Taunting Christians
This post is not about people who are taunting Christians or a "Taunting Christians for Dummies" textbook. This is about Christians who taunt. Every now and again, there is this suspicion raised about the Christian Right and their tactics. Most recently, a question was raised in the Comments after a post by TheraP asking whether the Christianity of people was favored by the Ashcroft/Gonzalez Justice Department. This was followed by a suggestion that the personalities of religious people would favor obedience without questioning. The Justice Department preferrerd people who would follow orders without hesitation or question.
There is another aspect to these Christians from the Right, and I would like to offer the proposition that there are plenty of Christians on the Left, as well as Christians right smack dab in the middle. But the Christians on the Right are the ones getting all the press. They are the ones taking all the press. So how did they come to such prominence? By being bullies, is what I would theorize and I hope people will comment as to their impressions.
Taunting Christians are the ones who challenge the faith of another by demanding that person agree to their propositions. Failure to agree suggests one's faith is not strong enough. It also implies that their faith is stronger. It demands people follow their lead, or these poseurs will declare the faith of the other as insincere. It is a painful, shameful place to be if one gives their propositions any credence. One has to be a strong person to resist their pressure. One has to know beyond any doubt that they have faith, and that the challenge is immaterial. One has to be strong in that moment to defend oneself, or at the least, protect oneself from these attacks on ones morality. It is a serious dilemna for people who strive to be good and practice a Chirstian life.
We have all seen the e-mails at one time or another, an insidious bit about how, if one fails to share the e-mail, one's faith is weak. We have all witnessed the extremes of the Pro-Life movement in their crusade to save the unborn, going so far as to blow up a clinic or shoot and kill a doctor who practices abortion. These people are reactive to the taunts of the Right Christians.
There is the question about whether these taunting Christians are, in fact, Christians, but I can see how proposing the question would make me as they are. At the same time, I believe that we should answer the challenges so as not to leave these people with the appearance of an upper hand. The MSM does enough to promote the illusion that these people have an upper hand, but one has to question what makes the media an expert on the issue, and who really are the experts on Christianity anyway? Does one need to study two thousands years of Christianity to be an expert, or is it all in the Bible? I could go on for many pages about that question, but rather then do that, I would like to hear how others perceive these taunting Christians, if I have accurately described them, and whatever other comments might arise, because TPM is not at all predictable in what responses and reactions one might receive.
They came to prominence the same way every other interest group (blacks, gays, feminists, environmentalists, "progressives", etc) came to prominence - by organizing politically and become active in elections.
They are only different from any other group in their value orientation and policy preferences. There is absolutely no difference in tactics between special interest groups.
May 6, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There is absolutely no difference in tactics between special interest groups."
I suppose it is fair to say, then, that the most objectionable of these tactics should be pointed out and criticized, no matter who employs them.
May 6, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree.
May 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, Lalo. Right you are!
My discussion is related to those tactics, employing the use of faith, a very personal choice on the one hand, and an inheritance, if you will, on the other. In many cases children are exposed to the concept of God at a very early age and that impression lasts a lifetime.
For a religious person, there is a deep commitment to their faith and it is in this place, at the very heart of a person, that the Right arrives and makes all manner of declarations and demands. I would argue that devotion has a more acute force within a person of religion then an affiliation of another nature. Afterall [oh, that's punny] the promise of life after death is pretty attractive to people. I would concede, however, that the spirit of nationalism is also a mighty force, and studies have made many parallels between religion and nationalism offering the proposition that nationalism is, in it's own rite [more puns] a religion unto itself.
May 6, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how it's different from any other group.
A Christian's faith (morality) dictates their policy orientation and they organize to make that policy a reality.
A working woman's personal values dictate her desire for choice when it comes to abortion, equal pay, etc - so they organize to make those policies a reality.
Same with labor and everything else.
From the political process point of view, it doesn't make a difference what motivates them.
May 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a very utilitarian point of view, pragmatic even, but I submit to you that the entire construct of a God empowering their goals and an overwhlming majority of the population having some degree of faith in that God does make a different. Perhaps not seeing that is more about the origin of your faith, and I make no judgment related to what faith you may or may not have, and the driving force behind people in a congregation. The fact of the matter is, right or wrong, churches have a very special place in this society.
May 6, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is one difference in tactics - religionists claim that their authority comes from the infallible supernatural to which there is no appeal, rather than the people who are fallible.
May 6, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on.
May 6, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD: I don't agree.
I don't think they claim authority from God (they wouldn't need elections if they had it). I think they use their faith (quite naturally and reasonably) as a foundation from which their policy preferences come from. It makes sense because they are Christians. Just as it makes sense for a black person to feel strongly about racial discrimination. These things are part of what makes each group of people who they are.
So I don't see it as a tactic. And that claim only carries weight if it's not recognized for what it is - an explanation of why they want what they want.
May 6, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, you're absolutely right.
May 6, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are able to come to power, because the majority of our citizens don't know how to combat them.
Screaming hate at them, only encourages them" Happy are those persecuted for my name?"
Instead we have an electorate so caught up in the mundane things of life, parked in front of the TV.
(2 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
Our civilization is marked by greed and selfish motivation, “having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power” As represented by the Christian right; and the rest of the Nation too apathetic to offer any resistance. Caught up doing their own thing to recognize the harm caused by lack of moral values.
If only the people had the knowledge contained in the scriptures, we wouldn't need to cede the battlefield.
(Ephesians 6:11-20) 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God that YOU may be able to stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; 12 because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 On this account take up the complete suit of armor from God, that YOU may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after YOU have done all things thoroughly, to stand firm.
14 Stand firm, therefore, with YOUR loins girded about with truth,
and having on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and with YOUR feet shod with the equipment of the good news of peace. 16 Above all things, take up the large shield of faith, with which YOU will be able to quench all the wicked one’s burning missiles. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word, 18 while with every form of prayer and supplication YOU carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit. And to that end keep awake with all constancy and with supplication in behalf of all the holy ones, 19 also for me, that ability to speak may be given me with the opening of my mouth, with freeness of speech to make known the sacred secret of the good news, 20 for which I am acting as an ambassador in chains; that I may speak in connection with it with boldness as I ought to speak.
How can a Nation of the uninformed, stand against an enemy with a common goal. Not that the common goal is correct, but it is a unifying factor in their hands.
Prove them false, then you'll DE moralize them.
Our Nations ignorance on scriptural matters makes us easy prey, to false Shepard’s or false leaders.
May 6, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that takes a load off my mind. Because none of that stuff (greed, selfishness, haughty blasphemers, etc) ever took place in the historical past. Whew!
You really have a way with words, Resistance. You make me feel ever more confident in the way I see the world.
May 6, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and BTW, you just made GregorZap's point for him -- not that he didn't do an excellent job, but you put the icing on his cake.
May 6, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a scripture war! Now that seems to me to be more chest pounding Christianity. It smacks of a taunt, I know my Bibe better the you do, and, the Bible is everything, this is from the Bible, therefore, it is everything. So, with your argument, how can we combat everything? As Cville Dem notes, you are proving my point, but I want to make a few comments just the same.
Two things of interest here. First, the rest of the nation is too apathetic to offer any resistance. Really? It seems there is a lot of
resistance here. I would argue that the victory of Obama was resistance. I would also argue that the Left and Center Christians have moral values and to suggest otherwise is insulting, which is not an action I would attribute to someone who professes to be a Christian as I understand the term. But this term has been so broadly defined in this country, I have to admit, it would take pages to convey what a Christian means to me, personally, and it does begin with knowing the entire history of Christianity, not the history of what a person has gleaned from the first time they read the Bible.
It seems, however, that we have some common ground here, Resistance. It seems that you are not convinced by the Right of their methods or goals. You propose that the Scripture carries the response, or resistance, to the influence of the Right. I think there is something to that as a matter of faith, but I also believe that this is a free country and our way is to create a place where faith is not a prerequisite to anything.
We, as Americans, or what I believe America wants to be, need to prove that the morals and values we would inscribe in our government will stand alone for all people, regardless of their faith, or any other aspect of who they are. We are a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", and there has never been any qualifier as to which people those people are, nor should there be.
May 6, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
GZ, have you read Michael Spencer's editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, The Coming Evangelical Collapse, that caused such a flap last month?
Add James Dobson's acknowledgment that the Christian Right lost the culture wars, and it is clear that the 'times they are a changing' in the US.
Since the culture wars were a political product started by Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican convention, anyway, maybe we can now start to have a real conversation about those things that bother us as people, as Christians and as members of any other or no religion at all.
And finally, just as you suggest that Left and Center Christians have moral values, I'd like to add that people who claim no religion also have moral values.
May 6, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No objection to the proposition those without religion have morals, no objection at all. In fact, my girlfriend is a "devout" well-reasoned atheist and her ethics and morality always surprise me. This is not because she is an atheist, but because I have never experienced the degee to which she practices her convictions.
May 6, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell, another response.
As I read the article you posted from The Christian Science Monitor I was struck by a few things. One was the focus on money. I recall hearing a sermon about the shortest sentence on the Bible, "Jesus wept.", and that this was about the people having a lack of faith. I believe it was right before He raised Lazarus. At any rate, shortest sentence by Mr. Spencer, which was actually a paragraph, "The money will dry up." So from a spiritually focused perspective, one might say Mr. Spencer has lost his way.
Another peculiar aspect to his discussion is that he mentions the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, but then bemoans the lack of Protestant orthodoxy. Put those ideas in the same sentence and you see what I mean. He is bemoaning the loss of evangelicals to the Orthodox as though they were leaving Christianity. An Orthodox might argue those evangelicals were returning to the roots of Christianity, to a church that never had a reformation. Maybe, just maybe, that was because it did not require any reformation. Maybe it never lost it's way.
It is kind of arrogant to suggest the Orthodox are wrong while seeking orthodoxy outside of their tradition. So, when did this protestant orthodoxy begin and who decided what fit and what did not. The Orthodox are not typically involved in politics, although leaders from time to time do intrude, or I should say get distracted from their purpose.
The purpose of the Orthodox Church is merely to offer the services of the Church to the people in a traditional scripted way. The strength of this is in its consistency and its equality.
it is tempting to go deeper into Orthodoxy and how I see it, but we're discussing the attitude of the Christian Right and their arrogance, really. When I hear them making statements as though they know something about Chirstianity because they read the Bible, I think, "Well, that's a good start," and then I realize, I have just done what I accuse them of doing, taunting.
May 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What enemy?
May 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do wish you would quit with the scripture quotations. You neglected to specify what the suit of armor consists of in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Further, selective quotation can lead to the following problems:
Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Certain exhortations and insights presented by our forefathers are not applicable today and may in fact be morally odious.
In my opinion and experience, the divine inspiration of the Bible does not make the text a literal collection of facts. It is a message from God to us about us that must be taken symbolically and thus interpreted for deeper meanings that resonate with the individual.
May 6, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Scripture reminds me of all the ridiculers of Godly faith. Your predecessors mocked Noah too. Of course you'll even deny there was ever a Great Flood. Those people mocked and ridiculed Noah, and all the prophets, in the end the ridiculers perished.
(2 Peter 3:3-6) 3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.”
5 For, according to THEIR WISH,
this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.
Go ahead Cville go ahead all you ridiculers. Here today gone tomorrow.
The best you'll ever receive, in length of days of your lives is 70 to 80 years.
(Psalm 90:5-6) . . .You have swept them away; they become a mere sleep; In the morning [they are] just like green grass that changes. 6 In the morning it puts forth blossoms and must change; At evening it withers and certainly dries up.
(Psalm 90:10) . . .In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly.
Insistence is on trouble, hurtful attacks, and name-calling. It is not I that will have to answer for the harm you cause. Or the part you play in promoting a society that mocks sacred things or mock PRINCIPLES THAT PROMOTE PEACE, among the people.
I realize you could care less; callousness and disrespect are another attribute of ridiculers.
It makes for a lousy society. Whenever anyone belittles another.
(Psalm 37:10-12) . . .And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. 11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. 12 The wicked one is plotting against the righteous one, And at him he is grinding his teeth.
The MEEK will inherit the Earth, not the haughty or the troublemakers. Not those predisposed to acts of unkindness.
Thank God for that, I really want to live in a place free from ridiculers and those who mock others. Do you think they deserve to be there?
Do they really benefit the Planet or Society?
If everyone followed your example and ridiculed others or belittled someone else, I don't think it would be long before violence erupted. From that perspective I see no reason to put a whole lot of credence in what you believe. To follow you ridiculers is ruinous and leads to the destruction of civility.
Just because some one uses the term Cville doesn’t make them civil.
Just as someone who claims to be Christian, is a Christian
Some new foreign words for you ridiculers. Love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, FAITH, Humility, Humble, maybe your self governance that you all keep promoting in place of Christian teachings will teach you these things before the violence erupts.
Do you understand the concept, or did you miss that class?
May 7, 2009 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Resistance, you just keep proving my point. Taunting Christians was the title of this post and you end this chest-pounding, "my quotes are better then yours" contest with this.
Another very intriguing note from your ranting was this:Now, let's just say we all agree that there was a flood. No one has actually made that statement, so your suggestion anyone does not is an assumption, and this is to assume the worst, which is peculiar to hear coming from the loving faith you proclaim you have adopted. I will not assume anything. I only ask that you allow us to agree this is a fact and after The Flood, no one but Noah's family remained.
Here's the question:
How is it exactly that Z's predecessors, "Your" predecessors, are not also your predecessors. If Noah's family was all there was, they are our predecessors. If you do not share that lineage, where did your family originate? And why is it that you are inclined not to see Z as your brother, or at least your neighbor, exactly? I guess I missed the part in the new testament that talked about who was NOT my brother, brother. Just sayin'.
May 7, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really disagree with you, but it's looking more and more like open season on christians at this site.
May 6, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals: Christian season!
Conservatives: Muslim season!
Liberals: Christian season!
Conservatives: Muslim season!
Liberals: Muslim season!
Conservatives: Christian season! FIRE!!
May 6, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the good ole Looney Tunes reference. No thread on Christianity would be complete without it.
May 6, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only progressives could emulate the political savvy of Bugs Bunny... he is the penultimate guerilla warrior.
May 6, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That made me smile.
Good stuff.
May 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other Christians then the ones who would be offended by this post. What you may be doing is illustrating my point. By perpetuating the illusion that all people who refer to themselves as Christians are, agreed by everyone to actually be Christians, you assume all Christians ought to be offended. But my post is about a specific segment of people who refer to themselves as Christian and related to tactics that are not shared by other self-referring Christians and, therefore, those Other Chsitians are not offended. Another post, but perhaps a book might be titled, "Who are These Christians on the Right, Anyway, and Why do They Assume All Christians Agree With what They Call Christian?"
May 6, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think someone should do a study on where ministers are graduating from, what the turnaround is on confirmation into the ministry, and who is funding the education process. I would bet cash money that a lot of the Christian right is being cultivated at a young age by ministers who get their education, training and funding from right wing interest groups who use the tax free status of churches as a funnel.
May 6, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way in Heaven or on Earth that I would bet against that!
That would be a very valuable study.
What really disturbed me AFTER the 2004 election was an expose on CNN about how the Right had pulled into the parking lots of churches with interactive displays set up in freight containers so that the faithful could receive their propaganda, after being warmed up to the ideas from the pulpit. It was a very clear example of where Church and State were comingling, and a very clear example of why those churches should lose their tax exempt status. The politics promulgated from the pulpit is the worst form of politicking I can imagine. It would also be useful to have more exposure of how Hitler used Christianity to deliver his message we well, because he used the Lord's name over and over again to carry his message of hatred. Hitler referred to himself as a Christian. Was he?
May 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember any instance of hitler referencing himself as a christian, although, I can cite several instances in which the churches referenced hitler in order to promulgate their power and status. That they used each other is certainly true.
May 6, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with many of your points, what worries me is that on this site there have lately been quite a few posts taking potshots at christians. (not yours particularly) I don't assume anything, especially that all christians are easily offended, I'm merely pointing out that it is taking on the appearance of a pile on, which is something I've always thought offensive. JMO.
May 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not my intention to pile on, but I have wandered around the other posts today. I wonder why that spirit is in the air, the inclination to post about Christianity? My guess, if I was to attribute it to some metaphysical origin, might be that there are storms brewing out of sight that will emerge from the Christian Right in the near future. Nothing like an empty post on the Supreme Court to rile up the right in their fight against empathy.
What worries me is not that we challenge Christianity, but that we demand others to lose their faith in order to share our cause. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive, although I respect the rights of the Left to challenge Christians. There are good people among them that could use a hand to leave their dysfunctional congregations. We cannot reach and hold onto them with a fist.
May 6, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Churches do not pay taxes. So somebody thought, what better way to raise money for propaganda purposes?
I noted earlier this week that I had been watching Pat Robertson talking about how important it was for corporations to have 'tax havens' abroad. What the hell does that have to do with Jesus Christ?
May 6, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Churches are the fantasy world for Republicans who despise any and all taxes. It's the world of which they dream.
So, did you ever figure out what Jesus Christ has to do with 'tax havens' abroad?!? hahahahaha
May 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Render unto God what is God's and to Ceasar what is Ceasar's... unless Ceasar converts and then it is every man for himself and God against all.
May 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your work, Zipperpus.
May 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see one of the "Christians from the Right" try taunting a Dorothy Day or a Simone Weil.
May 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that! Those are two pretty intresting people of whom I was not aware. Yes, it would be a great debate.
May 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Bev points out, there is some piling on and insulting (as I found myself purposely doing yesterday though my intention was just to challenge the post’s premise). The problem is that “Christian” is such an amorphous term. The fact that their philosophy/ideology/dogma is based on faith in the Word (which must be interpreted) provides leverage for manipulation. For most Americans, Christian beliefs dictate their values and are sacrosanct. Christianity is the supreme authority and so it’s open to massive misuse. It is tied to a person’s faith, which is just that-faith, and tolerance of other people’s beliefs is in the DNA of America. All of this provides immunity to criticism.
But I think there are some things unique to the Christian Right as a political group. The Christian Right tries to define values (to distort them) so that it can push those buttons when needed. This comes in a secular guise mostly in the culture war, family values type of political arguments. It would never occur to most parents to ban To Kill a Mockingbird, Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, biology textbooks, and even Harry Potter in schools but if our Christian leaders say they’re the Devil’s work, who are we to question that?
Another factor that gives religious politics a leg up is the history of the church and the power of Christianity as an institution. The Christian Right began by exploiting Southern Baptists but we’ve seen the Catholic Church becoming more directly political in recent decades not to mention the new mega-churches. What other interest group has a ready-made base with such a huge and powerful infrastructure? Though, again, it is a minority that is radically right-wing.
The CR, like the NRA, a distant cousin, is as good at PR, propaganda and playing on fear as any interest group. At the omnipresent risk of offending some Christians, in many churches faith is inculcated through fear. It was when I was a child dragged from one church to another. Fear was realized through a vengeful God who’ll roast you in Hell for eternity if you didn’t worship Him (or just be “left behind” to suffer when Armageddon comes).
Most religions promise an afterlife to believers, which give meaning or purpose to life for most people and I don’t think that’s the same thing, but it can be open to abuse too (from “chosen ones” tribalism to suicide bombers). Many religious groups are more enlightened but they can’t counter the CR message politically.
Of course, many of the fears exploited by the CR are secular in nature (i.e. fears of job loss to immigrants or affirmative action). How else can large numbers of the largest institution in the country, one that promulgates Christian values of love, encourage harming doctors who perform abortions as a health service, promote wars or the death penalty, practice segregation more than the state does, or basically preach that “God Hates Fags”?
It is only some sects of Christians that take these positions but it is done in the name of Christianity, just as neocon policies have been carried out in the name of all Americans.
May 6, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know... a few bad apples, right?
To be honest and fair, I've met some truly wonderful, intelligent, honest, funny, GOOD people in my life... Some of them Christian, some of them Not. I try to take each person as they come...
But when one group of fundamentalist whack jobs are elected to office and they start spewing their ignorance on TeeVee and radio... and legislating regressive laws based on their brand of religion while forsaking all others... and doing it in the name of Christianity. Well... it's easy to see why there'd be a backlash against "Christians".
I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing a concerted effort by other Christians to denounce Fundamentalists. Seems to me that if Christians were so damned offended by the Fundies they'd have fought tooth and nail to make sure their Religion wasn't fu*ked over, right? But, they didn't. The perception (at least from where I sit) was rather akin to an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand hoping it would all go away... That may not be the reality, but it's my perception.
Perception is a powerful thing.
Perception... All too many of us Non-Christians, after a decade of being brow beaten by the Fundie Religious Right, find it easy to generalize based on perception...
Here's a great example from just the other day:
-----------
Pence: I’m Not ‘Anti-Science’…But I Don’t Believe In Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Or Evolution
Last month, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, which will “work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses.” Undermining the seriousness of the task force, the GOP announced that it was appointing climate change denier Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to the group.
Another member of the organization is Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). In a contentious debate with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews today, the third-ranking House Republican claimed that the science behind climate change is “mixed.” Pence did, however, admit that it is “fair” to question whether that makes him a discredited messenger on energy issues:
PENCE: Well let me tell you. I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming, Chris.
Q: Then why should your party believe you’re going to get serious about it, if you say the science is mixed?
PENCE: Yeah, it’s a fair question. But look. I’m all for clean air. I’m all for clean coal technology. I’m sure reducing CO2 emissions would be a positive thing.
“In the mainstream media, there is a denial of the growing skepticism in the scientific community on global warming,” Pence bellowed. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jan-rz7bPeM
It’s unclear what “growing skepticism” on man-made climate change Pence is seeing. But his anti-science tirade was just beginning. Pence then defended his party’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, falsely claiming there were alternatives that “obviated” the need for embryonic research. And when Matthews pressed Pence on whether he believes in evolution — an undeniable fact and the foundation of biology — Pence said he believes in creationism:
PENCE: Uh, do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Seas and all that’s in them. The means that he used to do that, I can’t say, but I do believe in that fundamental truth.
“Did you take biology in school?” asked an incredulous Matthews. “If your party wants to be credible on science, you gotta accept science. … I don’t think your party is passionately committed to science, or fighting global warming, or dealing with the scientific facts we live with.”
“Tell me what you really think, Chris,” Pence retorted. “This anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”
________
He's not gonna answer a simple question because he doesn't wanna piss off the Christian right...
So... Any Christian offended that his/her religion is being EXPLOITED and Destroyed for Political gain should be FIGHTING tooth and nail! EVERY TIME!!! NEVER let a single foul word be said in the name of your Religion without immediately denouncing it!
Otherwise, you allow the perception to continue... and your silence is tacit approval of "their" agenda.
May 7, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there's the taunt. With no foundation in reality, he suggests that Chris has a weak position...and there are those who do not question who think this is so.
Ickyma, thank you for bringing a challenge to the Left and the Center. It was not brought, to my perception, in a bully kind of a way. You did not demand people to respond to you, but to respond to the Right, to respond to the bullies. The problem may be, though, that the humility, peace, and love propositions are felt a barrier by Center and Left Christians to getting nasty with these nasty people. In the end, however, their faith, Christianity, is given a bad name by association, when, one might say, Christians are all the same and worship the same God. Frankly, the gods of the Left and the Right can hardly be the same, whether they say it is so or not is subject to debate. They said Chris Matthews had a weak argument too. Was that truthful? I propose that the gods of the Right and Left are not the same and it's intrusive for the Right to suggest otherwise to me because the tradition in which I was raised began 2,000 years ago and as far as I am concerned has never lost it, although with their tendency to move to the Right, the human organization has lost me.
May 7, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor you raised some issues earlier as did others
I understood from some of the posters in the past was that we as a Nation didn’t need the counsel from the scriptures. That I should quit referencing quotes from the writers such as Matthew, John or Paul, would it be acceptable to you, the self-appointed censor committee, of TPM , if I said Paul (Wellstone) or Matthew (Yglesias) , just not those Pauls or Matthews
The ridiculers have suggested this Nation would do just fine without the Bible, this and other Nations could find their own values.
You though questioned or attacked my rhetorical question about what class they learned any values at all, as evident in the coarsening of our Society . Evidently it is not as well taught, as you might believe. What secular schools teach those values I listed?
Some believe our Nation can set it’s own values, absent the Guidebook the Bible? Yeah right! Where have they been? How many more years and tears must mankind suffer under the illusion that mankind can do just fine without God. What form of Man governance, have we not tried?
Then you start your misinformation campaign about thumping one another “my BIBs better than yours, my quotes are better.
You know what? Yes my quotes are more superior, I’ll not shy away from defending the Sacred Holy Scriptures of the Bible, and especially knowing from what source the ridicule comes from. Usually it starts by attacking me personally, and then taking scriptures out of context. Then if I respond; they attack me for using verses, which support the viewpoint I am offering.
Cry and lament all they want, the TRUTH DOES SET US FREE, It sets us free from the failed ideologies of rebellion against the Sacred teachings.
As to the predecessor issue you raised, or thought you could lay a snare? Just because my predecessors whipped slaves doesn’t mean I believe in whipping slaves. But I suppose now you’ll find another excuse to come at me with ideas of Slaves? Did I leave another opportunity for another pass for the ridiculers? Trying to validate or justify their errors.
It is obvious you’ve found your soapbox, “Can’t we all just get along”
I say NO we are not going to get along. Either; you’re to blind to the reality; that the ungodly are not interested in getting along or you and your fellow ridiculers objective is the SUPPRESSION OF CHRISTIANITY.
When confronted by an adversary called Satan. Jesus responded to direct confrontation, when asked to compromise his faith. Jesus always replied, “Go away, Satan! For it is written.
Did you catch my earlier point about lack of knowledge? To put it another way; our Nation couldn’t say “FOR IT IS WRITTEN “ because our Nations majority of citizens DON’T KNOW WHAT’S WRITTEN?
How then do you confront a group of SO CALLED CHRISTIANS, twisting the scriptures, outright falsehoods, and apathetic people who don’t question the Christian Right and its claims of Righteousness?
As I wrote earlier the people have become unfamiliar with the writings, it is No longer a pillar of support to help the people fight off those intent in corrupting family values, or to keep in check those who misrepresent themselves as Christians.
SUPPRESSION A TOOL OF THE WICKED
When Nero was blamed for the fire that ravaged Rome, Nero scapegoated the already maligned Christians, precipitating a wave of violent persecution, trying to exterminate the Christians.
Faithful Christians were “objects of hatred” by the Romans for two basic reasons: (1) their Bible-based beliefs and practices, and (2) the false accusations against them.
The opposers had but one objective—the suppression of Christianity.
I am of the opinion most of our citizens are apathetic, instead of standing up to resist the ungodly, they make room for them, only to be corrupted by their influences and hatred. Instead the ridiculers as did Nero, looking for a scapegoat for all the ills of society, and in one sweeping move, go after the faithful along with the Imposter Christian Right.
So if you don’t mind, I've witnessed how slick and sly those seeking a softening of the message, because it is offensive to the wicked. They don’t like getting thumped by the words of truth.
May 7, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're definitely onto something here. I'd like to add a little clarity to the mix since I've been involved with debating these lunatics in the past. For the record, I used to do a little talk radio as the liberal foil to the local loudmouth asshat on the local Fox AM affiliate (Kim Wade WJNT 1180am). I started doing Wednesday shows, which were religious in nature (Jackson, MS). I was billed as "The Heathen" and I would debate "The Holy Man", another local with a penchant for religion who did the Wednesday gig. It made for some great "Heathen vrs. Holy Man" ads. LOL.
I didn't self censor at all. I may be the only living individual in Mississippi to have publicly declared that Jesus might have been gay, what with the running around with the 12 dudes in the desert and all.....
But I digress. The particular brand of Christianity which has taken control of the Republican party, and that which most of the hardcore fanatics adhere to, is Christian Reconstructionism aka Dominionism. They believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. From this core of American Taliban springs the bastion of anti-gay, anti-women, anti-progress, creationist (rebranded as intelligent design) blowhards. These people would literally return us to stoning adulterers and burning gays at the stake.
I've become much more expressive in my distaste for Christianity (and religion in general) because the so called 'moderate' Christians have allowed these lunatics to grab the stage. I have to agree with Sam Harris that, just like in Islam, the moderates of these major religions have been unwilling or unable to police their own. This leads me to the conclusion that they will need secular policing to a degree I wouldn't have though possible in my youth. We're already infiltrating the Mosques. I'd say it's about time the FBI started sitting in on some of these hardcore dominionists who pray and plot for a takeover of America not unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Enjoy.
May 12, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink