dheddle
Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2011,13:07) | | Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,18:35) | [SNIP]
None of those you mentioned (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Phelps [really, Phelps?]) are representatives of the Christian community. In fact--as far as evangelical Protestants are concerned there is no such position. We have no pope or archbishop of Canterbury. If the media are going to those you mention for official Christian reaction—then they are going to blatherers without poprtfolio.
And exactly how are we supposed to scream and holler? Why don’t you sneak into a garden-variety evangelical church after one of these incidents? See if the pastor denounces the incident from the pulpit, or see if he rubs his hands together and tells the flock: remember to *pretend* to be horrified!.
If you actually ask someone who is influential in the evangelical Christian community—you might consider someone like John Piper. He has enormous influence—infinitely more than Sarah Palin or James Dobson . Do the media go to Piper (who, while being pro-life has in no uncertain terms condemned such violence?) No, they go to people like Palin or especially someone who might make an outrageous statement. And even so I suspect both Palin and Dobson, two of the worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine, would both denounce the violence.
There is probably a similar problem in the Muslim world. Going to an everyday Muslim and hearing him denounce terrorism is not going to get you picked up by the networks. |
Sorry, those people are not christians and do not tout themselves AS christians serving a (supposedly) christian agenda? Erm, I think they do, as even a cursory look at their outpourings will tell you.
Whether or not they are Troo Christianz ™ by the Heddle Standard is utterly irrelevant, they present themselves as such and doubtless would claim their doctrinal interpretations as superior to yours, just as you claim yours superior to theirs. I KNOW from endless iterations of this aspect of our online conversations you do not understand this. I KNOW you consider your specific narrow sect of christianity to be the "right" one, but then so do they, and so do the whackos we all despise (like Phelps and chums). It isn't a trivial question or red herring to be waved away as you usually do, and it isn't one amenable to the usual arse achingly dull and interminable biblical exegesis you and your co-religionists subject their interlocutors to. It's an epistmological question and one frequently (but I admit not exclusively) dodged by everyone from backwoods rube to "sophisticated theologian". The question of HOW you claim to know what you claim to know about your religion is a significant problem for you. Anyyyyyyyway, I digress. My point is you cannot honestly (as if that has ever worried you on this issue) hand wave away the problems with declaring people non-christian.
You and I both doubt the pastors of any church (maybe that should be the vast majority of churches for nits to pick) are saying "pretend to be horrifed". Not only do I genuinely believe most people do not share the attitudes of the extremists, even if they did, such things would be unnecessary. Tacit racism and sexism persist merrily in societies (even the Holy Liberal Lands of Europe ;-) ) without needing to be explicitly stated in official fora. If such attitudes were prevalent (and I need to make no claim that they are, I don't think they are), they hardly rely on the sort of naive caricature you have painted.
The comment you make about the Dobson/Palins* and their muslim counterparts misses my point. Your excuse is "it's not good TV to go to the non-frothing moderate"? Really? Read above, Heddle. If it is, as you say (and I'd agree), that the majority of folks are moderate religionists, then these are the people populating the news networks, internet and papers. They can, to some extent, set the agenda. The USA does not lack moderate christian millionaires, go for the American dream and set up a moderate newspaper etc. This is not what's getting done, the hysteria gets worse (and like the darling little poodles we are, the UK is emulating it, trust me, it's fun here too!) and the rhetoric descends ever gutterward in the classic race to the bottom. You do not belong to a persecuted minority, you hold the reins of power, use them. You cannot at once be the silent majority and a powerless victim.
Louis
*When did you fall out of love with La Palin? You were voting for her last time we spoke on the subject. |
Whatever they tout themselves as is beyond my control. And I didn’t say they weren’t True Christians so why go that route? You cautioned about my doing something below my standards—your heading down the tiresome path of claiming or hinting that I am saying who is or is not a true Christian is below yours. I have no reason to doubt that Palin is sincere in her Christianity. That doesn’t mean she is my—or anyone else's—representative. If you must assign us a representative, why not one who actually appears to have influence on Christianity, not politics? When I go to on-campus Christian student activities, they are talking about people like John Piper or Mark Driscoll. They are not talking about Sarah Palin, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
It is no different from asking: is PZ Myers atheism’s spokesman? I suspect a great many garden-variety atheists would say either “PZ who?” or “No, he is not my spokesman.” But who do you think the media would ask, hoping for a good sound bite, should the occasion arise? PZ or the atheist in the street?
Some atheists in our distorted internet circles are stating rather loudly that raising children in a Christian home is a form of child abuse, and it is not even a surprise to find a comment here and there suggesting that such children should be removed. I would like to think that the silent majority of atheists do not agree. But they aren’t saying much—should I take their silence as tacit approval?
As for Palin even when I supported her I would not have considered her as a Christian representative. But even so, again, I trust she would, if asked, denounce the murdering of an abortion doctor or the bombing of a clinic. (And since you asked: my support for Palin evaporated when she quit her job. I have already decided that I have voted for the last time. Politics is too depressing.)
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
