaching out to them could pull even more into the fray.
Catholics are sort of a special case. I'm not sure what it would take to appeal to them, since I'm not one myself. Certainly, the Democratic Party already appeals to significant numbers of Hispanic and labor Catholics; this base could probably be expanded with the right campaign.
And, of course, Unitarians are already in the Democrats' bag. :)
But to get to the quiet liberals in the Evangelical churches will take a special approach. The Dems need to emphasize the need for justice, the need to help the poor and needy, the resources that the Iraq war takes away from helping others. I think this approach, if done with respect, could bring in millions of socially conscious Evangelicals.
There also needs to be a targeted campaign to turn the one-issue religious voters - I'm speaking, of course, of the Pro-Life crowd. These people have been brainwashed by the Neo-Cons, and an effective counter-brainwashing that emphasized other issues, while respecting their Pro-Life stance, could turn many of these voters around.
March 21, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if you're an atheist, I hope you're out having fun. After all, the Bible says, "If there is no God, then eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." It's all you've got, so enjoy it while you can!
Me, I'm willing to wait just a bit for something better. :)
March 21, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - that's fair enough. And one must also acknowledge the role that Christianity played in abolishing slavery and for Black civil rights 100 years later.
March 21, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
By their deeds ye shall know them.
March 21, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
By their deeds ye shall know them.
March 21, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right wing ideologues with political agendas who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" HATE when someone points out their hypocrisy.
God's message in the Bible is one of love, compassion, and treating others well. Not killing in the Almighty's name...
The adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is one of the great lies told to soldiers. If you found your Lord on a battlefield, you worship a bloodthirsty demon who will never be satiated. Your god is manifest evil.
AMEN!!!
March 21, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm an atheist, but I go to church once a year just in case.
March 21, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, Christianity or its lack thereof, has no correlation to love, charity, mercy, generosity or any of the virtues.
A 'Christian' is at least as likely to be absent these virtues as an unbeliever is to be gifted.
I'll look to the virtues or their absence, rather than who a person kneels to.
March 21, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ethico-religious is merely a patina; ontology is the justification of all religions.
And after Niels Bohr, ontology is merely an historical curiosity.
March 21, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the bible actually say "If there is no God, then eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Where does it say that? I kinda thought that was Shakespeare, whose prose was a whole lot better than the bible's. BTW.
I seem to remember that turning water into wine was seen as a good thing according to the scriptures -- a miracle even. Now, the bible does say that you should treat your slaves well (thereby condoning slavery) and that if you discover that your bride is not a virgin on your wedding night you should kill her (thereby condoning murder, hypocrisy, and other absurdities), and it also spouts all kinds of other inconsistencies with the message of justice and love.
Go ahead and wait for something better, but it might be a useful journey to think about what you're waiting for, and maybe even make a decision about what you believe rather than accept what you have been spoon-fed.
Jan Knaus
March 21, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er... have you read Deuteronomy? It definitely advises killing in the almighty's name. Not too much love, compassion, and treating others well to be found. There is plenty of the "smite this one and that one" stuff in the Bible. What are you talking about? Oh, the NEW TESTAMENT! Well, gee, I thought god inspired all of it!
Why the inconsistencies? Do ya think maybe that just plain ol' people with axes to grind put this stuff out there? Otherwise, how could it be so full of contradictory stuff?
You have to do some pretty fancy cherry-picking to find a message of love and compassion if your search engine is limited to the bible, my friend.
Jan Knaus
March 21, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ontogeny recapitulates philosophy?
March 21, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think about Koalas much?
I do. I don't trust Koalas. They're
up to something. I can feel it.
March 21, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will read that OT book again Jan, but I believe that was more about war in self defense then acts of aggression. But it has been a long time since Catholic high school so I will have to go back and read it again to be sure.
March 21, 2007 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roman Catholicism theologically is basically about the NT.
(Exceptions, of course, for the various history influenced crazy binges of selling of indulgences, Savonorola or Inquistions or persecution of Galileo, or any other challengers of papal power. Those have more to do with when the Church had political power.)
The main ritual, the Mass is all about the NT, specifically The 4 Gospels. In Vatican II speak, we learned to call it the "good news," i.e., through out the old bad law before Christ came to save us all, in with his new law.
You get the re-input of the OT into Christianity with certain Reformation dudes. They are the ones who bring it back in. You can trace the emphasis on Christian sects that emphasize full bible study, both OT and NT instead of throwing out the OT, back to their progenitors in the Reformation.
For Catholics, the "word" is the NT. Martyrs and saints are people devoted to Christ's word, not the ancient Jewish law of the OT. The OT is a relic of possible scholarly interest for theologians studying "concurrence" or some such. If you remember studying much OT in a Catholic parochial school, perhaps you were being taught by some nerdy scholarly types like Jesuits? Certainly not Jesus-treak Franciscans. :-)
P.S. Just came to mind--anyone know when ham started being associated with Easter? More seriously, some of the seeds of historic anti-semitism are in the rejection of the OT by Catholicism, not in the simplistic "Jews killed Jesus" thing. Jews were practicing the strange old law, the old book that Jesus said to throw out.
March 21, 2007 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Gilgoff:
I truly appreciate your interaction with some of the commenters here, and I am sure that other readers here do too. I enjoyed your essay, but I enjoyed your comments much more.
March 21, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reason I do not use the term "Bible thumper" lightly. Anyone who claims to be a serious Christian, but offers the old eye for an eye rationalisation is eithr a liar or an ignorant fool. The rules for living changed drastically. I cited Matthew 5 in my first post, I'll citae a differenbt part of it now. It is known as the Sermon on the Mount. I consider it to be a primary instructioon sheet for how a Christian should behave.Matthew 5:38-45.
If this is considered with Romans 12, which I previously cited, the ground rules are:
Don't retaliate against even those who will to kill you. If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink. If your enemy physically attacks you , even then the admonition is "Do Not Resist", so present him another part of your bady ads an open target. If you are injustly taken to civil court and your false accusere wins your court, be sure to aprroach him after the trial to inquire if he also has a use for your shirt, and be willing to give it to him if he asks. Even if you are abkle to act this way, there is no godly guarantee that your will be rewarded ion earth, because fortune, good and bad is distributed as the sun and the rain, randomly .
If you claim to be a Christian, but equivocate about rules attributed directly as coming from the mouth of the Son of God, you are a Bible Thumper. There is not even a self-defense excuse allowed.
This is laid out short and sweet in Romans 9:35-37
Since 911, I have made open-endrd challenges in many places on the web, where individuals have claimed to be Christian, Not one Clergyman or educated layperson has ever risen to the challenge though, but there have been one or two claim that I am wrong, simply because so many who claim to be Christian, are soldiers, and they just can't be wrong.
I grew up in a religion considered borderline by many current evangelical. The religion considers the Commandment: "Thous Shalt Not Kill", to be a literal absolute. It is why, when I was drafted, I was allowed to enter CO, and become a medic. Prohibitions that had been an ingrained part of me since I had been born rung deep. I doubt that I would have been unable to shoot at a human then. I still doubt that I possess that ability even now, even though I do not believe in Christianity anymore. With some serious and focused personal effort, I believe I could circumvent this, but what purpose would it serve?
March 22, 2007 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that the New Testament is the "new, improved bible message of love and forgiveness" after all that Old Testament smiting gives a thinking person pause. How could the first part be inspired by god if he couldn't see far enough ahead to know he would change his mind about something as important as killing other people.
BTW, if anyone considers killing his wife because he found out she wasn't a virgin on their wedding night to be self-defense, then they really should reconsider their thoughts.
Who knew it wouldn't be cool to have slaves? I guess god didn't know that either. Deliver me from devinely inspired books!
Jan Knaus
March 22, 2007 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you read up on dispensationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
March 22, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read as much as I could, and my impression is that "Dispensationalism" is just a way for people to re-interpret the bible for their own purposes. That is how they dreamed up the "Rapture."
The theory as I understand it, is that there have been historic times that god has treated people differently - why? - because how else would anyone explain the bible's inconsistencies and still claim it was devinely inspired?
I don't really see what that has to do with what I was saying. If god tells someone it is okay to have a slave and to kill an "impure" bride, he kinda missed the boat in teaching good behavior, didn't he? Fact is that men at that time couldn't see life any other way. That is why the bible reads the way it does.
Descriptions of heaven are limited to man's imagination (the sky) and hell as well (burning for all eternity under the earth). There is not one word in the bible that shows a true vision of the world and what it would come to be. The reason it is limited is because politically connected men wrote it.
And the fact that not one word was ever written about Jesus until 100 years after he died says quite a bit about the power of myth. People did write about people back then; people who were actually alive. Why didn't Jesus write anything himself? It's a wonder!
Jan Knaus
March 22, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprated, as this is not spam.
March 23, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille: Saying that the New Testament is the "new, improved bible message of love and forgiveness" after all that Old Testament smiting gives a thinking person pause. How could the first part be inspired by god if he couldn't see far enough ahead to know he would change his mind about something as important as killing other people.
Look, when I was a wee lad I believed in Communism, but now I do not. One can change views in mere 40 years (it took a bit less, of course). God had thousands of years to change His mind.
OT shows some example of God changing His mind. Noah actually was not particularly pleased with the flood and successfully extracted a promise from God that He will never do it again. The Book of Job shows how God, inclined to heap beneficences on the pius Jon changed his mind to win a bet.
If you think about it, the very idea of prayer is predicated on belief that God can change His mind.
March 23, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shakespeare's prose? Prose? No wonder you got low ratings.
By the way, the biblical way of living with a non-virgin bride is to avoid wedding (and thus, the wedding night) altogether. Who says that marriage requires a wedding?
March 23, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, I wanted to wait a bit until the crowd thinned out. Much of what you state is here is logical and for the vast majority of persons who claim to be Christians is true. I thoroughly do not believe. Yet I also grew up in a religious family, and was schooled at that religion's private schools from first through ninth grade. I know from experience that here and there is a very small percentage of the total, who are trying their very hardest to lead a true Christian life, and it is these very few individuals who deserve the respect and tolerance that Americans should give to any humans who possess the personal honour and will to practise what they say they believe.
Do you disrespect the memory of Mahatma Gandhi? Do you know any hard core Buddhists, and if so, do you also press fervent criticism upon them? The Christian sect my family belonged to is Seventh Day Adventists. If you know anything about them, I am sure you also know many of their own contradictions. I know them better than you, and some of the offshoot sects which have spun off of it, are whacked-out without question. the best known of those was the Branch Davidians in Waco. Adventists also have a world respected Medical University and Hospital, and have the distinction of currently being the longest living identifiable group in the world. They largely live healthy lives without ingesting tobacco, caffeine, processed sugary foods, or even much meat. Many are lacto vegetarians. Adventists also firmly believe that the commandment "thou shall not kill" is a literal and absolute command, even in self-defense. This is the reason why when I was drafted, I was allowed to enter as Conscientious Objector, and become an Evac medic. Vietnam was a major contributing factor for my non-belief, partly from the war itself, and partly from my exposure to a wider world, as well as fortunate encounters with some very educated medical personnel, who provided new avenues of learning through books I'd never been exposed to; Sartre, Kerouac and Nietzsche are three that stand out. That isn't to say I'd been overly sheltered by my parents. Growing up, I'd read Vonnegut, Rand, and Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, and even some Burroughs(both Edgar Rice and William S.) My parents firmly believed in the power of reading, believed all of their children were capable of reasoning, and left us mostly to our own devices. There was also a time when I still believed in Christianity, and yet also knew I was beyond its reach of Salvation, because my experiences in Vietnam had left me utterly repulsed by the concept of salvation through ingesting the blood of a wrongfully executed human. The only path to salvation had become an obscene concept to me.
What I am trying to get at, is that all methods of practising a faith, of any type I am aware of have contradictions inherent within them, and I've tasted more than your average bear. Zen Buddhists make a sort of game of contradictions with Koans, Christians lean on the concept of Blind Feith. The current total human population seems to shred any concept of reincarnation. I absolutely do not believe that Atlas supports the Earth on his Shoulders, or that Prometheus suffered mightily for his gift to humanity.
Still a commonality across all of humanity will always be a grasping at data acquired through our imperfect senses, and a futile attempt to pull coherence from the noise. We do this by working with a set of symbols unique to each of us, but no one possesses a complete matching set. There are overlaps, gaps and contradictions in all of our conceptualisations of reality, it is a quality shared by all of humanity. We all have personal articles of faith. So go ahead and criticise all egregious Christian hypocrites; the Dobsons, The Falwells, the Robertsons, and do not forget the Santorums, the Gingrichs, the DeLays and the Blunts, but remember there are a few who practise cleanly with intent, who do not deserve to be on the receiving end of full spectrum insults, and challenges to their beliefs. It will further nothing in this world that either one of us desires to see more of.
will peace-but keep your cartridges dry...
March 27, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was discovered that ontology was only masquerading as a curiosity playing a premeditated strategy to avoid being used for conjectural analytics on that fateful day when Schrödinger's kitty turned up missing. There was much speculation that Werner Heisenberg was up to his stupid tricks again and had hidden the kitty inside of a hat box upon his desk. After an extensive cost/benefit study had been completed, which had fully accounted for the effects from all possibilities it had been decided that the best course of action was simply to accept all potentiality, prudently leaving the hat box unopened, and sitting upon the desk.
March 27, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the best course of action was simply to accept all potentiality . . . .
Umm. Setting the bar that low sort of puts the philosophers (and theologians) out of business.
"The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations"?
March 27, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, after providing a broad target of arrogance, cluelessness and jargon bloat, you stepped through an intentionally placed threaded post, failed to reach the hook, and then insult the content. Ok, I'll play. The post's elevation had nothing to do with expectations, and everything with getting down to the floor level so I could post an on-target response to your post.
Not all Religious Ethics is a false externalised covering. In some it is a rectitude of inent.
Ontology is Not the justification of all religions, nor is it the juistification of many regions. The most common justification for religions is instead, antinomianism.
The theoretical work of Niels Bohr's tends to validate my ontological postulations.
March 28, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're offering up antinomianism as a get-out-of-jail-free card, you're even more cynical than I.
March 28, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink