I am frequently amazed at what supposedly "liberal" and "tolerant" and "enlightened" people are willing to say, quite without shame, about conservative Christians. There is no group in America more frequently reviled, openly despised, and even outright lied about. In polite company. On television. In interviews. In movie scripts. It's simply astonishing.
It's also embarassing. I used to talk like that too. Until I, you know, made a couple of friends who were Fundamentalist Christians. (Mea Culpa, my friends. Mea Culpa.)
There is no group more frequently subject to fear or verbal attack in America. None. If you throw in their fellow Christians--the Catholics--they're America's favorite punching bag, bar none. (While in fairness some protestant groups take part in Catholic-bashing, most simply disagree with Catholics and are more interested in debating than bashing--like the folks at the wrongly-reviled Bob Jones University. Most of the bashing anymore seems to come from political commentators, Hollywood celebrities, journalists, and gay rights activists who equate saying "we believe that is sinful" to "we want you thrown into Concentration Camps.")
A man I am proud to call my friend--Fundamentalist (Gasp! YES!) Christian Randy Brandt--has written an excellent rant about bizarre attacks from the lead singer of Korn. After reading it I'm tempted to pitch the one Korn CD I own, but then it hit me:
If I did, someone would just call me a "book burner" and an "intolerant right-winger."
I am a christian in the depth of my soul. I keep to myself & walk a path different from others, keep my mouth shut-keep on walking in tender silence.
Dean, there's another word for it: anti-clericalism. You may find it familiar if you ever studied late-19th early-20th European history. Especially the French.
What is interesting (to my mind, in a twisted sort of way) is that in America it is directly almost soley against Christians.
I suppose I should bring up my own "orientation": agnostic. I have no use for some stone-age, bible-thumping goober who insists that "men didn't descend from apes!" (never mind that evolution didn't work remotely like that) and uses the Bible to persecute or demonize non-traditional types like homosexuals. On the other hand I have no use for some new-age, post-modernist atheist that defends his beliefs with the same certainty & fervor as a rabid Southern Baptist.
To say that belief in a Diety is totally & absolutely superstition is just as much a position of faith as that of the believer. The atheist constantly deals with faith, albeit in terms of denial. Or to quote an author I've mentioned to you before (H. Beam Piper; I know you'd like him; you love history, and Piper even granted Jerry Pournelle rights to write in his "world" before he died): "a true skeptic refuses to believe or deny without proof." (emphasis added)
Point being that the "Skeptics" cum "Rationalists" in the West are almost totally oriented against Christianity. When's the last time you heard "skeptics" inveigh against Muslims or Jews? When's the last time you heard these self-styled "rationalists" speak of Buddists or Hindus as ignorant or superstitious? Nope, they reserve their venom almost soley for Christians.
In an odd way, this reflects back on the recent "flag pledge controversy". I find that topic very overblown & mostly an example of a judiciary that is too vainglorious & stupid to throw the case out of court because they couldn't resist yet one more temptation at Constitutional Review Fame. But what most of the "anti-pledge" crowd (including the self-professed atheist that filed the case on behalf of a daughter [did you know this?] from whom he is separated and who goes to Bible school every Sunday) seem to forget is that while many of the Founding Fathers might have been non-denominational, or even Deist (Washington is an excellent example), they still were deeply religious men, for the most part.
I was going to close with: why don't these boneheads just admit that they don't like Christians and have done with it? After phrasing the question, the answer seems self-evident: that would reveal them as bigoted and hateful as the worst of those they claim to despise.
Dean -- We disagree on so much, but I'm totally with you on this one. It's an oft-noted irony, but this is a paradigmatic case of people being intolerant of one group because they believe that group is intolerant. Not that fundamentalist Christians ARE particularly tolerant, but they're not the ones claiming how accepting of diversity they are (as many people who "bash" them do).
I think this all just underscores the powerful need for prejudice is in human nature.
I have known a number of evangelical Christians who are, in fact, among the most tolerant and respectful and just plain decent human beings I've ever met.
Tolerance is, in fact, such a deep part of the evangelical tradition that I honestly believe that America's own tradition of tolerance springs directly from that branch of Christianity--although countless people who claim to love tolerance would recoil in horror at the suggestion.
One need only look to the history of the Wesleyan movement, or the Quakers, for perfect examples of this. We might also remind ourselves, as is so often forgotten, that the man who wrote the first draft of the 1st amendment, a passionate believer in religious freedom, was in fact a rock-ribbed, Jerry Falwell-style Baptist named James Madison.
Dean,
I believe the tradition you mention is an American one. The first amendment was added over the objections of others who believed all our first amendment freedoms were already contained in the Constitution proper.
I for one, am glad the founding fathers added it. The secular nature of this amendment allows for people to practice religion, free speech, etc. as they see fit. This looks more typically American every day in light of current events.
I do not want to live the turmoil suffered in other parts of the world today. More wars were suffered in the name of religion than for any other reason I can think of.
Respectfully,
KevinB
"More wars were suffered in the name of religion than for any other reason I can think of. "
You know, I've heard people say this. I've even said it myself.
But the more I learn about history, the more I realize that this highly questionable. Most wars have been wars of conquest.
Furthermore, just look at the issue of repression: the 20th Century saw the rise of anti-religious fanaticism. Nazi Germany had the highest imaginable wall of separation between Church and State. So did Soviet Russia. So has China since Mao. Cambodia under Pol Pot. Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.
Indeed, if you look at the bloody history of the 20th century, and simply add up the Nazi and Communist body counts, you get about 120 million slaughtered, not even counting those killed as wartime combatants.
It would seem to me that the great lesson of the 20th Century is that rabid secularism is even more dangerous than religious extremism.
This is daytime talk show fodder! "Agnostics Who Defend Christians, and The Theists Who Love Them," or something like that. Seriously, this sort of dialogue is precisely what is needed in America, but so rarely occurs.
I'm an evangelical Christian (right wing politically, defenseman in hockey), but I think Dean would verbally assault anyone who accused me of being a moronically narrow-minded inbred Bible-belt redneck Neanderthal (he knows I've never lived in the Bible belt).
Agreeing to disagree seems to be a lost art in many circles; even rarer is the art of friendly debate in which positions are defended and assaulted in a reasonable fashion prior to the agreement to disagree. Refusal to dialogue is just as damaging as mindless cliched shouting over the barriers. I'm thankful to those, such as Dean, who provide forums for dialogue in which all participants can feel comfortable.
That said, don't get the idea that I'm a wishy-washy neo-orthodox or postmodern evangelical. I have firm opinions that I enjoy discussing, but I won't condemn anyone for who they are--black Jewish lesbian ACLU lawyers working for PETA who moonlight as Marilyn Manson roadies have the right to express their views, and I wouldn't mind chatting with them. Sometimes people forget that Jesus Christ took a lot of abuse for spending time socializing with prostitutes, tax-collectors and other outcasts of his society.
I was going to respond to Kevin's "wars...in the name of religion" comment, but Dean covered that pretty well. I don't deny that there have been many idiots who have used Christianity (or other religions) as a rationale for their misdeeds, but one can't judge any belief system by its abuse. In other words, you can't condemn Christianity because some despot claims to be a Christian while acting in a manner diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. A good example is the godhatesfags.com bozo, Fred Phelps. If half the stories from his children are true, the guy is a raving psychopath (I guess that was obvious anyway), and he has no clue about Biblical Christianity. Still, there are those who would like to think he's somehow representative of Christian thought.
I didn't mean to get quite so wordy. Sorry.
Very well put Misters Esmay & Brandt! Gosh, I hope I'm not struck by lightening for agreeing with you Dean!
BTW - Woohoo Hockey rocks!!
Rosemary, Dean has never formally introduced us, but he did send me a picture once. Nice to virtually meet you!
Sounds like you appreciate my sport. The really good news is that my new 40 and Over hockey team has 8 wins after 9 games. I'll let you know if we win in the playoffs starting Aug 17. It's a blast playing in a league where I get to be a young guy at 41!
Nice to virtually meet you too! Yes, I really appreciate your sport. I am an avid hockey fan or perhaps I should say rabid...
Nothing wrong with old guys playing hockey - look at my beloved Red Wings their average age is like 35. Look at what those old dudes did!!! Champions AGAIN!! Keep us posted on the playoffs!!!!
GO WINGS!!!!!!
Randy,
Dean sent you a picture once? Gosh, don't hold it against me - I don't photograph well at all...
I'm much better looking than any picture I've ever had taken & thinner too!
The best evidence that I'm open-minded is that I'm willing to be civil to a Red Wings fan! This is Avalanche country, where aging granola-munching Clintonistas from Boulder and gun-loving farmers from the plains unite to oppose the Red Menace from Detroit.
I respect the Wings' ability, consider Steve Yzerman one of the all-time greats, and once attended a Red Wings vs St. Louis game with the guys from Quality Computers, back when Dean and I were Apple ][ legends in our own minds.
Don't worry about the picture--I didn't keep it, and besides, all brides are beautiful!
Here's the most current one of me with my lovely teenage daughters:
Click Here.
Interesting discussion :)
Red Menace, huh? The word menace conjures up only one hockey image: Claude Lemieux. You all are well rid of him...
I think a more appropriate term would be Almighty Red Wings, Red Kings of the Ice or something like that... ;-)
BTW, I saw your picture. Your daughters are really beautiful. Good Job!
The secret to having beautiful daughters? Get the right wife, then keep the kids locked in the basement for 21 years.
Rosemary,
Since this has degenerated into a personal chat, check out Heather's art. Here's my favorite:
http://www.jemsoftware.com/heather/ninth/image.cgi?contemplation
Since you mentioned my alma mater BJU, I thought I might also mention my favorite hockey team. GOOOOOO PENGUINS!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, but I may be a more liberal minded Christian (though in recent times, I've found homosexuality is the only thing that I'm 'liberal' about as such) but bashing in the Christian Church is disgusting. I particularly loathe it when liberals accuse fundamentalists of being uneducated bigots etc. Not all so-called liberals are like that, however, so there is some hope, obviously.
Tremendously worded, keep up the tremendou work