Theocracy: The Threat is Real!

[revtj]

Friends, I am posting this link to a website discussing the ideas of R. J. Rushdoony and theocracy. He was immensely popular when I was a student at Covenant College 1977-80 and so-named Reconstructionist Christianity has exploded since then. While the pseudo-rationalism makes it appealing to a lot of people, it's pretty transparent to the rest of us: these people want the blood of their enemies, and their enemies are many.

I meet & talk to a lot of people who don't think theocracy poses any real threat to American democracy. Please feel free to share this link with anyone you know.

Interested in your responses...:pray:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/19/132922/991

[Daniel]

Revtj,

Thanks for the link.

Your post reminded me of when I was in school at Evangel ('77-'81) and Ronald Reagan was elected. There was the feeling then that God himself was being sent to Washington and the country was now on the way to being Christianized. It wasn't merely the defeat of Democracts that was the issue. Curiously, this was at the same time when Pat Robertson, the Bakkers, and others were becoming a cultural phenomina- preaching that the sure sign of God's blessings had everything to do with material abundance. I believe this powerful nexus of religion and money has had serious consequences. As I see it, those preaching the salvation of Theocracy simply want to cash in.

[Zerbie]

These people scare/used to scare, the crap outta me. What's so frightening is that there have been maneuvres made to get into a position where these theocratic types have institutional power. Like the 'We the People Act." My memory is hazy & I might describe it inaccurately, so if ya don't know it, just google. Basically it's part of seizing doctrinal control over the judicial system.

Sometimes I have nightmares that these folks might get into power & do the devil knows what. When I express that concern, hubby trots out his own fave argument which is that the corporate right wing is going to smack the theocrats right outta the wading pool as soon as they can afford to do so. Sorta like what Daniel said, and going one further, it's the money that's really going to win the power. Big business, not the theocrats.

[Lydia]

Sometimes I have nightmares that these folks might get into power & do the devil knows what.

They might set up another Republic of Gilead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Gilead).

[revtj]

Daniel, me too! I was a product of the Reagan Revolution. I voted for Carter because (in part) he was a born-again christian. I always thought Reagan was a puppet. I despised him the whole time he was in office (and for good reason!) Yet, I told a friend of mine the other night, wish I could dig him up & put him back in DC! Never, never in a million years did I ever think it could be worse than Reagan. Even the clothes in fashion with Bush make me wanna puke; Reagan made a change for 'nice' fashion! :confused:

Zerbie, a lot of people have used the same argument with me that your hubby is using. I want to believe it's true but I keep thinking what if things turn out differently for THEM (i.e. the money-power whores using the religious Reich) the way things have turned out differently for all the rest of us?

Lydia, now I'm gonna rent that movie. Sounds like my idea of a horror flick. :rolleyes:

If it weren't for a prayer life & 2 cats, I'd be upset over these creeps trying to ruin democracy! :o

[awediot]

I wouldn't worry all that much about Christians taking over. Backlash and liberal revolution are in the air and seeping into the blood of even traditional conservatives. The blasphemous credit the Bush juggernaut gives to his god in the name of Christ to justify his war and its inhumane fallout, have dealt simple Christians a fatal blow. This, today, will be seen as their heyday and they will never be forgiven for it. The anger, fear, resolve and hope you feel were placed there intentionally to destroy Christianity, nationalism and American patriotism in particular, as they are the last substantial roadblocks to Globalism... So don't fear, you are guaranteed to win... Even their own Prophecy describes its adherents demise. The world is destined to be yours...

[NonLemming]

I wouldn't worry all that much about Christians taking over. Backlash and liberal revolution are in the air and seeping into the blood of even traditional conservatives. The blasphemous credit the Bush juggernaut gives to his god in the name of Christ to justify his war and its inhumane fallout, have dealt simple Christians a fatal blow. This, today, will be seen as their heyday and they will never be forgiven for it. The anger, fear, resolve and hope you feel were placed there intentionally to destroy Christianity, nationalism and American patriotism in particular, as they are the last substantial roadblocks to Globalism... So don't fear, you are guaranteed to win... Even their own Prophecy describes its adherents demise. The world is destined to be yours...

And thank God for that. The religious knuckleheads "have" given religion a bad name, even though most free thinkers acknowledge that there are many sensible religious people around. I love learning about the many faiths I don't belong to, and only really resent them when they step on the human
rights of others who think differently. As a very intelligent slogan goes, "Your religion stops where my rights begin." So the many faiths of the world need to rein in their zealots, tell them they are giving their faith a bad name, and then tend to their gardens and let others likewise tend to theirs.

[revtj]

Visibility is not acceptance. We are not winning anything, even if, as you say, the right is losing. The laws are still stacked against us and they are writing new ones to pass even as I type.

Assimilation will not protect anyone. To simply politely demand to have what they have is a shortsighted goal. To envy wealth, power, money and prestige is all too American, but achieving these things has never eliminated the slightest bit of prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, or malevolent motives against others. It can't do that: material things and social status are elusive and come with no guarantees for anything, least of all life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To ignore the religious Reich because you have a theory that they will fail is equally shortsighted and it will not protect you or anyone else. It sounds more like an excuse to do nothing.

To assume you will always have the privilege you have now, because it is only fair and just that you have it, is to totally misunderstand the religious Reich and what they want. If you read the post by the link, they want us dead because God said so. They can lose and still achieve that goal.

<KERSPLASH! COLD WATER ON YOUR LUKEWARM PASSION<

[Emproph]

The world is destined to be yours...Aren't you coming with?
----------
(I posted part of this at Ex-Gay Watch in response to a comment, just in case you happen upon it. It’s more appropriate in this thread though.)

The problem with the theocratic right is that their ultimate “truth” is based on exclusivity, which is exclusively subjective. ‘My religion is the only correct one,’ ‘my interpretation of my religion is the only correct one,’ etc. It shows up best in the creationism / evolution “debate.”

The truth of science, logic, as in methodological standards or ‘methods of logic,’ is universal and is meant to be applicable by and to everyone. Once the assumption of creation can be seen as being on equal footing with evolution, biology etc., then you’re one significant step closer to undermining the very need for logic in the discovery of truth.

Since they don’t have any truth to dis-cover because they already have it all in the inerrant Bible, they must establish truth in order to "prove" it. Their concept of truth itself is inherently flawed because you could never universally prove exclusivity. Any “ultimate” or “only” truth that is based on exclusivity would by definition exclude at least some from knowing it.

The only way they can prove it is by forcing the outside world around them to conform to their delusions. Once they see everything that they think is "wrong" made illegal, they can say “see, I have been proven right, my outside world reflects what I knew to be true.”

The problem is, even if they were to establish a theocracy, it’s going to be the most insanely radical minority among even them making and enforcing those laws. (As in those who want to bring back public stonings. -I believe Rushdoony ascribes to this.)

That’s why they use junk science, especially when it comes to the gay/ex-gay issue, so as to appear legitimate. “No it’s not just because the Bible says so, I have scientific studies and statistics to back up my claims (even though I don’t believe in science).”

The ends justifies the means is their mantra.

The Intelligent Design “debate” is the most striking example of their tactics and indicative of their motives. If you can get people to debate whether to teach something as science before it’s even been determined to be science, you’ve already redefined intelligence.

I agree with awediot, I don’t think it’ll happen, but they ain’t goin’ down without a fight.

Now had they started this effort with the ID vs evolution “debate,” (before ERA, abortion, gay rights etc.), then we’d probably be screwed.

I think it’s rather telling that they didn’t though, or at least didn't start with it sooner... Intelligence is the ability to recognize the ORDER of importance.

[awediot]

revtj,
You vastly underestimate what I want, what I do to achieve it and who I think can realistically give it to me. I have always been amazed at the struggle to be accepted by a society that is sick anyway. Big gain that is. At best we will be invited aboard a sinking ship... My focus is upon repairing it so there's something left to climb back on... In all honesty the gay focus is a bit narrow for me.
My theoretical predictions are based on logical observation, growing mindsets and historical patterns that repeat, not assumption, faith or way to rationalize my laziness. The religious Reich are being exaggerated as a distracting enemy that most in this country take as a joke. It is this view that will defeat them, that is also doing so as we speak. Not us.
My passion for justice is toasty and water resistant enough. It is just not always the same as yours.

[Emproph]

As a very intelligent slogan goes, "Your religion stops where my rights begin." May our karma run over their dogma

[suzer1013]

I'm with RevTJ on this one. While part of me would like to believe these people are so extreme that they will be taken as a joke, another part of me remembers Nazi Germany, and how people who never thought Hitler could come to power were proven so thoroughly wrong. I've read some articles claiming that Dubya has ties to these people, and from what I've read, there are some of these folks (not many at this point, but enough to concern me) who are placed in fairly high positions in our government. All it will take is another 9/11 -- which is fairly certain to happen at some point -- to put their plans into effect.

I don't mean to sound paranoid. Some of you may think I am and dismiss my concerns. A bit of news that passed quietly in the media at the end of January was that the government has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to a Halliburton (surprise!) subsidiary to build "immigrant detention camps." The "reasoning" for this was "in case there is a large influx of immigrants" for some reason. Hmmmmm. When pressed, officials also said that such "camps" might be used in the event of a national emergency to house people -- like a Hurricane Katrina scenario. Hmmmmm. It doesn't take much for me to equate "immigrant detention camps" with "concentration camp." Call me crazy, but I think this is scary.

The closing of military bases also concerned me, as they would make perfect "detention camps" given the right political climate.

I know, I know -- it all sounds far fetched. But I don't discount that Nazi Germany could happen again. Elect (or fix the voting machines for) the wrong leader, and the Christian Dominionists will have the dominos lined up to fall in just the pattern they want them to.

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you with my conspiracy theories. I don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but I also don't want to overlook the signs that could lead our country down a dangerous path, either. :(

Susan

[revtj]

I have to agree with Susan and I know that all reading this thread are equally concerned about achieving the same goal of equality under the law and equal human rights for all people.

I totally understand why some feel the religious Reich are a joke, being used, and will ultimately fail.

But Suzer hits it right on that the whole system is in jeopardy right now because no one is in control (I think it's very apt to call it an intelligence failure!)

One more natural disaster or terrorist attack and we would be distracted and possibly economically drowning. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was president when it happens. The existing laws already on the books set us up to be the scapegoats along with immigrants and probably a few others.

My point is that without equality under the law we are vulnerable, more vulnerable than privileged groups. With the entire nation in such a state of vulnerability, we cannot afford to dismiss fringe lunatics who think God hates gays and they should be executed.

If I'm wrong, only better results will be seen. But if I'm correct then I have to say "WAKE UP!" to all my beloved brothers & sisters who think this is just a little phase America is going through and it's going to be over soon. Anne Frank thought exactly the same thing about Nazism.

So I write this in peace, out of love, in expectation of oppressed people coming together -- not allowing them to divide us & conquer -- to speak out and take the religious Reich's threat seriously. :pray:

[keltic63]

OK, I'll try to keep from getting all artsy on you, but a few days ago I pm'd this to a friend; art imitates life and all that. This thread reminds me once again that we need to have a scapegoat, and the following lyrics talk about it nicely.

No, of course what really matters
Is the blame,
Somebody to blame.
Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy,
Placing the blame,
If that's the aim,
Give me the blame-


and goes on to say:

You're so nice.
You're not good,
You're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good,
I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the Witch.
You're the world.

I'm the hitch.
I'm what no one believes,
I'm the Witch.
You're all liars and theives,
Like his father,
Like his son will be, too-
Oh, why bother?
You'll just do what you do.


Let's face it, they're gearing up for a presidential election. Someone has to take the blame for all the problems. Homosexuals and immigrants make good scapegoats.

[Daniel]

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you with my conspiracy theories. I don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but I also don't want to overlook the signs that could lead our country down a dangerous path, either.

Attributed to Richard Nixon:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I'm with RevTJI've read some articles claiming that Dubya has ties to these people, and from what I've read, there are some of these folks (not many at this point, but enough to concern me) who are placed in fairly high positions in our government.

A bit of news that passed quietly in the media at the end of January was that the government has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to a Halliburton (surprise!) subsidiary to build "immigrant detention camps."

Susan- could you point out where you found this info?

[revtj]

Keltic!

It's Sondheim! From "Into the Woods," which is like a piece of divine revelation that needs to be added to the canon to me!

The witch's role was played by Bernadette Peters on B'way and that's the recording I have.

I love so much from that show!!!

And the ending : "...And happy ever after...I wish!" :love:

TJ

[keltic63]

Keltic!

It's Sondheim! From "Into the Woods," which is like a piece of divine revelation that needs to be added to the canon to me!

The witch's role was played by Bernadette Peters on B'way and that's the recording I have.

I love so much from that show!!!

And the ending : "...And happy ever after...I wish!" :love:

TJ

yes, it's one of my favorites! careful the tale you tell, that is the spell...

there is much to be learned from that show.

[suzer1013]

Daniel...

Forgive a quick posting. It's a busy day at work, and my partner and I are getting ready to go away for a long weekend, so I can't expound too much right now. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I'm pasting a bunch of links below that discuss the subjects at hand. I gathered these just from a quick Google search. There's certainly more info. out there than what is presented here. To be sure, some of these websites are more biased than others. I try to take everything with a grain of salt, but I also believe there is a basis in truth for the concerns about Christian Nationalism/Dominionism.

I think it was on Salon.com where I read about some of the folks in government who have Dominionist ties. The thing is, these folks are generally NOT going to state outright that they believe in Christian Nationalism, but they often are funded by these extremist groups and their agenda is often kept cloaked. One good example is the former Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama judge whose crusade is is now to get the Ten Commandments in our courthouses. While it's easy to dismiss Moore as a fringe element, he was a judge in our court system, and he's now got a following. And, of course, there's Tom DeLay, who has been linked with Christian Nationalism, and I think there's questions about John Ashcroft, too.

Anyway, again -- I'm no expert. But what I've read gives me enough of an uncomfortable feeling to be concerned about these folks. Unfortunately, they exert their influence in our government -- through lobbying, running for congressional seats (even if they don't get elected, they often get their message out there), funding the campaigns of the most conservative candidates. Their influence may seem minor right now, and I sure hope it stays that way. I'd love to live my life out and be proved wrong about my paranoia regarding this. At times, these folks are laughable, but I'd also hate to ignore them and have them laughing us all the way to the "immigrant detention camps."

I found out about the immigrant detention camps in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, of all places, and there's more commentary you can find if you Google it.


http://buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html

http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2006/04/internment_camp.html

http://www.peacenowar.net/newpeace/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-27.htm



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-goldberg/what-is-christian-nationa_b_20989.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/gov_tom_delay.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html

[suzer1013]

LOVED Into The Woods, by the way. Got to see it on B'way, but not with Bernadette. :'( I saw Phylicia Rashad, who actually did a pretty good job. I also went to school with Danielle Ferland (who played Little Red Riding Hood) when I was in drama school -- she was a year behind me, and though I didn't know her very well, she seemed very nice. I probably should have kissed up to her to try to meet Stephen Sondheim!

(ok, ok -- no snarky comments about why in the world would a lesbian need to go to drama school! I've heard 'em all! LOL! :lol: )

Susan :D

[awediot]

HHmmm... I'm all for paranoia and conspiracy theory these days. There is plenty of evidence that this administration did more than take advantage of an opportunity.

If you really think that Nazis and Christians share the same Demonic nature of blood lust, you are too far gone for this post to change anything and you may as well go discuss Queer as Folk. They got you where they want you and you're ahead of your time.

Christianity warns of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" government conquering the planet. This Prophecy would be a great pain in the ass for such a system. What better smokescreen than to hijack the source of the warning itself and make it appear that it was the thing itself? Dominionism is real, but it ain't coming from Christians... We were told the men who will do this are False Prophets and anti-Christs and they will wreak havoc posing as angels of light and claiming to act on God's will specifically in order to destroy Christianity... Sound familiar? Their success blazes on the horizon... Mere Christians are increasingly despised and soon will be blamed for the the very existence of negativity itself... and you worry they will win? :lol: ...I have underestimated the hatred and fear of what passes and poses for Christianity on this board, and overestimated the ability to see through it. The differentiation between Neo-Cons, fundamentals and simple believers is superficial, and the pain some of their poorly chosen words has caused is milked to the fullest...The real enemy remains well covered and we thrive and obsess on being such important targets... Now back to the musicals...

...diggin' the pissed a bit much today...

[keltic63]

Now back to the musicals...

sorry to relate art and life. I guess it's better to be a pragmatist. :mad:

[awediot]

Time and a place my friend... any other thoughts?

[keltic63]

Time and a place my friend... any other thoughts?

bike racks. 3:30

[Zerbie]

I don't understand. ??:confused:

Awediot - do you think everyone on this board thinks ALL Christians are reconstructionist/Dominionist types in favor of detention camps???? :confused:

We're only talking about those who SAY they are, or whose actions STRONGLY suggest that they are. And if someone is that deeply entrenched in cruelty and viciousness, then IS that person really a Christian?

I can tell you're a bit angry & don't want to anger you further, but I couldn't understand the nature of your complaint. :confused:

[suzer1013]

Awediot -- Laugh at me if you want to -- you don't have to believe any of it and, as I said, I do try to take it all with a grain of salt.

I do not lump together Christians with Nazis -- I am talking about a specific group of people who claim to be acting for Christianity and the Bible. Call Dominionists, Christian Nationalists, extreme fringe right -- whatever.

If you don't believe it's a threat -- fine, you don't have to. I just think it's an interesting topic, and I think there is reason to be concerned about these groups. You don't have to insult me to get your point across that you think it's a bunch of malarky.

Susan

[awediot]

bike racks. 3:30

I'll be there big boy. And wear that bad ass drag king outfit.

Zerbie, I rarely see Christianity portrayed positively here, unless it is the watered down, liberally enlightened version that believes we're all perfectly lovable, Heaven bound, above judgment little innocent lumps of chewy godness. Whole books are dissolved and Christ-consciousness is worn proudly in the face of explicit, dire warnings that we will do just that. Huge elements of God's judgment, requirements, and consequences of rejection are off handedly dismissed in the name of knowing what the Bible really was saying and no one ever points it out.

[awediot]

If I'm wrong, only better results will be seen. But if I'm correct then I have to say "WAKE UP!" to all my beloved brothers & sisters who think this is just a little phase America is going through and it's going to be over soon. Anne Frank thought exactly the same thing about Nazism.

Suzer, the parallel has been made here before. Sorry if my own swept you up with out foundation. The guilt by association rubs off in all sorts of directions after awhile...

[keltic63]

I'm not sure how the insults add to the discussion. *click*

I tried to respond with humor. I guess I just don't get it.

[revtj]

Awe,

You lost me, but that's OK...if I am completely wrong in my assessment of theocracy's threat, that would only make me happy and give me more time to focus on important things like works of art like Sondheim's! :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I stick by my assertion & I hope everyone will check out Susan's links. The fact that so-called christian nationalists are/& have been in high places of government reminds me of the saying, "If you lie with the dogs, you wake up with fleas."

Now that they are there, there's no turning back. The potential damage they can do is not a fantasy. They do not have to win control of the entire government to set up new systems of inequality, oppression & bias. :(

OK, 'nuff said!

tj

[awediot]

keltic,
You may have hit on why more newbies don't post more. The gentleness and mutual admiration society quality here can tend to quash even respectful disagreements. Important topics often quickly get dropped, ignored, sidetracked or clogged with redundant, masturbatory back patting. The preference to lighten up overwhelms long before the substance of most topics even gets touched on... and the decisive 'spirituality' over mean, old religion is a given and a taboo subject.

I've got a pretty good, weird and irreverent sense of humor, and willingness to make light. But enoughs enough sometimes.

[awediot]

...so-called Christian

Thank you! That little hyphenated word makes a world of difference that is rarely made clear around here. The assumption of distinction, guaranteed, eludes more than me... Is it Christians, or the so-called, that present the enemy, and do we ourselves bother to make the distinction even in our own head before we pounce? ...I see a heated, overdue thread in the near future.

[revtj]

Awe,

There are not 2 christians on earth who interpret every word of the bible exactly the same. Interesting, the early church didn't need all 52 books of the canon to live in loving community together as Christ taught them.

I don't claim to separate the sheep from the goats but I do know that Jesus said not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." is a christian. He went on to explain that when we fed the poor, clothed the naked, housed the homeless, etc., and did it unto the 'least of these', we were doing it unto him.

So I do think that a christianity that has a water-tight theological/bible-based dogma but leads to hating our neighbor is worthy of being held suspect as 'not christian, or 'so-called christian.'

As for God's judgement, it is God's not mine OR YOURS. And it is clear that God's judgement will be/is directly related to how we lived in love and charity with our neighbor, including the neighbor we are tempted to reject.

Jesus also made it clear that we would be judged by the same standard with which we judge...so I'm definitely for what you see as liberal, watered-down judgement. :rainbow:

Now, awe, how can I serve you? How can we better live in love & charity together? :confused:

[NonLemming]

I'm not sure how the insults add to the discussion. *click*

I tried to respond with humor. I guess I just don't get it.

Keltic, glad to know that option is here. How do I *click* such jerks on this site? Difference of opinion is great with me, it's when I learn, but some just take up too much space. Thanks.

[awediot]

Rev, feel free to abbreviate, but the -diot part is more important some times...
(... agreed. ) It just pains me to see the politicizing of Christianity result in such irreparable, unquestioned damage, and such a willingness to condemn it lock, stock and barrel... And its only just beginning...

As for God's judgment, it is God's not mine OR YOURS. And it is clear that God's judgment will be/is directly related to how we lived in love and charity with our neighbor, including the neighbor we are tempted to reject.

There seems a constantly missed distinction between judging each others actions, which is simple discernment and ability to tell right from wrong, and saying so, and judging each others Souls, which I happily leave to God... Also, it is clearly stated we can do nothing to earn salvation. It is freely given by grace and won by Christs sacrifice... Certainly good works are to be expected and are our duty, but they alone don't pave the way anywhere... (Please don't make me look up the numerous scriptures stating this. You know them probably better than I.)
"Jesus also made it clear that we would be judged by the same standard with which we judge...so I'm definitely for what you see as liberal, watered-down judgment."

I welcome my level of "judgment" turned on me. I do so everyday.

Serve me? Thanks... I AM bouncing back and forth doing yard work, so you'd be more than welcome to come give a hand with that. :D

[NonLemming]

Keltic, glad to know that option is here. How do I *click* such jerks on this site? Difference of opinion is great with me, it's when I learn, but some just take up too much space. Thanks.


Found it, nevermind. thanks, anyway.

[awediot]

http://www.1000smilies.com/animated/bomb.gif


*BOOM* easy as pie





thanks keltic

[tdogg]

Just got home from a few days in Alabama for work, and have to tell y'all, the political ads for governor candidates was a bit scary. :eek: It's not so much what they actually say in the ads, but what is insinuated - and while the front part of my brain is telling me, oh just ignore it, it's harmless, it's Alabama and you live in California for goodness sake, the back of my brain is flashing neon red and yellow warning signs. Honestly so very glad I live in California and it's not perfect out here.

I believe in 'conspiracy theories', and I believe that those (in honor of your dissentions Awediot - won't abbreviate) who call themselves Christians and God-fearing and wanting of saving good ole 'family values' may be in the process of attempting to conspire to take over the country. On the surface it sounds incredibly bizarre and impossible - in reality I truly feel that it's more than a little likely. :agree:

Another thought - as someone who appreciates humor, I didn't find anything untoward in Keltic's posts. Don't even think if I were under the spell of an extraordinarily irritable and foul mood, that would have taken them as anything other than a bit funny. ;)

Just my 1.5 cents worth...:rolleyes:

[awediot]

Another day, another chance to clear my name ( of this misunderstanding) Not that I want to consume this thread (too late) I DID take Keltics comments as humorous. My "time and place" referred to pulling the topic into abstract artsy parallels, not some juvenile threat. The drag king comment referred to his profile pic. (sorry, but I know a few women who end up looking like that for drag king shows. No offense any where way how...) Any insult was generally pointed toward WHOEVER was believing that Christians generally want to kill homos,(offense to them intended) and bring the topic around to distinguishing them... Thats it. I apologize to all... (but maybe 1) and it ain't Keltic...


My whole point was that the conspiracy included making Christians look bad (sadly not hard to do) and was not being created by them. They are prophesied to lose and the mood of popular culture Proves they in fact will... and tdogg, abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...

[Zerbie]

abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...

:eek: :eek: :eek:

May I ask, to what does your screenname refer? Surely, you didn't choose it intending to combine the words "awe" and "idiot"??? :eek: As you imply above. . .:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Emproph]

My whole point was that the conspiracy included making Christians look bad (sadly not hard to do) and was not being created by them. They are prophesied to lose and the mood of popular culture Proves they in fact will... and tdogg, abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...You have an excellent point with that and that's what I got out of what you said, and I'm also guilty of it. Like you said, I assume the distinction is made. But knowing that that's too often not the case, it does concern me.

I'd start a thread on it myself because I have something related to it, but right now I'm spread too thin. I will be making the extra effor to clarify the distinction though, here or wherever. :)

[tdogg]

I agree Awe, a few extremists make all Christians 'look' bad; but isn't that the way it is with everyone? A few promiscuous gays and lesbians make all of us look bad? So, we have to put in the extra effort to rise above what others think about us and their stereotypes. It's an arduous (?) task but constant effort in this area is necessary - those 'real' Christians need to step up to the plate and rise above their perceived beliefs and opinions.

Another thread, but it's so disappointing and frustrating when hi-profile Christians (so-called Christians) get pushed by their richer and more powerful extremists colleagues to act out of character of what Christ Jesus wants us to be (true Christians). These people need to take a stand and take back Christianity. There's more of them than extremists - but I think the money and power of being connected to the extremists is too tempting.

So..maybe there is a need for those who are gay and lesbian and call themselves Christians to step up to the plate and put forth even more effort to battle the stereotypes of both GLBT and Chrisitian appearances. An effort worth putting forth but can be exhausting and frustrating and emotionally/physically/mentally/spiritually draining - which I think is why often we resort to what we don't like in others.

Hey Awe, I like Keltic's profile pic too - got a chuckle out of me! :lol:

[Daniel]

tdogg- I see your point here, and perhaps this all depends on who's doing the 'looking' and at what they are 'looking' at. But do gay people have to 'rise above' what others think about us? This kind of view, it seems to me, is all too prevelant in LGBT circles and communities of faith. The danger here, as I see it, is separating the good gays from the bad gays- the good gay christians from the bad gay christians. The trouble with this kind of stance is that is does nothing to confront homophobia and religious-based persecution. It assumes that one side is the bouncer in front of the club, and boy, you better look right before you get in. Who are we gonna leave out, I wonder? I want everyone in there.



I agree Awe, a few extremists make all Christians 'look' bad; but isn't that the way it is with everyone? A few promiscuous gays and lesbians make all of us look bad? So, we have to put in the extra effort to rise above what others think about us and their stereotypes. It's an arduous (?) task but constant effort in this area is necessary - those 'real' Christians need to step up to the plate and rise above their perceived beliefs and opinions.

[tdogg]

The danger here, as I see it, is separating the good gays from the bad gays- the good gay christians from the bad gay christians. The trouble with this kind of stance is that is does nothing to confront homophobia and religious-based persecution. It assumes that one side is the bouncer in front of the club, and boy, you better look right before you get in. Who are we gonna leave out, I wonder? I want everyone in there.

Good points Daniel. We only need to 'rise above' if we care what others think about us as a whole (such as 'community'). For me, it brings up a myriad of questions - why can't we just live our lives, why bother fighting at all, if we ignore those who disagree wi†h us will it eventually lead to them ignoring us, then possibly acceptance and equality? I agree with you on this: don't wanna leave anyone out. I love my gay sisters and brothers, Christian or not, in all their imperfections. That's what it boils down to, none of us are perfect.

[revtj]

Awediot,

I've really tried to understand your posts, but it always seems to me like you are leaving out some essential presupposition of your faith.

As best I can tell no one in this forum thinks all Christians want to kill all homosexuals. The fact is, a small branch of powerful, rich christians, do however include death penalty for homosexuality in their belief system. If you don't take that seriously, it's OK with me, but your responses to these facts seem glib and surreptitious, like you know something secret about it all that the rest of us just can't attain.

I wish you every worthy wish in your pursuit of God's greater justice and mercy for all people.

T J

[Daniel]

I'll be there big boy. And wear that bad ass drag king outfit.

Zerbie, I rarely see Christianity portrayed positively here, unless it is the watered down, liberally enlightened version that believes we're all perfectly lovable, Heaven bound, above judgment little innocent lumps of chewy godness. Whole books are dissolved and Christ-consciousness is worn proudly in the face of explicit, dire warnings that we will do just that. Huge elements of God's judgment, requirements, and consequences of rejection are off handedly dismissed in the name of knowing what the Bible really was saying and no one ever points it out.

Ok. As a matter of discourse, I have a few questions.

How should Christianity be portrayed here for it to be "positive" and not "watered down"? What would that look like?

Who's warnings? And from where?

What's so bad about Christ Consciousness?

It seems to me that you're not getting something you need out of the discourse here.

[Liberal Crozier]

For the past several years, I have read and contributed to talk2action. More, I have met the website founders and recognise that they are individuals who have - from a MA residency - supported the marital rights of their fellow citizens.

It is one of those individuals who suggested that when you attend Church that you hear about secular neocon right wing politics, and when you attend a secular neocon right political rally or event, all you hear is their version of right-wing theocracy.

I am still reading when I have the energy and have something to say other than ...........yeah, me too.........grin..........

[schoolboi]

The main premise of Mel White’s new book due out this fall is that theocracy is a real threat. I hope all of you will pick it up as soon as it comes out. It is eye opening. (I had the opportunity to read it as he was writing it.) You should see the list of endorsements the book has received. It is impressive.

[Emproph]

The main premise of Mel White’s new book due out this fall is that theocracy is a real threat.And yet you still seem so happy about it all...

[awediot]

...pick up/leave off...

May I ask, to what does your screenname refer? Surely, you didn't choose it intending to combine the words "awe" and "idiot"???

That I did... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/685.gifand that I thought it'd be clear only shows how appropriate it is. (less people put it together than I expected) It was meant to capture the mood of a particularly heightened moment when we are stupefied or dumbfounded at the insane, meticulous brilliance of it all... I like the juxtaposition..

I've really tried to understand your posts, but it always seems to me like you are leaving out some essential presupposition of your faith.
As best I can tell no one in this forum thinks all Christians want to kill all homosexuals. The fact is, a small branch of powerful, rich christians, do however include death penalty for homosexuality in their belief system. If you don't take that seriously, it's OK with me, but your responses to these facts seem glib and surreptitious, like you know something secret about it all that the rest of us just can't attain.

I guess if anything is designed to be left off, it is presuppositions, rather than become redundant or worse, condescending... Christian to me, is pretty traditional and what used to be self explanatory. Jesus is the Messiah, bodily rose from the grave, which provided us saving grace... There was an 'in the beginning', we are somewhere in the middle, and there will be a dramatic judgment day type end... Its a familiar outline. My personal tweaking of details fills pages here... I realize no one thinks all Christians are queer killers. I'm less certain about people thinking they are all queer haters or damners, or that they all believe we are drug addled molesting, orgy going, Satan worshiping little projects needing to be saved from ourselves. That, I think some people do believe... Look around, how are Christians typically portrayed on this site? -The evil Reich wingers aren't the only ones guilty of using stereotypes to their advantage.

Within the context of the prevailing mood of this country, I do feel the fear of a Christian theocracy is misplaced. I fear the building backlash against them much more. That is what will soon explode, that is what will give those really in power the boost they need, and that is what will fulfill prophecy. The fear of theocracy is a set up playing right into Bush's masters' hands... This can appear in the ears as secretive because it is so hard to hear. My 'secrets' are there for all who can hear. Machiavellian I ain't... Attain of it what you want. Its there for the asking. I'm as blunt and up front as my common courtesy allows.

How should Christianity be portrayed here for it to be "positive" and not "watered down"? What would that look like?
Who's warnings? And from where?
What's so bad about Christ Consciousness?
It seems to me that you're not getting something you need out of the discourse here.

Daniel, portraying anything in an intentional light to shape perceptions is the medias job, not ours. I'd be happy with simple honesty and admitted, natural bias being exposed... That way, the positive or negative creates itself. Obviously, I do not think that is done well here.

Who's warnings, and from where? ...maybe God Itself, maybe the most insaneous secret society ever. You tell me...

(eek! you made me do this...)

1 Corinthians 4:14
14 > I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.
John 16:25
25 > "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
2 Timothy 3:1-4
1 >But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 > People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 >without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4> treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--
Galatians 5:19-21
19 >The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 > idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 >and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
John 9:39
39 > Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
John16:8
8 >When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.
2 Peter 3:3-4
3 >First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 >They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
Matthew 10:32-34
32 > "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 >But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 >"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

A huge element of the bible is a warning and cautionary tale.

If by Christ Consciousness, you are referring to the idea that Jesus saw and mostly considered himself to be a symbolic archetype of humanity, gifted only with recognition of inner divinity, but not uniquely divine himself, and that he was simply the most influential, and infamous of many similarly educated and enlightened prophets, seers, mystics, avatars, Bodhisattvas and christs, and the crucifixion was symbol that got out of hand and was taken too literally, when metaphorically would have sufficed, the 'risen from the grave' thing just meant the spirit of love couldn't die, and the second coming was to be a collective, internal evoleap closer to inevitable godhood, if these are close to your meaning, then I would have to say I believe you have adopted an old, humanistic, desperately modernized perspective employing brilliant, ouroborosian etymologies in one sentence, and artful, hallucinogenic mind f***ks the very next (both needed and illustrated well in order to extract the "real" meaning from the above passages.). The very thought met at vocal cords resounding Christ's message are chewed up and gagged down, devoured in an attempt to digest and manifest what must not at all cost, be thought of as original sin... Simply, I think its the serpents story all over again... You are an amnesiatic deity being brainwash blocked by the church and its opiated teachings of seperation... nothing new...

...and no, I'm not getting some of the things I need from the discourse here. None of us are. So...?

... when you attend Church that you hear about secular neocon right wing politics, and when you attend a secular neocon right political rally or event, all you hear is their version of right-wing theocracy

Good summation of why I attend neither.

The whole burr that triggered this, rests on the question: How are Christians usually portrayed on this site? ...and I'll leave it there.

[tdogg]

How they are portrayed is generally how those doing the portraying have been treated by the same person(s)/group(s) - if the person posting has had negative experiences by Christians, it isn't unreasonable that they would portray Christians negatively. You might not believe that this is an appropriate behavior but it is totally appropriate according to the 'reasonable person' standard.

[Daniel]

Daniel, portraying anything in an intentional light to shape perceptions is the medias job, not ours. I'd be happy with simple honesty and admitted, natural bias being exposed... That way, the positive or negative creates itself. Obviously, I do not think that is done well here.

Awediot- I agree with you. "Simple honesty" is a great thing to have in any discussion. That said, I get the feeling that much of what transpires here isn't up to your standards. How about answer your own assertion? I do not think that is done well here. How would it be done well here? Please use examples if need be....I'm sure Jamie would be interested in this.

Who's warnings, and from where? ...maybe God Itself, maybe the most insaneous secret society ever. You tell me...

(eek! you made me do this...)

A huge element of the bible is a warning and cautionary tale.

Yes. I get the whole warning thing from the Bible loud and clear. That said, I doubt that I take these 'warnings' in the same way you do. I may be misconstruing your intent here, but you seem to be more of a literalist and take such things very seriously. I do not. 'Warnings' are totally fear-based motivational tactics. We live in a time where we've learned that the brain doesn't respond to messages of fear all that well. Sure. It activates the flight or fight response. But that doesn't make for subtle thinking or great art or music for that matter. Those require higher functions in the brain. Are warnings great crowd control? You bet. But even that fails on some level: warnings are akin to the stage director who is always saying "Don't go over there whatever you do! Don't do it like that!" After weeks of that approach one turns off. It's much better to have someone say "Try it like this!" The practical matter is that when you get a group of old stagers together and instruct them on how to do something and have them do it a bunch of times and then change things on them, what will they do when they're tired and not thinking too well? The first instructions, that's what. First impressions tend to stay with us. Why should it be any different in matters of faith? Hellfire and Brimstone anyone? Hard to forget I'm sure. I'm just glad I was spared all that.

If by Christ Consciousness, you are referring to the idea...

Hey. Full Stop. You used this term first. Remember? I was asking you what you meant by this because you seemed to imply that it was a big bad thing. Why the diatribe?

....I would have to say I believe you have adopted an old, humanistic, desperately modernized perspective employing brilliant, ouroborosian etymologies in one sentence, and artful, hallucinogenic mind f***ks the very next (both needed and illustrated well in order to extract the "real" meaning from the above passages.). The very thought met at vocal cords resounding Christ's message are chewed up and gagged down, devoured in an attempt to digest and manifest what must not at all cost, be thought of as original sin... Simply, I think its the serpents story all over again... You are an amnesiatic deity being brainwash blocked by the church and its opiated teachings of seperation... nothing new...

Ok. The last line here. Who is the "you" in that sentence? Since I know I'm not a diety I'll assume you mean Jesus here. For myself? I do not believe in Original Sin. Mistakes? Yes. We all make them. But being damned for them at birth? Please. A nice way to control people it seems to me. Get them to do what you want before they want anything.

I haven't the foggiest notion what JC thought of himself. But I do know that separate from the person there is the idea called Christ Consciousness. It a concept that originated in Eastern Thinking and has everything to do with Christ and his message as seen through those philosophies and less to do with Orthodox faith. Rather than damn those philosophies, I would hope you would try to understand how others see things differently than you, that is, if you aren't in the discourse with an axe to grind. Are you?

...and no, I'm not getting some of the things I need from the discourse here. None of us are. So...?

If you know you're not getting what you need here, well......please do something about it. You'll find plenty of company in that. We may not all share the same values but we do share, one hopes, the same goal. And this is to bring an end to oppression of LGBT persons of faith. That's why I'm here.

Can we at least agree on that?

I don't think Christians are getting a bad rap here. Not at all. This thread simply points out the danger of a certain type of thinking, which, despite your protestations to the contrary, actually exists. Now if that isn't a fear based warning, what is?

[awediot]

...if the person posting has had negative experiences by Christians, it isn't unreasonable that they would portray Christians negatively

tdogg, it is quite reasonable and to be expected. Hopefully it is also recognized as a stage and one can see beyond the messenger to examine the message itself. (the whole venari incident is a perfect example. His criticisms may have been valid but were buried with emotional reactions). Interesting how glaring Christian hypocrisy is, as they hold themselves up against perfection, using it intentionally as a lens to magnify their faults. (theoretically anyway) Its much easier to just lower the bar.

I get the feeling that much of what transpires here isn't up to your standards. How about answer your own assertion?
Quote:
"I do not think that is done well here."
How would it be done well here? Please use examples if need be....I'm sure Jamie would be interested in this.

Examples are a bad idea that get me in trouble. The 'out of context' and 'not what I meant' defense are cocked and loaded. (as you may see in a moment) My statement arises from my day one on this site, when the constant use of the word "Fundamentalist" struck me as parallel as to how those fundamentalists sneer out the word 'homosexual'. The generalized pictures they both produce are equally untrue. We resent being painted with the broad brush of media ready sleaze (pride parade thread) then do the exact same thing. Alot of Christians are neutral or embarrassed by their own news worthy extremes and resent the politically power hungery that represent them... Those boring Christians do not appear here, just as the boring homos are absent from their sites... I can do nothing more than point out my observation, hope it sinks in and leave others to do it well.

Yes. I get the whole warning thing from the Bible loud and clear. That said, I doubt that I take these 'warnings' in the same way you do. I may be misconstruing your intent here, but you seem to be more of a literalist and take such things very seriously. I do not. 'Warnings' are totally fear-based motivational tactics. We live in a time where we've learned that the brain doesn't respond to messages of fear all that well. Sure. It activates the flight or fight response. But that doesn't make for subtle thinking or great art or music for that matter. Those require higher
functions in the brain.

I do take the remotest possibility of the positive and negative ultimately dividing (heaven and hell), rather than merging, very seriously. It makes quite a bit of sense to me that has nothing to do with the bible. The idea itself includes danger, which Love for each other turns into a warning. Dismissing fear before the hazard is crazy. The manipulation of this natural thought process by the Church and government for its own ends (obedient, crowd control), is the largest blasphemy I leave for God to rectify. But they still are only using the concept as a tool, they didn't make... Disbelief is no protection if its real...I guess I'm still waiting for distinctly greater art and music to emerge from higher, modern minds before I write off our addle brained history.

Ok. The last line here. Who is the "you" in that sentence? Since I know I'm not a diety I'll assume you mean Jesus here. For myself? I do not believe in Original Sin. Mistakes? Yes. We all make them. But being damned for them at birth? Please.

My diatribe on Christ Consciousness was directed generally, and intended for whoever it would resonate with. I have a bad habit of using "you". ...But, this 'out of context' and misunderstood I am God (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=512) post of yours, has always kind of stuck with me. I'd forgotten it until now. You can elaborate if you wish, but those three words are my last taboo... (Original sin/ age of accountability/ carrying Adam's guilt...a Later thread....) My view of this philosophy is pretty studied, tried, road tested and abandoned for better. I'm open to other's perspectives and respect their journey, and I am truly happy where they find Truth. But where and when it may have personally failed me and why I decided to move on, is something I hope for from everybody. Its helpful.

If you know you're not getting what you need here, well......please do something about it. You'll find plenty of company in that. We may not all share the same values but we do share, one hopes, the same goal. And this is to bring an end to oppression of LGBT persons of faith. That's why I'm here.
Can we at least agree on that?

Yes. And (so much better than Yes/But) I am doing something about it, but know I'll never get all I want out of this... No big deal... We do want the same ends (who doesn't), and see different ways of achieving them. Such is Life...

[Daniel]

...But, this 'out of context' and misunderstood I am God (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=512) post of yours, has always kind of stuck with me. I'd forgotten it until now. You can elaborate if you wish, but those three words are my last taboo... (Original sin/ age of accountability/ carrying Adam's guilt...a Later thread....) My view of this philosophy is pretty studied, tried, road tested and abandoned for better. I'm open to other's perspectives and respect their journey, and I am truly happy where they find Truth. But where and when it may have personally failed me and why I decided to move on, is something I hope for from everybody. Its helpful.

You'll have to enlighten me what you're referring to when you mention "My view of this philosophy is pretty studied..." What exactly have you abandoned?

So my "I am God" post stuck with you? Well, when I read the story it stuck with me too- but I could not remember the source at the time of my post. It only popped into my mind some time later that I had read this story in a bio of the Hindu Mystic Swami Vivekananda who brought Hinduism and all things Eastern to America in the 1880'a and once remarked in reference to his own mystical experience:

There is one thing to be remembered: that the assertion—I am God—cannot be made with regard to the sense-world.

I take this to mean that a statement such as "I am God" isn't uttered or understood via what would be considered a normal state of consciousness. Guess you gotta be a Mystic to 'understand' this sort of thing.

[Daniel]

Awediot,

After I made my last post here I was tooling around that found this via the Huffington Post. Odd how I just posted on the "We can talk about anything here" thread and said I didn't play games....well...it seems that there are those who do. And a rather nasty one at that.

Is there a bunch of 'christians' out there who are practicing for the ascendancy of Theocracy? It would seem so.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959
Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians.

[Zerbie]

First, the aside, the day you joined this forum I looked at your name and saw the juxtaposition of awe and idiot, but dismissed that deciding you must have had some other meaning in mind. Cuz it looked rather like a bizarre self-put-down to read it with the self-label "idiot" in mind. :eek: Well, oddly enough. . .

Now to get to something more important, you say you aren't getting what you need out of this site. But you've stayed. :rainbow: And for that I am very glad. :love:

Please tell us where you would like our discussions to go. I'm willing to go most places in a discussion (though a few places we might "go" are emotionally triggering for you and me both, given that we have Hot Button triggers on polar opposite ends of the "Christianity" matter. But if we can't discuss them openly and still remain friends, what hope is there for millions of strangers?):pray:

So, if you are willing, tell us what you want out of the forum. You've now made numerous allusions to being frustrated with our conversational style, so take us someplace you want to go. See who follows.

:love:

[Dash]

The link to Talk2Action is certainly disturbing.

Two random recollections from my high-school days: 1) My oldest brother was at one point ready to be a "warrior for God" in the purely literal sense. He liked all kinds of weapons and read magazines about mercenaries and stuff. My dad (so I heard) flat out told him that God didn't need anyone to fight for him. 2) I myself was completely captivated by biblical prophecy...eschatology...The Book of Daniel...Revelation. I watched a television show for a few years called "Prophecy In The News," where these two gentlemen dissected every daily occurrence on the world stage to discern its prophetic implications. They are probably still on TV. I came across them once, long after I had abandoned their perspectives. They had already grown white-haired with all their predicting and divining, and had outlived more than one expected date of Christ's return in that time.

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill. In my opinion, it is the "sci-fi/fantasy" genre of Christianity. A video game seems a natural step in its marketing evolution, though I'm surprised at its level of violence.

The theocracy movement draws power from the magic of "Biblical Prophecy" and strives to see those threads in all aspects of our society...and to weave them, as well, where they are not seen. For my part, I am troubled by all such talk of prophecy. One of the most embarassing moments in the Bible (as C.S. Lewis once pointed out) is Christ's statement that "this generation would not pass away" before all the signs of the end had happened and He had returned. He so obviously believed that he would return in their generation, and He...even he...was so obviously wrong. I have to admit that I'm even troubled when Awediot speaks of Christians being "prophesied to lose." That entire avenue of Biblical interpretation can never be credible to me. Like Intelligent Design, it already "knows" the answer, and tries to formulate theories that will support it's preconception.

The Dominionist movement holds awful potential for social injustice. We see the same injustices perpetrated all over the globe in the name of religious dogma, nationalism, racial purity and greed. The response to this injustice--which is oppression of the mind, spirit and body of others--will never be a uniquely Christian response, because Christians themselves have historically perpetrated this same injustice and still bear the same capacity for it as non-christians do.

Cruelty is only known by those who have suffered it, and healing is only known by those who have been wounded. The light that stands against this darkness shines within many faiths, and is easily recognized by those who love it. It is known not by dogma or verses, but by the gentleness and healing love lived by those who follow it.

[keltic63]

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill. In my opinion, it is the "sci-fi/fantasy" genre of Christianity. A video game seems a natural step in its marketing evolution, though I'm surprised at its level of violence.



It already exists. I saw it saturday while at the game store at the local mall: Left Behind Video/PC games (http://68.178.160.145/pages/store/index.php?cPath=1)

Yeah. I was surprised and disturbed.

[awediot]

You'll have to enlighten me what you're referring to when you mention "My view of this philosophy is pretty studied..." What exactly have you abandoned?

Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

The Vid Game: sick, silly, satanic, won't pose any threat to the latest Doom or Grand Theft Auto gore. It will be used to mock, give Conan and Leno some material and not see the light of day in any honest Christian home (yes, there are differences). Christ told of all sorts of evil being done in His name... This is a glaring example. Simpson fodder all the way.

If a person believes that their personal point of view, their spirituality, is more a peaceful and loving one than whatever is driving the world, it is natural to try and spread it for the good of everyone. It is your DUTY to try. SoulForce exists for that very reason. Whatever is finally successful, will be a theocracy. The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them. Admittedly, they are a large and influential force and worthy of concern, but their blasphemous, anti-christian works should be the recognized as the target... As often as I've tried to outgrow or enlighten or reposition my way out of prophecy, it continues to devolve exactly like we were told it would and that is gut wrenchingly, inescapably obvious to me.

Please tell us where you would like our discussions to go.

I try Zerbie. Most of my topics are not gay affirming enough, too defensively Christian, critical of SF or nit-picky and semantical... I've always been a lousy team player and loner and am not shocked to see it reflected here. My perspective doesn't exactly endear me to either gays or Christians and I'm used to it.

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill.

Huh? Could your old soul self be a little more condescending next time Dash? The pixie dust of these climactic days has entranced my baby brain...

* The greedy, Godless makers of this game will answer for it. They represent believers like this (http://www.winternet.com/~redright/scatsite/sslinks.htm) represents gays. (spared you the pics, which are as offensive as this game.)

[Daniel]

The link to Talk2Action is certainly disturbing.

Cruelty is only known by those who have suffered it, and healing is only known by those who have been wounded. The light that stands against this darkness shines within many faiths, and is easily recognized by those who love it. It is known not by dogma or verses, but by the gentleness and healing love lived by those who follow it.


Dash- A resounding YES to this last sentence! Your thoughts are beautifully expressed and captured my own experience regarding the Spell of the End of Days. I was watching the 700 club along with you.

There was a movie back then about the Rapture which had me in a daze for at least 3 months. I was beside myself with anxiety, fear and a heightened sense of romanticized self-importance. That longing grew into something else entirely and it was only with time that I could name it for what it was: the search for Love.

And like you, I hardly know what to make of prophecy, though I do know that it's been shown that even the best psychics are only 'right' 80% of the time. And I've come to see that even acknowledged mystics have their human failings and misinformed perceptions. Divine revelation, whatever it is distinguished by, hardly seems to be the product of perfect beings. I do think though, that the mind, when it is stilled, can experience Bliss, God, Whatever The All That Is Everything Is. However, when you get up from the cushion someone still has to take out the trash.

[Zerbie]

I try Zerbie. Most of my topics are not gay affirming enough, too defensively Christian, critical of SF or nit-picky and semantical... I've always been a lousy team player and loner and am not shocked to see it reflected here. My perspective doesn't exactly endear me to either gays or Christians and I'm used to it.


(spared you the pics, which are as offensive as this game.)

Hey Awe, keep trying. You're good at standing in the middle and staking out your own place "between" sides/times/polarities. "Leadership quality," dontcha think?

Fwiw, my kindergarten teacher wrote a note on my first report card to the effect of: "Zerbie prefers to work independently and does not enjoy being on a team. But I think this will change by the time she enters first grade."

BWAAAHHHAAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did you get similar notes on your report cards?

I have great respect for your comfort level and strength in both maintaining and articulating your perspective. you're a tough person, and more importantly, you're uniquely authentic, and I admire you. I'm glad you keep posting - we need to see a variety of viewpoints here. You'll notice I may stay away from the overly nit-picky and semantic ones, tho. :p

DASH - your post was incredibly beautiful!! Thank you so much. :love: :love: :love:

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Awediot,

I have been turning over some of your recent posts for a couple of days now, just been too busy to write.

The first thing I wanted to say is, I like you better now that you're out of the closet! When you were self censoring and over editing, honestly, I could hardly make heads or tails of what you were trying to say. Now you're making sense, and your energy and conviction come through loud and clear.

The other thing I like is that you're posing a real challenge, exactly the kind of challenge I was looking for when I joined the board. I didn't come here to get support for my worldview. I came here to hear perspectives I'm not familiar with and to question myself with those ideas in mind, so my own thinking can be refined. Your posts in the last week or two are just what I'm looking for. They're showing me how a (relatively) traditional Christian view can be something other than a carbon copy of either fire and brimstone preaching or the kind of happy, fuzzy, toothless mainline Christianity you, correctly, deplore.

Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

I struggle with the paradox that "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." That's probably closer to the heart of my spirituality than even I suspect at this point. It's a riddle I can't answer. I do take from it, though, the sense that both insights, in whatever form, are necessary for a mature spirituality.

If more recent theological developments concentrate on our likeness to God at the expense of our failures to attain that state, it seems to me a reaction (overreaction) to the kind of false Christianity that sees the grace of God in one's difference from an abject, demonized other. There is certainly a cri de coeur in the best liberal theology that shouldn't be dismissed as a will to ethical convenience. I feel it myself when I look at what the Catholic Church has become. I am sometimes ill in my gut when I see how far the Roman hierarchy has fallen.

In any case, I'm very interested in how the two sides of the equation can be integrated. The mainline denominations are fracturing along this fault line and the two sides are becoming more and more entrenched, extreme, and prone to scrapple for ecclesiastical territory (complete with fire hydrant pissing matches). It's gone beyond correcting the excesses of a one-sided theology into, in some, a desire to wipe dissent off the face of the earth. That's what I find disgusting to watch.

If a person believes that their personal point of view, their spirituality, is more a peaceful and loving one than whatever is driving the world, it is natural to try and spread it for the good of everyone. It is your DUTY to try. SoulForce exists for that very reason. Whatever is finally successful, will be a theocracy.

Is there such a thing as a benevolent theocracy?

The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them.

This one, I'm still mulling over. I see some gems of truth in it, but I'm not sure of some of the other conclusions.

In language that's more familiar to me, it seems like this is about the role of tradition. For whatever reason, I seem to be wired to see things in terms of balancing opposites. Too much emphasis on tradition results in a stagnant spirituality, while too much emphasis on "what I want to get out of spirituality" results in a shallow, empty, pseudo-practice that never shakes you to the core. So what is the right balance?

I would agree totally that a spirituality that is not seriously grounded, rooted, in some tradition is doomed to wander aimlessly and exhibit exactly the qualities you describe. I don't believe that it sets itself up with destroying Christian absolutes as a primary goal. I think more than anything else, it's a side effect of consumer culture. When things get too tough on one road, fire your guru and throw some money at another one. It's no accident that "MSTR" is mainly an educated, middle/upper-middle/upper class phenomenon (and yes, mostly white).

I've heard more than one Buddhist teacher say that it's useless to dig lots of shallow holes, trying a little bit of everything. You have to stick with one path especially when it becomes uncomfortable, because it's only then that real growth occurs.

Keep this stuff coming! I'm learning a lot.
James

[Daniel]

... I like you better now that you're out of the closet! When you were self censoring and over editing, honestly, I could hardly make heads or tails of what you were trying to say.

Awdiot- I agree with James here: it's been hard for me to decipher your meaning and intent at times. And there has been more than one occasion when I thought you simply meant to offend. If you've been holding back, well, that would explain things, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Awediot.
Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

Another view posits that "Christ-ness" or "Buddha-nature" isn't "attainable by all", as much as it is our intrinsic nature, waiting to be realized when all the obstructions to it are removed. Or course, this perspective is more Eastern than Western and Esoteric than Exoteric. It presupposes that what we see and think deals with the nature of perception itself and questions the "I", or ego, that is doing the attaining.

Without being too reductive, I wonder if our trouble with these matters has something to do with the structure of our brains, that is, being divided into two parts, right and left, we are befuddled between left side logic and nonlinear gestalt. Perhaps like the comprehension of poetry, where its been shown that both sides work together in the making and understanding it, its a matter of maintaining a 'Both And', rather than an 'Either Or', perspective.

Now, does this kind of thinking fall into the camp you describe below?


Originally posted by Awediot
The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them.


One might think so at first glance, but it seems to me that the true seeker (and by that I do not mean a consumer of spirituality) seeks to get to the bottom of things through self-inquiry and a great deal of skillfulness and effort. The practioner (and could it not be said that the pursuit of Reality needs a high degree of discipline?) eventually comes to the conclusion that there is no room for the quaint pastime of unexamined beliefs. Tradition may be what it is, but that is no substitute for first hand experience.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world
I've heard more than one Buddhist teacher say that it's useless to dig lots of shallow holes, trying a little bit of everything. You have to stick with one path especially when it becomes uncomfortable, because it's only then that real growth occurs.

This identical issue is faced in any artform. The artist comes up against himself/herself and has to struggle with mastering the same. In the end, there is the matter of craft and method to deal with, which is overlooked at one's peril. Sure, it's nice to dream about being a great pianist, but being one is more than a matter of talent: no matter how talented you are you still have to practice your scales.

[awediot]

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before. More to come... Let me sum up where I'm coming from and how I got there, or here...

I've thought through a few scenarios with the intention of abandoning all theological input (or as close as possible) just to see where the brain, its logic and imagination can go. I wondered where human nature leads as to ideas about God, death and afterlife... It appears: No matter what we do, as deeply as we can go, say in a meditative state of heightened uniony bliss, we will still be derailed by needing a potty break, by wanting a snack, getting sleepy or stung by wasp. We above all else, even willpower, are slaves to our bodies needs. Breatharians are urban myth. Masters of mind control still must take a dump now and then. The body is the great leveler. It has needs you have no choice but to meet first and foremost...

That understood, we ask what MUST I do? What do I have no choice in? Taken literally, it is not a list. You do not need to ever work again. You need never drink, if you are determined, you don't have to take another breath and if you are really quick and accurate, that could be your last heartbeat... Either way, one of them will be. The only thing we all inescapably will share in, is death.

Then what? What all in all is possible? Actually, at first, only two things. There is more, you are in some fashion aware and retain enough essence of self to recognize a continuation, or nothing. We will never discover the lack of an afterlife... This maxes out our very imaginations. All finer points and ethereal religious detail are encompassed by these two extremes. The attempts to abstract a third possibility are so far beyond any reality we know as to be equivalent to to nothing, as it is nothing we can know, and so still have only two options.

Then what? Again, variations are endless. But, we will either find it initially pleasant, more positive feeling, or not. It may be frightening, exciting and confusing but there will be an immediate sense of liking it, or dread. No neutral mind could make it this far. Boredom is not an option.

A couple other possibilities, you may be alone, or their may be others. You may have "room" to move and grow, or you may be "done" with no where else to go. You may stay, or be able to go, and you may rule, or there may be a boss who wants to talk to you.

...its a matter of maintaining a 'Both And', rather than an 'Either Or', perspective.

Do you mean either a "Both And" or "Either Or" perspective? Or both, and... This is that oroborosian (snake eating it's tail) thinking that works only on paper. We cannot hold two completely contradictory states at once. I cannot be at peace and terrified, exist and not, do what I simultaneously undo at the same time. Some situations may accommodate both and more, but these do not.

This thought process has nothing to do with a god, the bible or any other influence. It is how I see the raw mind navigate, and the only way it can possibly do so, the basics of religion. It is parenthetical and the structure of thought all religions work within and can manipulate. It can be added on, but it cannot be reduced. It is not the product of any dogma, but the source from which all doctrine springs from. And it etches into our Soul the possibility of eternal Heaven and Hell and a God in all ways supreme to us. It overrides and dis-empowers belief by shear possibility and I found the Bible happens to explain it, not create it...

This may or may not answer some of your questions... I'll post this now, but be back and see if I can address some more specifics you've asked...Peace.

[awediot]

another along the same lines...

If someone acknowledges at least a "Higher Power", the next question is "Higher" than what? Well, clearly higher than ME, You, us... And We are sentient, caring, intelligent etc. so It must be Higher, Better and an improvement on the Best that makes us up. Thus, logically it must follow that The MIND of your Higher Power, The Soul and Being of Any Higher Power is superior. It is a Being at least as much as you, or, you are the Being choosing to define grand, abstract forces as gods, at your educated whim... God is a Creator and Supreme Being, or you are... Even the humble sounding All is God, still rest squarely on you defining it as such, and pointing out that this is less evolved god than that, is a quiet declaration of your own deity.

okay, i need some tea and an aspirin
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/kuku.gif

[Zerbie]

another along the same lines...

If someone acknowledges at least a "Higher Power", the next question is "Higher" than what? Well, clearly higher than ME, You, us... And We are sentient, caring, intelligent etc. so It must be Higher, Better and an improvement on the Best that makes us up. Thus, logically it must follow that The MIND of your Higher Power, The Soul and Being of Any Higher Power is superior. It is a Being at least as much as you, or, you are the Being choosing to define grand, abstract forces as gods, at your educated whim... God is a Creator and Supreme Being, or you are... Even the humble sounding All is God, still rest squarely on you defining it as such, and pointing out that this is less evolved god than that, is a quiet declaration of your own deity.

okay, i need some tea and an aspirin
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/kuku.gif

Unless. . .unless the mind making the comparisons is the "lower than" and all being is on an "equal" plane, though "equal" wouldn't make sense if there were no comparisons. . .:confused: ok, I need some tea too.

In awe of Awe.

Oh and - adding this remark: Yes Awe, you are easier to understand and talk to now. Earlier, when your positions were unclear, it was difficult to relate back to you. I, regrettably, dismissed a few of your early posts as disconnected. I'm sorry I was missing all of this, but now I'm just happy that here it is, and here you are. . .yay.

[dewdrop_world]

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before.

At work so I can't write anything substantive. Being offensive doesn't concern me... and anyway, Ms. Girl, if you ever really offend me, hon, you'll know it :eek:

:lol:

hjh

[Daniel]

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before. More to come... Let me sum up where I'm coming from and how I got there, or here...

Well....awediot.....I never actually said I liked you. I said I could understand you better. (Stage direction: laughter!) That said, I like to think that the prickly person even you describe yourself being is the 'front man'. I have the sense that you are far more engaging in real time. And I can imagine that person to be very likeable.

Do you mean either a "Both And" or "Either Or" perspective? Or both, and...

I meant to be as simple as I wrote: a 'Both And' dynamic rather than an "Either Or" one. Yes. I agree with you. We cannot maintain two contradictory states at the same time, but I would posit that the sustaining of a paradox depends on the point of view- not the state itself. What I'm getting at is our mode of perception itself. Paradox exists within an 'both and' dynamic while 'either or' functions in a much more reductive scheme of things.

This thought process has nothing to do with a god, the bible or any other influence. It is how I see the raw mind navigate, and the only way it can possibly do so, the basics of religion. It is parenthetical and the structure of thought all religions work within and can manipulate. It can be added on, but it cannot be reduced. It is not the product of any dogma, but the source from which all doctrine springs from. And it etches into our Soul the possibility of eternal Heaven and Hell and a God in all ways supreme to us. It overrides and dis-empowers belief by shear possibility and I found the Bible happens to explain it, not create it...

I'm not sure what the 'its' in the sentences above refers to exactly, though my take on these matters is that the way we see what we see is part and parcel of seeing. Depending on where you are, you 'either' see the forest 'or' the trees. Back up enough 'and' you see 'both'. That's why I love the paintings of Vermeer. His canny use of perspective delights the eye without sacrificing any detail.

Sure. We all have the same basic component parts in our heads, but it's how we use them that matters. Even the tin man learned that having a brain wasn't the important thing.

Dear awediot. What is it?

[awediot]

Dew, good to hear. Be back with ya...

I'm not sure what the 'its' in the sentences above refers to exactly, though my take on these matters is that the way we see what we see is part and parcel of seeing. Depending on where you are, you 'either' see the forest 'or' the trees. Back up enough 'and' you see 'both'. That's why I love the paintings of Vermeer. His canny use of perspective delights the eye without sacrificing any detail.

Sure. We all have the same basic component parts in our heads, but it's how we use them that matters. Even the tin man learned that having a brain wasn't the important thing

To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid. But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components. That is the IT. If they are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. ...prepare for a song...

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...

[Zerbie]

Dew, good to hear. Be back with ya...



To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid. But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components. That is the IT. If they are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. ...prepare for a song...

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...


I was with ya til the last paragraph. It's like you go beyond what goes beyond. Ya know? The kind of fundamentalism to which I resonate myself.

But back up - whoa! Explain that last paragraph. How is the idea of Hell a logical possibility? You mean the actuality of a (physical?) hell is a logical possibility? Or what kind of Hell? Where? When? As one who honestly never "clicked" to any talk/ideas/whatever about "Hell" I need to have this explained like I'm 5 years old, because I truly will be hearing it for the first time.

What do you mean Hell is a basic component??? :confused:

Can you explain the whole thing from Kindergarten level on upwards?

[awediot]

Zerb,
a few posts back I said how the sense of the after life could feel positive or negative. It is simply the opposite of the Heaven state. The yin and yan separating, taking us to one side or the other, rather than merging together (which I see as a sludge). If we see all as half good/half evil, and embrace that shadow self of negativity, thinking it makes us whole, evil is delighted, good is polluted, and the negative wins... Half bad is one hell of alot of bad.

The All is God makes God out to be quite a SOB... In my neck of the woods we recently had some thugs braking into humane societies, stealing specifically puppies, dowsing them with lighter fluid, setting them ablaze and tossing them out car windows. This went on for weeks and quite a few survived... Just pure cruelty and mindless evil... That in no stretch of my imagination is of God. Is it worthy of being sent to Hell? That is not the question, but where might such a mind that refuses to accept the demands of kindness of God, go to? He doesn't sadistically torture, but he leaves us to our own devices as we demand, and it is called Hell...

[awediot]

James, I don't understand your conflict... being created in the Image of God, or having a likeness to It, simply means sharing some of its characteristics. An image or likeness is not the thing... "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." as a starting point couldn't be clearer...Why we fall short/Original Sin... another thing.

Is there such a thing as a benevolent theocracy?

So much of this question depends on ones meaning of benevolent, or good, kind and charitable. It has been said if moral law were followed, man's law would be unnecessary. I believe this, but that still begs the question "who's" moral law? Was it kinder to allow Schivo to starve to death naturally (a painful, agonizing and slow way to die) or keep her alive like a Borg indefinitely, euthanize her in under a minute or was hooking her up to machines in the first place where it all went awry? All who believe in one, the other or none, do so out of kindness...

A quick thought: No one ever seeks pain or evil. Evil cannot exist on its own. It is always good corrupted. Hitler had very noble and loving goals to help the human race, Jeffry Dahmer loved those boys and wanted to keep them near him, Andrea Yates was trying to save her children from an evil world, Christians really are trying to point out the dangers of Hell, and even more mundane rapes, murders, beating and just cruelties are done, if not out of love for the seeming benefit of correcting or teaching the victim a lesson, then done for the perpetrator's pleasure. They may be sadistic and get joy or benefit from the pain of another, but that pain is the means to joy, it is never the end in mind. Even a masochist who finds pleasure through pain, will still go to the dentist to get relief from a toothache... If pain is desired, is ceases to be actual pain and is called something else... This is why I take the God is love, and claims of doing good with a rock of salt.
...So your question, yes, but man is in no position to create it. Until Christ walks among again, we are called to eternally try.

I seem to be wired to see things in terms of balancing opposites.

To elaborate a little on what is implied as opposites in the Heaven/Hell post. I do not believe in a dualistic reality. God has no opposite. Satan is opposite to Michael, not God. Evil is a brief perversion that should be fought off and slaughtered at every appearance. I think that those who talk of balancing their light and dark "sides", or embracing their negative half, really put little thought into how horrendous the results of that would be. There is no balance. Make it all Good.

I would agree totally that a spirituality that is not seriously grounded, rooted, in some tradition is doomed to wander aimlessly and exhibit exactly the qualities you describe. I don't believe that it sets itself up with
destroying Christian absolutes as a primary goal.

An open-ended, MSTR view, depends solely on the education, imagination and mood of the one adhering to it, and their ability to turn on a dime. Statements of absolutes directly challenge the uncertainty needed to retain indecision. Whether Christian or not, saying anything like: "this is the way it Is" directly assaults those who hold dear to their grey area. The speaker is instantly labeled arrogant, closed-minded and simplistic... The more spiritual than religious moniker is a new name for a basically agnostic/pantheistic view. It is Newer New-Age, sans the gadgets and bobbles, but the underlieing philosophy is the exact same and its ancient...

[Daniel]

To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid.

Awediot- Yes. You are right. This gay fan of the Wizard of Oz got his characters mixed up and blew his metaphorical punch line. Damn! And I thought I was being so witty. It is the Scarcrow. I could while away the hours....

But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Yes. Perhaps EVERYTHING is an ILLUSION. But that's the Eastern view of things, is it not? Not Orthodox. Bad. Perhaps Evil. Out of the Box. Don't go down THAT road. There are giants waiting to squash one. Whatever you do don't go Into THOSE Woods. Ah!!!!!!!!

Having perspective is slmply that. It isn't claiming that 'right and wrong are 'relative'. Not by a long shot (or view). Perspective sees right and wrong for what is it. And by what means does this perspective arise? Who, or what, is it that perceives these concepts? I would say the mind. Or Mind. Whatever IT is, Christianity, as expressed in its exoteric form, doesn't readily address this kind of inquiry very well. Does that mean Christianity is inadequate? No. But the bible, as I see it, isn't the answer to all our questions. (I can hear the rocks whizzing my way from the arch-conservatives.) But then, you know that I'm not a literalist.

Gunning for the Buddha? Hey! I ain't gunning for anyone. I'm not into sports. At heart, I work at being a good student. I'm happy to learn from any and every perspective. Steal from the very best, that's what I say. Hey! The great composers did it. They even stole from themselves. Does that mean I have a big ol' mishmash of a faith? No. In actual practice I'm as monogamously oriented as I am with my husband. I don't flit from Tree to Tree.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components.

This sounds very much like perspective here.

That is the IT. If they (the components) are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them (components) doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. [I]...prepare for a song...

I've inserted what I think you are referring to above- which clarifies things a bit more I think for me. I do wish you would lead your reader by the hand a bit more, if you please. All too often there is too much effort in figuring out the objects from the subjects.

Yes. There are scales. And there is the manner in which one plays the scales. A distinctly separate issue called technique. On top of that there is the the matter of making music, which infers layer upon layer of subtilty piled high to the heavens. Layers that must be unified into a simple action. The talented but overly ambitious student takes everything in one gulp and figures out matters as he or she goes. He/she stumbles more than he/she soars. The really smart ones get their technique down cold so that every problem encountered yields to patient and persistent attention.

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...

It's not that I don't like the idea of hell. I just don't think that it is a very good motivational tool. (Ha!) Short term results and very little lateral thinking involved there. I don't care if it IS real, it's a very very poor teaching tool. What kind of cruel god slaps your hand before you reach out, telling you that you better watch you step? You would never do that with the piano student. You'd show them WHAT to do first. Hell! Everyone knows what to avoid- they hear how bad they play at first. The trick is to get better, not worry about how bad you are. If the reward at the end is punishment not matter what you do, why bother? Just give up now and be really really bad.

Mae West: When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad I'm better. At least she had a sense of humor!

Have you seen the drawings and paintings by Goya? That, to me, is an accurate description of hell. And guess what? It's all man made. Who needs God when we can do it ourselves! I don't discount hell, or even hold it at arms length. As it is, I think we're all very familiar with hell. The gay man who hasn't really dealt with his sexuality is experiencing a very personal hell, wouldn't you say? I've had a very up close look at that, enough so that I can see it in the eyes of someone who is faking their way through it. Why? I saw that same terrified look in my own. Facing that hell, at least for me, meant sitting on a cushion and getting some of that vaunted perspective I am so apt to yak about. The Be Still and Know That I Am God thought helped me get a hell of a lot of traction in facing IT.

[dewdrop_world]

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...
"It is dismissed at a potential great peril"... sounds a bit like an updated version of Pascal's wager :D

I know there's more behind your words... still, the family resemblance triggers a doubletake :eek:

James

[awediot]

Yeeeks... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/686.gifDon't just zero in on Hell. I don't find it a great motivator, nor feel God holds it over any one for compliance. Its way more subtle than that and very little of my piling texts...

[Daniel]

Yeeeks... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/686.gifDon't just zero in on Hell. I don't find it a great motivator, nor feel God holds it over any one for compliance. Its way more subtle than that and very little of my piling texts...


You Invoked Her. She Appeared in All Her Fury! Attend to Hell or be Dammed! (Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[awediot]

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu81.gif


She won't let me... rather party with the sinners than cry with the saints I guess... Let Her be scornethed!

[Daniel]

Ok. Back to the topic at hand. Theocracy is hell on wheels. How's that for a realization? (Gotta tie this digression in somehow, don't ya think?) Where do we go from here?

[awediot]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sehrgrosse/large-smiley-006.gif Can try some of my annoying, hellish, "smileys" out in real life???

[Daniel]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sehrgrosse/large-smiley-006.gif Can try some of my annoying, hellish, "smileys" out in real life???

Awediot! You are one hell of a guy! The guy who gets you gets a lot. And that's a compliment. Really. You've confessed to hating all the stroking that goes on around here, but secretly, I think you eat it up big time. You've got the courage of your convictions and heart, which you are loath to display, perhaps in waiting for the right guy....and I don't blame you one damn bit!

[Daniel]

Here's a thought provoking piece from a writer on the Huffington Post (yeah...liberal that I am...I find interesting things there). RJ Eschow puts pins in the hyposcrisy of Campus Crusade for Christ as they mount an effort in Iraq. What does this have to do with Theocracy in America? A great deal according to the author, though he doesn't use this term. The nexus of faith, politics and greed is a very strange one.

The Evangelighouls - How The Christian Right Exploits War's Youngest Victims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-evangelighouls-how-_b_22117.html

Here's a little background on the Campus Crusade and its founder, Bill Bright. As Sara Diamond writes in her book, "Spiritual Warfare":

"In April 1976, Sojourners, a progressive evangelical magazine, published a report on a series of secret meetings convened by key Christian Right leaders . ... A meeting ... to solidify the financial base for Third Century Publishers was convened by Arizona Congressman John Conlan and Bill Bright, president of Campus Crusade for Christ ... The initial publications "were directed at manipulating Christians to accept political action as part of Christian thought." In 1975 a meeting was convened by Bright and Conlan to "train regional director in Third Century's strategy to gradually take positions of leadership with the government." Conlan told regional directors that Bill Bright would be working behind the scenes with his Christian business contacts to secure financing ..."

The Campus Crusade has been heavily funded by right-wing extremist billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt. Hunt, a dedicated John Bircher, was convicted of conspiracy for his criminal behavior in manipulating (and ultimately devastating) the international silver market. This paragon of Christian virtue joined with Bright and Conlan with the goal of creating a right-wing, fundamentalist, extremist government. It was a wild-eyed plan - but it succeeded.

[dewdrop_world]

James, I don't understand your conflict... being created in the Image of God, or having a likeness to It, simply means sharing some of its characteristics. An image or likeness is not the thing... "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." as a starting point couldn't be clearer...Why we fall short/Original Sin... another thing.

It's not so much a conflict as the feeling that nobody really understands this statement until she is really in touch with the God-likeness and simultaneously in touch with the shortcomings also. I'm not talking about cognitive understanding, in the sense of fitting the propositions into a religious/philosophical framework. What I mean is, when you pray, can you sense the God - likeness within you? Can you sense your shortcomings in the same visceral way?

I don't think the statement means much if it isn't felt at the core of your being. For myself, I get occasional glimpses of it in meditation sometimes, but I don't live in that place very often.

So much of this question depends on ones meaning of benevolent, or good, kind and charitable. It has been said if moral law were followed, man's law would be unnecessary. I believe this, but that still begs the question "who's" moral law?

That's a fine response -- I intended it as an open ended question for discussion, since I sure don't have an answer!

Does moral law serve the same purpose as, for example, judicial law? Judicial law places the rights of victims, and the innocent, ahead of the rights of the guilty (though, ostensibly, not ahead of the rights of the accused). There are good reasons for doing so. But what good is moral law if it is not to elevate all of us? Obviously moral law should not condone everything, but it can't approach truth if it doesn't take to heart the perspectives of those whom it purports to govern. That's where more traditional forms of Christianity get it wrong -- they think the biblical code is more important than understanding people. That's evidence in how they treat gay people.

Now, to shift gears and consider murderers for example, we catch them and lock them up in recognition of the horror of their deeds, but at that point the vessel is broken and someone has to pick up the pieces. "Lock them up and throw away the key" is not an adequate response. They need to be led out of the state of sin (separation from God, suffering), which I think will always involve listening to them as they are. This may wind up informing human understanding of moral law, in that we might make it a task to alleviate the conditions that lead people to become murderers.

That isn't the American way, but... somebody has to dream it before it can become reality.

Does this happen if our absolutes convince us that we have all the answers?

Not sure if I'm really making sense... I feel like I'm thinking out loud.

A quick thought: No one ever seeks pain or evil. Evil cannot exist on its own. It is always good corrupted.

That's a rather, well, Buddhist sentiment. :D

To elaborate a little on what is implied as opposites in the Heaven/Hell post. I do not believe in a dualistic reality. God has no opposite. Satan is opposite to Michael, not God. Evil is a brief perversion that should be fought off and slaughtered at every appearance. I think that those who talk of balancing their light and dark "sides", or embracing their negative half, really put little thought into how horrendous the results of that would be. There is no balance. Make it all Good.

I would say, one ignores the Jungian shadow at one's peril... if you fight it off and slaughter it at every appearance, it's but a Pyrrhic victory. It will come back to get you in another form, and its disguise might be harder to detect and the consequences worse.

This is one area where Buddhism has it all over modern Christianity. The Buddha knew about the shadow some 2400 years before Jung came along! And he gave powerful and accurate instructions to integrate the shadow so it no longer is an influence.

It isn't a matter of balancing good and evil. It's about understanding evil so that it is no longer in control. If you try to blast it out of your person, it fights back. If you give it the right kind of spacious awareness, little by little its impulses become unconvincing.

An open-ended, MSTR view, depends solely on the education, imagination and mood of the one adhering to it, and their ability to turn on a dime. Statements of absolutes directly challenge the uncertainty needed to retain indecision...

This is very interesting, but I don't have anything to add tonight.

James

[awediot]

What I mean is, when you pray, can you sense the God - likeness within you? Can you sense your shortcomings in the same visceral way?
...I don't think the statement means much if it isn't felt at the core of your being.

In all honesty, no, I never have sensed the God-likeness within me, or as me; which is really what we are saying. It actually feels the exact opposite when I have sensed the closeness and presence of God. Visceral magnification of those shortcomings, or knowing at my core that I am a speck who is laughably vane, who still hurts what I least wish to, who craves pointless and dead pleasures and relishes the clever humility of fooling myself. The nearer He draws to me the fouler I become by comparison...

Then it is washed away by the slightest attention, by the fact that still He approaches, and still He Loves me and comes to guide me back. God doesn't dismiss my sins, nor forgive them off handedly. He convicts me of them and loves me in spite of them... That is the lifting from unworthiness that makes my knees weak, and completes my meditation. That is what makes love pale next to the adoration He has for us, and its that which allows me to understand what it is to worship, prostrate and with my face in the dust... The cognitive description of being made like Him is all I've got, because I sure as hell don't feel like Him, have less than zero desire to do so, and remain stunned that it is my eyes, and yours, He longs to lift up and see through.

But what good is moral law if it is not to elevate all of us? Obviously moral law should not condone everything, but it can't approach truth if it doesn't take to heart the perspectives of those whom it purports to govern.

The purpose of Law, be it moral or judicial, I don't think is to elevate us, it is to protect us from ourselves and each other. Law is no where near high minded enough for that. It is the bottom of the barrel, 'Do Not Cross' simplistic as possible ultimatum. They are there for when elevation fails... It strives to BE the heart and level the perspectives of those it governs. It doesn't and shouldn't care if you personally believe you merely helped your cheating wife into her next incarnation, you still stabbed her to death... Save the reasons for the therapist.

"Lock them up and throw away the key" is not an adequate response. They need to be led out of the state of sin (separation from God, suffering), which I think will always involve listening to them as they are. This may wind up informing human understanding of moral law, in that we might make it a task to alleviate the conditions that lead people to become murderers.

"...inform human undestanding of moral law?" What more do we need to know?...the elevation before the descent. Pre-rehabilitation... Think we are headed in the same direction...

A quick thought: No one ever seeks pain or evil. Evil cannot exist on its own. It is always good corrupted.That's a rather, well, Buddhist sentiment.

Its just True

I would say, one ignores the Jungian shadow at one's peril... if you fight it off and slaughter it at every appearance, it's but a Pyrrhic victory. It will come back to get you in another form, and its disguise might be harder to detect and the consequences worse.
This is one area where Buddhism has it all over modern Christianity.

Thanks for the new word, but, simply, non-offensively, Bull... Ignore/fight off/integrate??? As just a matter of law; Fine, whatever it takes: as they say: Play Nice! As a means of elevation...

It isn't a matter of balancing good and evil. It's about understanding evil so that it is no longer in control. If you try to blast it out of your person, it fights back. If you give it the right kind of spacious awareness, little by little its impulses become unconvincing.

Evil, may we pray, is rarely in control, and giving it "the right kind of spacious awareness" (what ever that means) sounds like its way of fighting back, trying to convince us that it is good... I'll pass. Little by little isn't good enough. It can fight back, then lose and die off forever, and it indeed does just that... Why should I accommodate it? It is a parasite. It is an attacker. It is the source of my failure and pain, and It is foreign to our nature... Back to hell with it.

[dewdrop_world]

In all honesty, no, I never have sensed the God-likeness within me, or as me; which is really what we are saying.

Well, it isn't quite what I'm saying.

By what chain of reasoning do you get from the proposition "there is a tiny spark of the divine in every person," or even "your being, and mine, are not utterly devoid of divine presence," to the conclusion "I am God"? To me, it seems central to your point of view but, to my recollection, it's been stated only obliquely so far.

It actually feels the exact opposite when I have sensed the closeness and presence of God. Visceral magnification of those shortcomings, or knowing at my core that I am a speck who is laughably vane, who still hurts what I least wish to, who craves pointless and dead pleasures and relishes the clever humility of fooling myself. The nearer He draws to me the fouler I become by comparison...

In other words, optimism vs pessimism, "nasty, brutish and short" vs the tabula rasa... another controversy we won't answer today.

You know, I have a very strong streak of self loathing. Many of us do... it's so strong in me that when I was trying to focus on my sinful nature (you can imagine that I spent quite a bit of time with that -- I was raised Catholic, after all!), I couldn't see the grace or the redemption. The negative view did not lead me to spiritual awakening, just to depression and torpor. For me, it was necessary to meditate on grace first. In that process, my obstacles to accepting that grace came up. That was more painful than I can describe in a few minutes, but on the other side is an understanding that's probably closer to your own than you are willing to admit: I shouldn't matter, but yet, through some miracle, I do matter.

Everyone starts the spiritual quest in a different place. If you're walking in one direction toward God, you might see someone else walking on a different trajectory and think she's going the wrong way. But the end point may well be the same.

"...inform human undestanding of moral law?" What more do we need to know?

I would ask, what do we think we know so well that we imagine nothing more of significance is to be learned?

Ethics is not like calculus. In calculus, you can read a formula that took one hundred fifty years after Newton to be developed, and use it right away. If you treat ethics the same way, you have only philosophy. You can reach the law and order stage of moral development by "standing on the shoulders" of scripture. It's indeed a practical view -- it can protect people from making mistakes. But it isn't the end point.

Evil, may we pray, is rarely in control, and giving it "the right kind of spacious awareness" (what ever that means) sounds like its way of fighting back, trying to convince us that it is good... I'll pass. Little by little isn't good enough. It can fight back, then lose and die off forever, and it indeed does just that... Why should I accommodate it? It is a parasite. It is an attacker. It is the source of my failure and pain, and It is foreign to our nature... Back to hell with it.

If you've ever felt like beating somebody into a bloody pulp, then you know it is of our nature. In fact, I thought you were saying just a few paragraphs ago that human nature is wretched, and irredeemable without God's unaccountable grace.

The right kind of spacious awareness... one of the changes that happens in meditation is that mental impulses fade in prominence. Most of the time, we think of something and it immediately becomes a big deal. The mind chases after it, a train of thought starts and keeps going... and going... until something else derails it. Evil works like that too, except the thought is, I'm just going to bust if I don't knock that guy off his high horse, or he broke my heart and I can't rest until I have revenge, or I can't go for one more second without another hit of tina. If you stop the train of thought, evil runs out of steam.

In meditation, over time, it's like there's a vast space in which thoughts emerge, and pass away, without knocking you off balance. Then this carries over into daily life. There is an impulse to get angry at someone, then from the experience in meditation, you know that the impulse doesn't have to result in immediate, angry action. You might even be able to stop the impulse from cascading into a yelling match or a fistfight, or murder. It becomes just another impulse, that comes and goes, not a compulsion that must be obeyed.

Yes, in meditation, darker impulses do fight back (I say this from personal experience), and in meditation they also eventually lose (I say this from personal experience too). The shadow can't stand to be loved but not obeyed!

James

[Zerbie]

Some time ago Daniel posted a story about a swami who jumped up one daying shouting "I am God!" I think it is this to which Awe refers.

[awediot]

By what chain of reasoning do you get from the proposition "there is a tiny spark of the divine in every person," or even "your being, and mine, are not utterly devoid of divine presence," to the conclusion "I am God"? To me, it seems central to your point of view but, to my recollection, it's been stated only obliquely so far.

...then I'll speed it along. Its boiled down to this in the Short Change Churches thread anyway. By all means continue along these lines if you find anything else to pursue.* But the new Higher Power poll will likely follow it up and expand on it plenty.

Everyone starts the spiritual quest in a different place. If you're walking in one direction toward God, you might see someone else walking on a different trajectory and think she's going the wrong way. But the end point may well be the same.

True, but we start from not all that different places. They vary quite a bit in matters of degrees, but the pain, sin, rejection and loss that triggers all spiritual quests is the same... Do you think a different trajectory can be wrong at all, or do all roads lead to Rome? And if you believe she can be on the wrong path, do you believe in your own enough to help her, and show her a better way? The end may indeed be same, or it may not... Again, we are not to judge this, but seeing another on a destructive path and remaining silent for fear of appearing judgmental is done at their peril.

I would ask, what do we think we know so well that we imagine nothing more of significance is to be learned?

We so poorly do what is already obvious to be charitable to each other, a higher, more refined perception of ethics would be lost on us anyway. Lets get everyone fed and protected and inoculated first, then worry about if Robin hood was really a sinner or if God set us up... Sure there will always be more to learn, but we haven't mastered what we've been given yet. And actually, seem to be getting worse at it...

If you've ever felt like beating somebody into a bloody pulp, then you know it is of our nature. In fact, I thought you were saying just a few paragraphs ago that human nature is wretched, and irredeemable without God's unaccountable grace.

No, I was saying that I felt wretched because of the things I had done, and I think we all can and should feel that way. Our nature was perfection and fell through a foreign agent and our own pride. I see original sin repeated in every life when the age of accountability is reached. We are by nature weak and egotistical, not evil... I have not felt that type of bloody pulp, violent impulse for anybody for some twenty years. For very specific reasons and as a result of how I now view the world and its people, those impulses are basically long gone (and/or incredibly rare and hinge on a level of brutality toward me and my loved ones I am lucky enough to never encounter) And no, they are not just regrouping or changing costumes. *This definitely needs some elaboration in the future... It applies to how I think Hitler may be loved...(Justified Violence thread). Belief in Divine justice relieves me of the desire for vengence...

The shadow can't stand to be loved but not obeyed!

It hates to be replaced more, so I put it out of my misery. Call it a mercy kill... I can't fathom loving it, even if only to disobey it... Sorry, but the concept kind of creeps me out... The anthropomorphizing its emotions doesn't help... Can it be loved?http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/pauk.gif

Zerb, only a little Daniels fault...In the back of mynd as always...

[Zerbie]

Awrighty then.

Awe, you have a finely tuned sense of what is important, and of what is *most* important. That is marvellous and wonderful. :love:

But James/Dewdrop absolutely nails it with the trajectory stuff. We do NOT all come from the same place in our evolving journey. Where we are at a given time on our "spiritual" developmental paths will be quite different, one of us from another, according to our temperament, intellectual capacity, opportunities, obstacles, and experiences. What I must do to resolve a matter from MY life might be the exact opposite of what someone else must do. But if they both lead towards balance, both trajectories are "right."

I disagree that guilt, shame, and self-deprecation are helpful. All my experience and observation so far shows them to be unfruitful, in the way of growth. If you start by seeing and accepting a limitation or obstacle (mistake, whatever) as being there *for the moment* then you become free to seek resolution/solution/more helpful ways of going about life.

[awediot]

We do NOT all come from the same place in our evolving journey. Where we are at a given time on our "spiritual" developmental paths will be quite different, one of us from another, according to our temperament, intellectual capacity, opportunities, obstacles, and experiences. What I must do to resolve a matter from MY life might be the exact opposite of what someone else must do. But if they both lead towards balance, both trajectories are "right."

I never said we did... But most that we hear of are almost shockingly similar and we can relate enough to offer some decent advice. Those that leave you absolutely flabbergasted and speechless, like they come from another universe, are rare. And even if they do, a few hours of contemplation typically draws some parallels,things you have gone through and ways you can help... Do you know anyone who should do the exact opposite? If someone is willingly brutal and 'evil' they should do the opposite of what THEY are doing, but you being an intelligent, thoughtful and kind soul, represent nothing that one should do the complete opposite of... If two different trajectories lead to "rightness", beautiful... But that is a HUGE if. and you know right now people who are heading the wrong way and feel the pressure to try to help them...

I disagree that guilt, shame, and self-deprecation are helpful. All my experience and observation so far shows them to be unfruitful, in the way of growth. If you start by seeing and accepting a limitation or obstacle (mistake, whatever) as being there *for the moment* then you become free to seek resolution/solution/more helpful ways of going about life.

Yikes! Helpful only in that they (if healthy *?!) point out what ought to be avoided. You learn to avoid, they fade...They are what we grow away from and out of. Thats all...http://www.smileypad.com/v224/Funny/Flushed.gif

I'll try to write a little clearer if you try and read a little deeper...http://www.websmileys.com/sm/animal/1.gif

[dewdrop_world]

...then I'll speed it along. Its boiled down to this in the Short Change Churches thread anyway. By all means continue along these lines if you find anything else to pursue.* But the new Higher Power poll will likely follow it up and expand on it plenty.
I don't see an explanation in that thread, but maybe I'm too dense.

In any case, I see a lot more God-making from people who claim to know what the Right Path © ® ™ is... continued, next...

Do you think a different trajectory can be wrong at all, or do all roads lead to Rome? And if you believe she can be on the wrong path, do you believe in your own enough to help her, and show her a better way? The end may indeed be same, or it may not... Again, we are not to judge this, but seeing another on a destructive path and remaining silent for fear of appearing judgmental is done at their peril.
Yes, if someone is hurting herself, it is right to intervene. One's intervention may do harm as well as good. Awareness and clear vision are essential.

I've observed over on the UMC boards that many Christians see someone on a productive spiritual path, and try to dissuade that person. They see that path as destructive because the path is different from their own, and they've been trained to believe that only one road leads to God. I would not presume to state that this person rescued from ignorance is on God's good graces, while this other person, equally rescued from ignorance, is lost because she uses different words.

That is God-making: "God is what I believe." I don't play that game.

We so poorly do what is already obvious to be charitable to each other, a higher, more refined perception of ethics would be lost on us anyway. Lets get everyone fed and protected and inoculated first, then worry about if Robin hood was really a sinner or if God set us up...
That's a very good point, no argument here.

I'm interested in the kind of ethical learning that leads beyond doing what is right because something out there says it's right, into doing what is right because it's crystal clear in every fiber of your being that it's right.

No, I was saying that I felt wretched because of the things I had done, and I think we all can and should feel that way.
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.

I have not felt that type of bloody pulp, violent impulse for anybody for some twenty years. For very specific reasons and as a result of how I now view the world and its people, those impulses are basically long gone (and/or incredibly rare and hinge on a level of brutality toward me and my loved ones I am lucky enough to never encounter)
I can't remember feeling that kind of rage since I was a kid, pushed past my limit on the schoolyard. But I do encounter anger on the cushion. Perhaps that's a different way of experiencing the wretchedness you wrote of... I have grown a lot, shed a lot of skins, released a lot of compulsiveness and unhealthy habits, but I'm not immune to human frailty. In meditation, there is nowhere to hide from the dark corners. A meditator who pretends there aren't any dark corners isn't really meditating.

And no, they are not just regrouping or changing costumes.
I never said they were...??? I have only been explaining what has worked for me. I don't believe that invalidates another's path.

I can't fathom loving it, even if only to disobey it... Sorry, but the concept kind of creeps me out...
That's OK, you're demonstrating why it's a blessing that we have more than one path! Meditation doesn't work for you. It works for me. That's sufficient. For whatever reason, I didn't find the catalyst for spiritual maturation in the traditional language of Christianity. But it's very clear that you did find it there!

So maybe we should be working together to feed the hungry.

James

[Zerbie]

I never said we did... But most that we hear of are almost shockingly similar and we can relate enough to offer some decent advice. Those that leave you absolutely flabbergasted and speechless, like they come from another universe, are rare. And even if they do, a few hours of contemplation typically draws some parallels,things you have gone through and ways you can help... Do you know anyone who should do the exact opposite? If someone is willingly brutal and 'evil' they should do the opposite of what THEY are doing, but you being an intelligent, thoughtful and kind soul, represent nothing that one should do the complete opposite of... If two different trajectories lead to "rightness", beautiful... But that is a HUGE if. and you know right now people who are heading the wrong way and feel the pressure to try to help them...



Yikes! Helpful only in that they (if healthy *?!) point out what ought to be avoided. You learn to avoid, they fade...They are what we grow away from and out of. Thats all...http://www.smileypad.com/v224/Funny/Flushed.gif

I'll try to write a little clearer if you try and read a little deeper...http://www.websmileys.com/sm/animal/1.gif

:D I love you Awe, and yet, GRRR. :mad: :love:

:lol:

Thanks for the rabbit. :love: You've figured out how to keep me smiling. :p

Now - I AM trying to read with attention and get your message with clarity, yet every time I think we "disagree," you post back a clarification which is basically what I was trying to say to begin with. So, again, yeah yeah yeah, I think we are "arguing" each other while each saying the same thing. At least in the last post and a half.

I really am trying to get where you're coming from because I know that you've been through quite a journey, spiritually, philosophically. I want to understand you because I believe I can learn from your discoveries. Also because I enjoy your persona, your wordsmithing ways, your perspective so unlike my own. - Or is it?

As to trajectories, I did understand you to say that we all follow the same one. Unless it is "wrong." I misunderstood, then.

Of course the goal is that fine balance of understanding, perception, clarity, that brings forth kindness, compassion, gentleness. If someone is on that track, then they needn't move from it. But we swing towards balance from different ends of the pendulum at times if we somehow start the swing from way out one side or another. Yes Awe, of course that is the IF. Without that, nonsense. You know that, I understand that.

May I ask a question, not quite on topic precisely? I have long been curious what led you to Christianity - if it is something you can conveniently articulate. Because what is obvious is that you are indeed familiar with the eastern concepts, the metaphysics (the whole Yaqui way of knowledge shebang) and you have found something that speaks to you - how? better? More clearly? More lovingly? More knowledgeably? I do not know - in Christianity, and I also do not know anything about the "brand" you ascribe to, except that you do not consider it "watered down." My question is not meant as a challenge or as a test. It is a matter of wanting to hear about it from one who has truly examined the questions.

[NathanATX]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140005

Summary: Far-right Christian author and American Vision president Gary DeMar was the guest on the February 2 edition of American Family Radio's Today's Issues. In the past, DeMar has advocated the installation of a theocratic government in the United States in which homosexuals, adulterers, and abortion doctors would be executed.



http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/soundoff.htm

And towards the end of the article...

DEMAR: Now the law in scriptures concerning adultery means
the innocent party has as [recourse] the toughest penalty
that could be brought on the guilty party--the death penalty.
So, for example, a woman had a husband who was a constant
womanizer, she could bring charges against her husband for
adultery, and the severest penalty could be, according to
scriptures, the death penalty. I want to go back and
underscore something: Most of the laws in the Bible were
designed not so much to be implemented, but to keep people
from practicing particular behavior. When there were laws on
the books that could punish homosexuality, it didn't do away
with homosexuality per se, but kept it hidden. Kept it in
the closet.

Gonzales: If, indeed the Reconstructionist movement ever
made it in America, would you advocate these biblical
principles being carried out: the execution of the adulterer,
the abortionist, and the homosexual?

DEMAR: I'm saying that they could be implemented, yes.

[Zerbie]

Check out his website, American Vision. Unbelievable.

High gas prices are good for America because it will lead to opening up Alaska for drilling.

Oh, hey - won't that be GREAT!?

Not to mention all the stuff about us specifically (LGBTs and allies, not SF)

Oh also gotta add - oil company profits are "miniscule." Of course.

[Daniel]

Saw this book online- and though I haven't gotten it yet- think the folks here need to know about it.

I know this topic has been discussed here at length. But this seems like an interesting take on the matter. And one which sees new dangers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743284437/zenpop

Twenty-five years ago, when Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists first spoke of the United States becoming a Christian nation that would build a global Christian empire, it was hard to take such hyperbolic rhetoric seriously. Today, such language no longer sounds like hyperbole but poses, instead, a very real threat to our freedom and our way of life. In American Fascists, Chris Hedges, veteran journalist and author of the National Book Award finalist War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, challenges the Christian Right's religious legitimacy and argues that at its core it is a mass movement fueled by unbridled nationalism and a hatred for the open society.
Hedges, who grew up in rural parishes in upstate New York where his father was a Presbyterian pastor, attacks the movement as someone steeped in the Bible and Christian tradition. He points to the hundreds of senators and members of Congress who have earned between 80 and 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian Right advocacy groups as one of many signs that the movement is burrowing deep inside the American government to subvert it. The movement's call to dismantle the wall between church and state and the intolerance it preaches against all who do not conform to its warped vision of a Christian America are pumped into tens of millions of American homes through Christian television and radio stations, as well as reinforced through the curriculum in Christian schools. The movement's yearning for apocalyptic violence and its assault on dispassionate, intellectual inquiry are laying the foundation for a new, frightening America.

American Fascists, which includes interviews and coverage of events such as pro-life rallies and weeklong classes on conversion techniques, examines the movement's origins, its driving motivations and its dark ideological underpinnings. Hedges argues that the movement currently resembles the young fascist movements in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and '30s, movements that often masked the full extent of their drive for totalitarianism and were willing to make concessions until they achieved unrivaled power. The Christian Right, like these early fascist movements, does not openly call for dictatorship, nor does it use physical violence to suppress opposition. In short, the movement is not yet revolutionary. But the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. The movement has roused its followers to a fever pitch of despair and fury. All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy. The movement awaits a crisis. At that moment they will reveal themselves for what they truly are -- the American heirs to fascism. Hedges issues a potent, impassioned warning. We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal, democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant.

[Emproph]

He (Chris Hedges) was on The Colbert Report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBWgVud0pSI) the other night, so when I came across this article earlier today I took the time to read it. That exact excerpt you emboldened was what stood out for me too. Slightly different:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1026&Itemid=135

The...point is that this movement cannot come to power unless there is a period of prolonged instability or a crisis...And I think that if we don’t enter a period of crisis, this movement can make creeping gains, as it has, but it probably can’t take power. But if we suffer another catastrophic terrorist attack...should we suffer a series of environmental disasters, or an economic meltdown, if we watch petrodollars become petroeuros, if we enter a prolonged period of instability, especially if people become afraid, then I think this movement does stand poised to reshape the country in ways that we’ve not seen, probably since our founding...
~~
Another one:
Christianists on the March (http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/)
Jan 28, 2007
By Chris Hedges


[I]Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School and worked for many years as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, warns that the Christian Right is the most dangerous mass movement in American history.

After two years reporting on the movement for his new book “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America”, he writes that its engine is profound personal and economic despair caused by mounting social and economic inequities that fuel the creation of an American oligarchy. This despair, he said, has led tens of millions of Americans into the arms of demogogues who offer a world of miracles and magic, who sanctify and fuel the rage of America’s dispossessed and who plot the destruction the democratic state.
~~
I did some Googling earlier too. Not that this is new to me but I thought I'd offer it. The similarities between the Christian radical right and fascism are striking if not synonymous. This is just one website of many that make the comparisons. A worthy read.
http://rant.mivox.com/archives/000209.html
~~
In that vein of comparison I often search for past religious rhetoric in regard to racial segregation and the Equal Rights Amendment, as I saw a documentary once that showed how they used all the same "destruction of the family" arguments to defeat the ERA amendment, but I rarely find anything. Obviously those were pre-internet days, but perhaps this is another reason why:

From the first article I quoted:
...Jerry Falwell got his start as a racist demagogue who got up and talked about how desegregation was going to destroy the white race. That’s how he made his money, that’s how he built his church. And he went back in a kind of Stalin-esque purge and destroyed copies of almost every sermon he preached over a 10-year period, because it was so virulent and raw. He still preaches, in my mind, bigotry and racism. It’s just that he’s turned it on others, like homosexuals or liberals or feminists or immigrants, or whatever. But this man, he has the profile of a classic demagogue...
Mel White says they're sincere in their beliefs, but I'm beginning to wonder if some of them are true conscious atheists, as in "I KNOW there is no God" type of atheist.

I gotta get that book and find that documentary.

[TigerXero]

So, America's policies are going to be taken over by the religious right following the next national crisis. I better build up a strong wall of friends! But, seriously, that is very scary to think about.

[kara speltz]

So, America's policies are going to be taken over by the religious right following the next national crisis. I better build up a strong wall of friends! But, seriously, that is very scary to think about.

It is seriously scary, and those policies are already being taken over. I really suggest everyone read Mel's latest book, "Religion Gone Bad - the Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right." He lays it out there in detail. All that is necessary for this to happen is for good people to sit silently by, throw up their hands and say, "there's nothing we can do."

ActUp had a great slogan, "Silence = Death." As long as we stay quiet and allow this to happen, we are complicit in it. Gandhi understood the concept of resistance of the masses and that no government can survive when people no longer recognize it's legitamacy.

Kara

[ladyinred]

Yes, Kara the threat is real, but not only to gay people, but other minorities ,Black people, Women, and Mexicans and other religious minorities and also other Christians as well, especially moderate Christians. The Republican party where many are said to be of the religious right have tried to undermine the votings right act that protected minorities and have been instrumental in undermining other protections and rights as well, another example, unions and workers rights. They are also pro anti -environment,anti -gun control, pro -corporate, and anti-poor,also anti- public education .http://www.theocracywatch.org/ Their idealogy would be , it is not unthinkable for them to use nukes against countries such as Iran to terrorize them and get them in line with their brand of Christianity.They have a worldwide dominionist view.I'll also post an article about the neocons...

[ladyinred]

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/22359,
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/2/12/122655/088
extensive coverage on the rights agenda... the first link about the neoconservatives idealogy.

[ladyinred]

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/general/index.html

[kara speltz]

Yes, Kara the threat is real, but not only to gay people, but other minorities ,Black people, Women, and Mexicans and other religious minorities and also other Christians as well, especially moderate Christians. They have a worldwide dominionist view.I'll also post an article about the neocons...


Oh, absolutely. I never meant to imply that LGBTs were the only ones threatened. We are simply, as Mel puts it the "litmus test." And truthfully, I don't expect that LGBTs will suffer the most if they succeed; their absolute distain for people of color and the poor, will make them the prime targets. Those of us who are white, middle class can pass.

What's difficult is to maintain a position of nonviolence so that we don't demonize them, because they are living an illusion. They think their power and their prestige and their wealth are all indications that they are the "chosen" ones.

The gift that the poor give us, if we are willing to accept it, is that everything we have is gift. I experience a deeper sense of gratitude in the poor than anything I have seen with people of privelege - they honestly believe they've earned it:(

Kara

[revtj]

Wow todays lectionary gospel reading was the Luke version of the Sermon on the Mount (or maybe it was a 2nd similar sermon but on the plain) Luke 6

Anyway, Jesus makes it clear if you bask in wealth & power & lording it over people in this world you don't know how to find God's realm. I think about how rich these christians have gotten by gay-baiting, race-baiting, fear-mongering and I think, you need to get a MAP, coz you're totally lost if you think all this hate & fear is about God's way of being in the world.

[suzer1013]

Blessed are the poor. Think you're poor? I sometimes am frustrated because I live paycheck to paycheck. Going here may put things in perspective (as it did for me):

http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php

Susan

[Emproph]

I’ve been reading about this for past several hours and I’m still pouring over all the connections. I’m not even sure how to portray it all but it seems that many of our oft talked about religious leaders tie back to one Sun Myung Moon. Yes, that Moon.

I was Googling one thing and ended up reading about the Council For National Policy again, which all our favorite players seem to belong to or have direct connections too. They are extremely secretive and the impression I’ve gotten before is that they represent the ACTUAL “Evil Homosexual Agenda,” without the homosexual part of course. This time however there was enough information and links from the original page where I started for a bigger picture to emerge, which I still haven’t quite wrapped my brain around yet – but it gives me chills.

I’m getting the impression that these people are true fascists (atheists?) at heart, almost as though they are throwbacks if not direct “descendants” from the nazi/Hitler regime, whose supremacist goals are EXACTLY the same as before (which may shed new light on the Bush family connection).

My sense is that gays and abortion were never intended to be “moral” issues but simply sources of infinite revenue. Respect for gays, ie; gay marriage, would be the end of civilization – for them, because it would be the end of their revenue, which would be the end of their political power, which would be the end of their plans for world domination, as in dominionism.

There’s too much information here. I’ve got eight windows open as it is trying to piece this together and it’s still not enough so I’m just going to jump around here with these quotes, but at some point it looks like we should be able to start playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon with all these characters and organizations (I’m not kidding).

One note: I obviously haven't vetted all of this yet, but the things I have seem to be panning out.

These are from: http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html
Weyrich, Viguerie and Dolan are Catholic; Phillips is Jewish but claims to have converted to Christianity. Terry Dolan was a homosexual who died of AIDS in 1986. In his expose of the New Right, God's Bullies, Perry Deane Young set the record straight on the religious makeup of the New Right leadership:

"The most effective leaders of the new right are nearly all Catholics. The following are only a few of them: Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Terry Dolan of National Conservative Political Action Committee, Robert Boege of the National Conservative Foundation, Robert Bauman, former national chairman of both Young Americans for Freedom and American Conservative Union, and Richard A. Viguerie, whose direct-mail expertise made winners of them all." 27.

Terry Dolan was also a former member of the advisory board of CAUSA USA, whose president is Bo Hi Pak, top aide of Sun Myung Moon. In 1984, Dolan's organization, NCPAC, received $775,000 from Rev. Moon. Terry Dolan stated that the secret of fundraising is to try to "make them angry and stir up hostilities. The shriller you are, the easier it is to raise funds. That's the nature of the beast." 28.Sound familiar?

And a little on the Council for National Policy. I chose this part primarily for the FOF quote:

Since its inception, CNP membership directories have been 'confidential,' CNP meetings are closed to the public and media and the very existence of the Council for National Policy is denied by high profile Evangelical leaders who publicly clamour for conservative policies in government. Responding to an inquiry by researcher K.E. Barr regarding the nature of the CNP and the reason that meetings are closed even to Christian media, a vice president of Focus on the Family presented the confused image of a Christian organization that is not involved in policy-making [only education] and yet cannot risk media exposure:

"[Paul] Hetrick repeatedly described the organization as a 'meeting of like-minded people.' He claimed that the CNP is a group of conservatives concerned about the direction of the country, who felt the need for an organization to counter the liberal agenda. He told me the network of leaders across the country meet two to three times a year to discuss issues involving '1) free enterprise, 2.) defense, and 3.) traditional western values.'

"In response to being asked how the CNP implements their policies, he said the title of the group may be misleading, and doesn't properly describe their activities. He claimed that they don't actually develop policies. They are, according to Hetrick, 'strictly educational' in nature. Regarding the secrecy of their organization's purpose and membership, he stated that the only reason Christian media is not allowed in their meetings is that: 'you can never tell if they are really Christians or not." 38
Isn't there a line in the Bible about evil men who despise the light for fear it will expose their wicked ways?

And:
Occupying a position in McAteer's Religious Roundtable, 33º Mason Jesse Helms was also a key figure in founding the CNP. With his top aide, attorney Tom Ellis, Helms had put together a national political machine that was unprecedented for the ultra-right. Tom Ellis -- who directed the agency which funded racial science for the purpose of eliminating inferior races -- was president of the CNP after Tim LaHaye.

"Tom Ellis was former director of the Pioneer Fund, a foundation which finances efforts to prove that African-Americans are genetically inferior to whites. Recipients of Pioneer grants have included William Shockley, Arthur Jensen and Roger Pearson, who has written that 'inferior races' should be 'exterminated.' All three and others were funded during Ellis' directorship on the Pioneer board. Yet Ellis served on the CNP's thirteen-member executive committee with Holly Coors, Paul Weyrich, and Heritage Foundation president, Edwin Feulner until June 1989. Oliver North and Reed Larson recently joined the executive committee." 51.Which relates to:
http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/37801.html
The man who has probably fought more for the things we believe in than anybody in Congress is Jesse Helms

I’ve gotta break here, this is getting too long to keep track of on one page, back in a bit.

Talk amonskt ya’selves. I’ll give you a subject, papal infallibility. Is it an oxymoron, and if not, why is the pope so flawed?

[Emproph]

Now this is the part that blows my mind. This is from a radio interview on the first site (http://americanchristianpatriots.net/index.php?topic=269.new) I started on. It’s the 3rd reply on the page. All the posts on the page are from the same person and appear to be cut and paste. It’s from last June and most of the links I tried still worked.

(This person starts threads like I do – several long posts in a row – and then I noticed that their moniker was strangely similar to my own, hmm...)
~~
You’ve gotta read this to believe it. Here's a few clips, but if you start to get interested you may just want to click on the link and read the whole thing. There's a lot of details, but I was riveted.

From: http://watch.pair.com/moon.html
EFF BAKER PROGRAM - September 4, 1997

KELLEIGH: Good evening, America. This is Kelleigh Nelson and I'm sitting in this evening for Jeff Baker. The station called...and asked me if I would sit in. So, I called a good friend of mine. Her name is Chey Simonton...Chey has done hours and hours of research into Sun Myung Moon and his affiliations along with his connections which are very strong to the religious right, the conservative right, all of those people that you know and hear everyday on the radio and in politics.

CHEY: Well, this is as you said, from the article "Unholy Alliance" by Carolyn Weaver that was published in the January, 1986 Mother Jones Magazine. I'll give you some quick background. It details the letter written by, dictated by Tim LaHaye, a thank you letter to Colonel Bo Hi Pak of the Washington Times, 2nd in command to Rev. Moon, for a sizable contribution to American Coalition for Traditional Values.

KELLEIGH: Which is Tim LaHaye's organization.

CHEY: Yes. It also mentions Concerned Women for America. The author, Carolyn Weaver, gives a direct quote from one of Moon's books at the end of the article. This is from Rev. Sun Myung Moon's book, "The Master Speaks"

"My dream is to organize a Christian political party including the Protestant denominations, Catholics and all the religious sects. Then the communist power will be helpless before ours. We have to purge the corrupted politicians and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most. ...Upon my command to the Europeans and others throughout the world to come live in the U.S., wouldn't they obey me? Then what would happen? We can embrace the religious world in one arm and the political world in the other. With this great ideology, if you are not confident to do this, you had better die!"

KELLEIGH: ...isn't he part and parcel of the New World Order?

CHEY: Well, he is because he plays to the conservative, the politically conservative Christians and provides the Washington Times newspaper and networks very strongly with Christian activists and Christian pastors through all these front groups, and on the other hand, he also funded and networked with all the eastern religions and the very liberal.... On the Internet you can find one of his web sites promoting the U.N. Habitat II Conference that was held in Istanbul last year. So he is working both sides very avidly.

KELLEIGH: He wants to join them together.

CHEY: Umhum. That's what "unification" is all about. Unify everything under a big world religion. He financed the World Parliament of Religions that included the Covenant of Isis and all of these Theosophical Society groups and Christian Groups.

I think the most indicative thing is the fact that if they were comfortable with being associated with Moon, they would be publicly, they would be having him as a guest on their radio shows and promoting him as they do all the other people in the conservative movement.

...when Moon first came to this country he was widely recognized as a cult. People were trying to rescue their children from the Unification Cult.^Remember the "moonies?"^
...the official Unification web page. It's very interesting. It has a compilation of all Moon's speeches going back to the 1950s. He's not hiding anything. He's wide, upfront and open. You read his speeches and you understand what he is about. The one that to me was the most shocking, he delivered at the Family Federation for Peace, a big 3 day seminar a year ago at the end of July, 1996 for three days, finishing on August 1, 1996. He delivered a speech about his theology on sexual organs. He feels that Jesus should have married and because Jesus did not marry, Jesus failed; that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, you must be married under the blessing of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The offspring of a marriage that he has blessed will be sinless. There will be no original sin in children born under marriages that he has blessed.

I need to explain, he is very proud of this speech. He gave it first of all August 1, 1996 in Washington D.C. as the final speech of a 3 day seminar for the Family Federation for World Peace. The participants were Beverly LaHaye, Pat Boone, Robert Schuller, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council. This was the final speech. It was reprinted in the Denver Post on January 6, 1997 as a paid advertisement of the Unification Church.

I have to preface, this is the most disgusting abomination of blasphemy to a Christian, to anyone who believes that the Bible is the truth, is the word of God.
IN SEARCH OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (http://www.unification.net/1996/960801.html)

"God wants a love partner, centering on the place where husband and wife become one through their sexual organs, God wants to appear and meet us...I wish you would center on the absolute sexual organ, unique sexual organ, unchanging sexual organ and eternal sexual organ and use this as your foundation to pursue God...We have to realize that the Kingdom of God on earth and in heaven will begin on this foundation."

"Rev. Moon is the first person to provide the answers because Rev. Moon is the only one who knows all the secrets of God. You have to realize that Rev. Moon overcame death hundreds of times in order to find this path. Rev. Moon is the person who brought God to tears hundreds of times. No one in history has loved God more than the Rev. Moon has. That is why even if the world tries to destroy me, the Rev. Moon will never perish. It is because God protects me. If you step into the realm of truth Rev. Moon teaches, you will also gain God's protection."
There is a True Family Values series (http://www.unification.net/tfv/) and "family values" is a Unification theology term and we just read to you what "family values" meant in that sexual organ speech that Rev. Moon gave. It's feature article spells it out, it's from the Family Research Council which is Gary Bauer. Gary was a speaker at the Family Federation for World Peace Seminar. He very likely sat through the sexual organ speech that Moon gave. He's featured now, a year later, on a Unification Church web page and he is the lobbying arm for Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson's group. Dr. Dobson's son works for Gary Bauer at the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. Dr. Dobson's son is a speaker to Youth groups and Gary Bauer, who was in the Reagan administration, is featured on a Unification Church web page. I've heard Gary Bauer use the "family values" rhetoric and heard him use the "traditional values" rhetoric and I have heard him use a lot of the buzzwords that Christian conservatives have become comfortable listening to. I have never heard his Christian testimony. I do not know if he believes that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior.
Now remember, this interview is from 1997 and Gary Bauer didn’t come up on a search of the site. “Family values” however, turned up this: http://www.unification.net/misc/bhp9606.html
On July 28, 1993, Mrs. Moon, who is a great partner for peace with Rev. Moon, made an historic speech on Capitol Hill before U.S. senators and congressmen on the topic of family values. Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced Mrs. Moon. It was a landmark speech on family issues. The U.S. Congress was so moved and inspired by her speech, as well as her initiative as President of the Women's Federation for World Peace, that both houses passed unanimously and enacted the "Parent's Day Resolution." President Clinton signed into law and declared July 28th every year as "Parent's Day" in the United States.Which you can read more about here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/29/15132/0661

And finally (continued from above), the kicker:
KELLEIGH: Well, he [Gary Bauer] may be a Moonie.

CHEY: That's very difficult to determine. They mention The Washington Times weekly newspaper which is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It is staffed by Christians who are aware that their boss is the Unification Church. It is promoted as "the conservative" newspaper that everyone should subscribe to. Dr. Dobson has made references to the "conservative" Washington Times. Don McAlvany references the "conservative" Washington Times.

Just recently in August, the highest ranking Unification Church member staffer resigned from The Washington Times because she had a new position. She is now the president and CEO of Empower America...

...Lamar Alexander and Jean Kirkpatrick. It will be interesting. This is a new change. Empower America is now controlled at the top by a Unification Church member whose purpose in life is to glorify Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

KELLEIGH: And the connections are so many because Jeannie Kirkpatrick of Empower America formerly had Madeleine Albright's job at the U.N. She trained Alan Keyes who is a member of the Council For National Policy. She is a CFR member. It's all interconnected. It just flows, they flow together. It's one big basket of snakes!
Ok, another break. Fact check results coming up.

[Emproph]

Moving right along...

A simple search turned up this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times):
The Times was founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, to be a conservative alternative to the larger Washington Post. The Times is widely perceived as maintaining a right-leaning editorial stance.

Conservative commentator Paul Weyrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich) has called the Washington Times an "antidote" to its "liberal competitor"

The Times is the flagship publication of News World Communication, Inc. (NWC). NWC was founded by Sun Myung Moon, and some of its officials are members of the Unification Church which he leads, a fact that has drawn some criticism and controversy. NWC published Insight Magazine and The World & I. Insight ceased hardcopy publication in 2004, moving to the web
This was my very first thought upon learning that Moon owned the Times:
By Robert Parry (A Special Report (http://theobfuscationreport.blogspot.com/2006/12/right-wing-media-machine-powered-by.html))December 27, 2006

Washington Times articles are routinely cited by C-SPAN, for instance, without explanations to viewers that the newspaper is financed by an ultra-right religious cult leader, a convicted tax fraud and a publicly identified money-launderer. Most American listeners just think they’re getting straightforward news.So much for the one place I though my news media was "safe."
~~~
~~~
There’s tons of hyperlinks on Wikipedia, so you can find out a lot more by going there. Forgive me if the rest of this gets a little choppy, I’m going to try and list a few connections (just a few) that appear to be legit.

This is from the first article (http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html) in the first post. I hear of Paul Weyrich all the time so I wanted to be a bit clearer on his role:
"By 1978, Weyrich's PAC helped sweep into Congress a new, radical breed of populist conservatives. The most notable, it turned out, was a brash, young man from Georgia named Newt Gingrich [33º Mason, CFR] whom Weyrich had trained years earlier at a campaign seminar in Milwaukee. Finally, on the verge of realizing his right-wing utopia Weyrich harvested what his friend Morton Blackwell termed 'the greatest track of virgin timber on the political landscape': evangelicals." 26.
In 1979, Robert Billings of the National Christian Action Coalition and Free Congress Foundation invited the Rev. Jerry Falwell to a meeting with Phillips, Viguerie, Weyrich and Ed McAteer, a retired advertising executive. Their agenda now was to influence the GOP party platform for the 1980 election. Weyrich proposed that if the Republican Party would take a strong stand against abortion, the large Catholic voting bloc within the Democratic Party would be split. At this meeting, the term "Moral Majority" was coined to represent the ecumenical bloc of voters that would be led by the Rev. Falwell, who pledged to "turn this (country) into a Christian nation."So I looked him up (Weyrich - CNP) and he’s one of the writers (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/060706) for Renew America. I’m familiar with RA because of all the garbage they regularly churn out and because it’s run by virulently anti-gay “Mary Cheney is a hedonist” Alan keyes:
RenewAmerica (http://www.renewamerica.us/about.htm) is a grassroots organization that supports the "Declarationist (http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/principles.htm)” ideals of Alan Keyes. Its purpose, therefore, is to faithfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation's Founders.
The link to one of his articles (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52602) – currently it’s the first one in the top left corner of the RA home page – goes directly to, and is listed on the excoriatingly anti-anti-gay World Net Daily.

When I read earlier that Moon started and owns Insight magazine (http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/Default.asp), that sounded familiar too. Interestingly, the fifth listing that came up for that search was a World Net Daily article with this heading:
Editor's note (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32988): WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers.
~~~
Stacey Harp is also a writer for Renew America. Our own Joe Brummer often refutes the anti-gay claims she makes (not necessarily from what she writes on RA though, and to be fair I haven't heard much recently. If you want a lesson in relentless non-violence, see how he communicates with her).http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?page_id=217
~~~
A search (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&domains=Unification.net&q=%22CEO+of+Empower+America%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=) for "CEO of Empower America" turned up this. First result from none other than guess who (I included the search results link because I haven't checked out the site yet):
the highest ranking Unification Church member staffer resigned from The Washington Times because she had a new position. She is now the president and CEO of Empower America...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-5.html
(second paragraph from the bottom)The President intends to nominate Josette Sheeran Shiner, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of State (Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs). Ms. Shiner currently serves as Deputy United States Trade Representative. She previously served as Associate United States Trade Representative for Policy and Communications. Prior to joining USTR, she served as Managing Director of Starpoint Solutions, a technology firm. Earlier in her career, she served as President and CEO of Empower America and as managing editor of The Washington Times. Ms. Shiner received her bachelor's degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Ms. Shiner also appears on the Unification Church website:
This is an excerpt (http://www.unification.net/misc/21-women.html) from the address given on the recent WFWP tours of Korea, Japan, America and Europe.
~~~
That’s enough for now, I have my... We have our work cut out for us. It’s all over the internet so go nuts. Here’s a few more though that I couldn’t squeeze in. And BTW, I haven't even begun to try and put this into succinct understandable terms yet, so if you're confused, don't fret – yet. Why won't Congress and the television news media investigate the relationship between the Bush family and Sun Myung Moon?
by Carla Binion
Online Journal/February 22, 2001 (http://ftrsupplemental.blogspot.com/2001/02/why-is-tv-news-ignoring-relationship.html)
There are several links at the bottom of this article:
CAN THE WASHINGTON TIMES SURVIVE? (http://georgearchibald.typepad.com/george_archibald/2006/12/can_the_washing.html)
George Archibald December 21, 2006
The Washington Times gets picked up every day on C-SPAN, and by other major news organizations when it scores a big hit.

But for a paper that only has a daily circulation of just 90,000 with inflated numbers, can that marvelous respectability continue?

The paper for years has been a beacon for both conservative and liberal readers for its own take on the news of the day and the direction of our culture.

Conservatives love it, liberals may hate it, but as President Bill Clinton told me personally when I was still a reporter for The Times, “I read you every day to see what you’re saying about me.” That was respect from a man who hated The Washington Times, but he said he felt he had to read The Washington Times every day to find out what the other side was thinking and doing.

Some more here, just in case:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/index.htm

And this is where it all started, at 10AM yesterday morning.
http://americanchristianpatriots.net/index.php?topic=269.new

[Emproph]

:dove:



:flower: The Girl From Ipanema (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8834692570074214563&q=%22girl+from+Ipanema%22&hl=en) :flower:



:earth:



..or maybe I should have put that first? :o

[andrewlittle]

Okay, while I'm digesting as much of your work as I can, I'll give you kudos for your choice in music. Astrud Gilberto, the female singer, has always been one of my favorites and Jobim is incredible.

Now, back to reality. It's tough to sound like a conspiracy theorist, rather than a nut-job, when you start digging into all the alliances and liaisons that exist in the political right. IMO, you are falling well short of the nut-job category, so far.

I have long contended, because of researching liberation and other modern theologies, that some of the most common "conservative" ones are not theologies at all, just simply ideologies painted with God language. The extensive links between Moon and the others is, I must say, a new twist for me. A very scary twist.

A very powerful, extremely wealthy central figure has been essential to the kind of pseudo-religious power-mongering we have been witnessing, but that figure has eluded me. Moon, if he is it, presents about the scariest possibility of all possibilities. His is a cult of personality, with him being the central figure that exclipses Jesus because of being the more-effective, more authentic Christ. It is as unChristian as is imaginable.

[Emproph]

...but you should have seen my first drafts. :lol:
Okay, while I'm digesting as much of your work as I can, I'll give you kudos for your choice in music. Astrud Gilberto, the female singer, has always been one of my favorites and Jobim is incredible.Yeah, I've always loved that singer's version of the song too, and I figured some detox quotient was in order for anyone who made it through all that. :D :award: :D

But seriously now :shifty:
Now, back to reality. It's tough to sound like a conspiracy theorist, rather than a nut-job, when you start digging into all the alliances and liaisons that exist in the political right. IMO, you are falling well short of the nut-job category, so far.Well that's good to know, because the "falling well short of the nut-job category" was precisely what I was going for. ;)

That's why it was so obnoxiously long and detailed, but I still want to apologize to everyone for that. I’m sure there must have been a less burdensome way to relay the impact of it all and still avoid the perception of unwarranted paranoia. Then again maybe not so much, it's a complex picture with a lot of players. In any event, it's the best I could do on short notice. :o The extensive links between Moon and the others is, I must say, a new twist for me. A very scary twist.Oh thank God, I figured if anyone had already been aware of Moon's connections – especially with the Washington Times – it would be you.

A very powerful, extremely wealthy central figure has been essential to the kind of pseudo-religious power-mongering we have been witnessing, but that figure has eluded me. Moon, if he is it, presents about the scariest possibility of all possibilities. His is a cult of personality, with him being the central figure that exclipses Jesus because of being the more-effective, more authentic Christ. It is as unChristian as is imaginable.

That seems to be the significance of it. If he’s as allied with the right as intimately as is suggested then it cuts across all borders, terrorism, abortion, gay rights, etc., and literally in that he's not the head of any nation state. Which hails back to your point in the energy/control/power thread – that (to put it in a nutshell) control of human fear is the biggest energy source in terms of attaining and maintaining political power. (I'm not done there yet btw)

I identify with your synopsis in that last paragraph and am tempted yet pragmatically reticent to say "smoking gun" when it comes to Moon's involvement with the religious right. But if true, then they have literally made a deal with the devil – as per their definition it. Even the goals of the “evil homosexual agenda” aren't portrayed as aspiring to the level of sacrilege and blasphemy that Moon does – openly.

The availability of this "secret" is what flabbergasts me though. Obviously they wouldn’t want their associations with him to be known, so that would account for a certain amount of hush hush. On the other hand, Moon seems to be completely open about his goals and ties, which may be another reason why this isn’t common knowledge. He doesn’t come across as someone with a nefarious agenda, just as a nut case, so nobody takes him seriously, or better perhaps – it is assumed that nobody takes him seriously, and therefore political associations with him are summarily dismissed as innocuous if not wholly untrue.

I still don’t get it though, especially the fact that he’s owned the Washington Times all these years. Not that a cult-leader can’t own a newspaper, but the fact that it’s Moon should’ve raised enough eyebrows to at least occasionally hear the term “the Moon owned Times.” A statement that would seem to me to be of even more public concern to conservatives than to liberals, especially considering the anti-Christ and unification principles he espouses to.

Pun intended with the 'anti-Christ' thing, but don’t even get me started on the Biblical parallels. :reading:

[andrewlittle]

The first two links are to the stories about Moon's coronation in the Senate Building. I thought I first read about this on this forum (somewhere), but I could be mistaken.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/06/this-really-happened-at-senate-office.html

This next one is a link to a BBC documentory on Moon. It is an hour long, but the last 30 minutes is the best.

http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2006/12/bbc-moon-documentary-emperor-of.html

Interesting stuff, eh?

EDIT: This is a compilation of Moon related organizations. Quite a number of sources used this listing - I do not know hiow accurate it is, ultimately, be the list is staggering.

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/front_groups.htm

[Emproph]

XdeIZkZo2PM

[Emproph]

Thanks for those links. I now live in a different universe...one with two moons.
Interesting stuff, eh?
That Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) -- Parents' Day (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060713-1.html) scam is to die for. If that story is accurate, our US Congress officially proclaimed into law one day out of the year to honor our “true parents,” the Reverend Moon and his wife.Senior Republicans proposed, on the floor of Congress, a holiday that would seemingly celebrate American moms and dads...it turned out to be the brainchild of Reverend Moon himself...by convincing Congress to enact a holiday secretly honoring him as a "True Parent (http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2006/10/hatchs-song-for-rev-moon.html)." By the time Clinton signed it into law, the "True" had been stripped...

How much original political influence do you think the Washington Times has? If they were to cease tomorrow how much difference would it make?

They may be an effective cog, but I can’t imagine that their anti-everything rhetoric, or even their timing of its release can be that original.

Anyone get the Moon owned Times?

[Diane Vera]

My whole point was that the conspiracy included making Christians look bad (sadly not hard to do) and was not being created by them.

Are you claiming here that the religious right wing is secretly controlled by people whose actual ultimate aim is to make Christianity look bad?

If so, what evidence can you provide for this claim?

It is true that they DO make Christianity look bad, at least in the long run. But this fact does not, in itself, constitute evidence that making Christianity look bad was their ultimate aim. Oftentimes people's actions have unintended consequences.

Personally I think religious right wingers fall into two main categories:

1) Christians who sincerely believe it's important to enforce what they consider to be Christian moral standards (although other Christians may disagree),

and

2) Politicians and Republican Party strategists who have made use of popular prejudices, e.g. against gays, as a way to trying to expand their influence and get themselves elected.

[Diane Vera]

Back on 05-30-2006:

Within the context of the prevailing mood of this country, I do feel the fear of a Christian theocracy is misplaced. I fear the building backlash against them much more. That is what will soon explode, that is what will give those really in power the boost they need, and that is what will fulfill prophecy. The fear of theocracy is a set up playing right into Bush's masters' hands...

Do you have any evidence for this claim besides your own interpretation of Bible prophecy?

Personally, I'm inclined to see Bush as a power-hungry politician using Christianity in an attempt to make himself look good, not to make Christianity look bad. Conservative Christian churches have been growing these past several decades, at the expense of formerly "mainline" churches. So it's only natural for politicians to try to appeal to the conservative Christian demographic.

If you're going to claim that Bush has more subterranean motives than that, please provide some evidence.

[Diane Vera]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140005

Summary: Far-right Christian author and American Vision president Gary DeMar was the guest on the February 2 edition of American Family Radio's Today's Issues. In the past, DeMar has advocated the installation of a theocratic government in the United States in which homosexuals, adulterers, and abortion doctors would be executed.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/soundoff.htm

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[Diane Vera]

Saw this book online- and though I haven't gotten it yet- think the folks here need to know about it.

I know this topic has been discussed here at length. But this seems like an interesting take on the matter. And one which sees new dangers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743284437/zenpop

Thanks for telling us about it.

[Diane Vera]

~~
Another one:
Christianists on the March (http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/)
Jan 28, 2007
By Chris Hedges

~~
I did some Googling earlier too. Not that this is new to me but I thought I'd offer it. The similarities between the Christian radical right and fascism are striking if not synonymous. This is just one website of many that make the comparisons. A worthy read.
http://rant.mivox.com/archives/000209.html
~~


Thanks for the info.

[Diane Vera]

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/22359,
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/2/12/122655/088
extensive coverage on the rights agenda... the first link about the neoconservatives idealogy.

Thanks also for telling us about the following site:

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/general/index.html

[Diane Vera]

Back on 5-20-2006:

HHmmm... I'm all for paranoia and conspiracy theory these days. There is plenty of evidence that this administration did more than take advantage of an opportunity.

Care to share some of this evidence?

Christianity warns of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" government conquering the planet. This Prophecy would be a great pain in the ass for such a system. What better smokescreen than to hijack the source of the warning itself and make it appear that it was the thing itself?

Politicians and other rulers have always used religious garb to make themselves look good in the eyes of the majority of the populace. This is nothing new. Read Machiavelli.

Dominionism is real, but it ain't coming from Christians...

It seems to me that plenty of Dominionists are indeed sincere believers -- even though, fortunately, many other Christians do not agree with them. It seems to me that the religious right wing, like many other movements, includes both sincere supporters and opportunists.

We were told the men who will do this are False Prophets and anti-Christs and they will wreak havoc posing as angels of light and claiming to act on God's will specifically in order to destroy Christianity... Sound familiar? Their success blazes on the horizon... Mere Christians are increasingly despised and soon will be blamed for the the very existence of negativity itself... and you worry they will win?

Christianity is not in any danger of being destroyed in the near future. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. One third of the world's population is Christian. Here in the U.S.A., at least 80% of the population is at least nominally Christian, last I heard.

[Diane Vera]

http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html
http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/37801.html


Thanks for the links.

[Diane Vera]

http://americanchristianpatriots.net/index.php?topic=269.new
http://watch.pair.com/moon.html
http://www.unification.net/misc/bhp9606.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/29/15132/0661


Thanks for the info.

[Daniel]

Time to bump this thread!

I read the paper this morning and thought of this thread. The article below is from the News York Times and lays out what I've known since I was at Evangel College, where I witnessed domionist/theocratic thinking. It was made very apparent that one was supposed to go out and Christianize both the nation and the world during my time there, which ended in 1981. It is any wonder that the things happening in our present government are the result of such goals?



For God's Sake

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 13, 2007

In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.

Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.

Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.

One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.

There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?

Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.

And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.

You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.

Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.

The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.

Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.

[tdogg]

It's shocking, the extent of the Bush administration corruption. It's not shocking, the people involved. Why does it seem that those who hold views such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, let the lies and deceit ooze off their beings while covering it up and lying about all the lies. Certainly, liberals and the like are not without their shames. But have we ever seen such widespread corruption and blatent attemps to cover it up since....well, gee since perhaps Nixon (see sentence 3 above). Seems to me this may be larger than the Watergate scandle ever thought of being.

It just keeps growing. The scary thing still is that a majority of voting US citizens decided this was a good thing and voted the Bush administration right back into office...well, of course that is debatable (FLORIDA), but true that ENOUGH voters put their marks on Bush & Co, otherwise, the Florida ballot scandle wouldn't have made a different.

Well enough we don't have all that much time left. The administration - and times - are a changing, thank God!

[Rick336]

Daniel,

Thanks for posting this NYTimes article.

This clearly shows how the religious right continues to decieve the American public to enforce their anti-American political agenda.

This is all the more reason why those of us who cherish the American values of freedom, fairness, and equality must expose the deceitfulness coming from the religious right.

Posting to web blogs is one way. The print media is another. Letters to the editor and Op-Ed articles can bring this to the attention of hundreds of thousands of people.

Those who want to destroy the very principles this country was founded on need to be held accountable. A computer keyboard is a powerful weapon.

Rick

[kara speltz]

Time to bump this thread!

I read the paper this morning and thought of this thread. The article below is from the News York Times and lays out what I've known since I was at Evangel College, where I witnessed domionist/theocratic thinking. It was made very apparent that one was supposed to go out and Christianize both the nation and the world during my time there, which ended in 1981. It is any wonder that the things happening in our present government are the result of such goals?

I'm so relieved to see that the New York Times picked up the Globe article. Now if they can just keep this issue before people's eyes. As I mentioned in my previous post, in addition to Regents, there is also Ave Maria as well as Falwell's new law school. All three of them are committed to creating a theocracy.

kara

[davidb]

And I truly believe that if Guiliani continues to court the Religious Right, his candidacy is doomed.

[Diane Vera]

Time to bump this thread!

I read the paper this morning and thought of this thread. The article below is from the News York Times and lays out what I've known since I was at Evangel College, where I witnessed domionist/theocratic thinking. It was made very apparent that one was supposed to go out and Christianize both the nation and the world during my time there, which ended in 1981. It is any wonder that the things happening in our present government are the result of such goals?


For God's Sake

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 13, 2007

A copy has appeared online at ZNet (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12578), dated April 14.

[Emproph]

"Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict, for which we’ll be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take—education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience, to bring about the necessary changes."

Ron Paul - C-SPAN 5-22-07
VpM_mjQhdcY

I caught the tail end of his speech on CSPAN the other night. Full text here (recommended): http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm (The video portion of the text is below).

I voted for this guy in '88 when he was running as a libertarian against Dukakis and Bush Sr. He got like 430,000 votes, and now 20 yrs later he's running again. He may be the only candidate who actually knows he's running for show (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22710).

Considering the dire nature of the subject matter, at least there's ONE guy with the spine and fortitude to stand up and say what needs to be said.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course—both well-intentioned and malevolent. But it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice of liberty—even if it’s just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to reign in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution, will disappear.

The record since September 11, 2001, is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated.

Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had in fact been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long planned-for invasion of Iraq .

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drum beat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan , our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government—hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote—no Member had sufficient time to read or understand it—political fear of “not doing something,” even something harmful, drove Members of Congress to not question the contents and just vote for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair tradeoff—and the majority of Americans applauded.

The Patriot Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include: sneak and peak searches; a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism; allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause; easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps; easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the internet; and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past six years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the Executive Branch are used and abused.

This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the president and without the right of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA (National Security Agency). It also gives to the president the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world has been widely engaged in, though obviously extra-legal.

A growing concern in the post 9/11 environment is the federal government’s lists of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed, even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It’s called the Real ID card and it’s tied to our Social Security numbers and our state driver’s license. If Real ID is not stopped it will become a national driver’s license/ID for all America .

Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to Posse Comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007.

These changes pose a threat to the survival of our republic by giving the president the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore “public order.” The 1807 Act severely restricted the president in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the president to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act”. This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for “insurrection” but also for “natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents” or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without Congressional approval or the governors’ approval and even send these state guard troops into other states. The American republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship and few seem to care.

These precedent setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not reversed. The beneficial results of our revolt against the king’s abuses are about to be eliminated and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders.

Sadly, those few who do object to this self evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not “supporting the troops”. The cliché “support the troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of “supporting the policy” no matter how flawed it may be. Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict, for which we’ll be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take—education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience, to bring about the necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing.

Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

If you enjoyed that, you might also enjoy his web page and YouTube pages:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom

[antonyh]

If you enjoyed that, you might also enjoy his web page and YouTube pages:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom

Is he running for President in '08?

[Emproph]

Is he running for President in '08?

Apparently so. I'm actually starting to think there's hope. :eek:

He's so unassuming though. If you blink you'll miss him, and his loud and clear message along with. So far that's the only fear I can come up with as far as backing him goes. That he's not "political" enough to get noticed.


but if that's the worst there is to him....

[ladyinred]

Go to on the issues.org to find out where he stands on issues, unfortunately I don't think he is a big supporter of gay rights. But the fact is he is right, Americans made a bargain with the devil so to speak for so called sense of false security. But in my mind there is no real security without having our rights to free speech and other constitutional rights intact and without checks and balances in the system.. Seems like we run the risk of a police state and a dictatorship.
Anyone want to know what it is like where the govt has absolute power and the people are no longer in charge? Go to Iran, or Saudi Arabia. No rights means you can be thrown in jail for saying anything the govt doesn't like.. Ok , so I guess people think they will feel so safe and secure in such a society, but I doubt it. I am astounded at the ignorance of people who think by giving the govt such authority over their lives they will be protected. What they need to be protected from is Uncle Sam itself and the abuse of power from our political leaders,if people are too stupid to realize that ,then they need some serious help..To me there is no bargaining away our rights for so-called security because in truth we won't have any,and we'll all be watching our backs , leery of Big brother from now on out.

[ladyinred]

This article is somewhat dated but it will give you a clue into the perverse outlook of many in the religious right,now many of you may see why I see them as acult much like Heaven's Gate with all their doomsday prophecies and suicidal tendacies, but after you read this article , what would you conclude, it seems very similar and yes even suicidal.. All I can say these people are off the wall and majorly dysfunctional. But what makes them even more dangerous than Heavens gate or other cults, is they have POLITICAL POWER.What is so sickening is the legacy they will be leaving future generations to clean up the messes we've made and to deal with the repurcussions of choosing to ignore the consequences of our actions on the environment.I will go so far as to say that these people are selfish and narcissistic. They don't really care about people at all,only their sick twisted agenda.They don't care about future generations and what they will have to deal with.The buddhist wisely understand cause and effect, but the bible also states, "What you sow , shall you also reap."

Below this posting is the article.

[ladyinred]

The Godly Must Be Crazy
Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment
By Glenn Scherer
27 Oct 2004


A kind of secular apocalyptic sensibility pervades much contemporary writing about our current world. Many books about environmental dangers, whether it be the ozone layer, or global warming or pollution of the air or water, or population explosion, are cast in an apocalyptic mold.
- Historian Paul Boyer

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale; the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place ...
- Revelation 6:12-14

Abortion. Same-sex marriage. Stem-cell research.

U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection.


Story continues below:

Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

These statistics are puzzling at first. Opposing abortion and stem-cell research is consistent with the religious right's belief that life begins at the moment of conception. Opposing gay marriage is consistent with its claim that homosexual activity is proscribed by the Bible. Both beliefs are a familiar staple of today's political discourse. But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism?*

Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress. (The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who earlier this year quoted from the Book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord!") These politicians include some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government, as well as key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Senate Republican Policy Chair Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and quite possibly President Bush. (Earlier this month, a cover story by Ron Suskind in The New York Times Magazine described how Bush's faith-based governance has led to, among other things, a disastrous "crusade" in the Middle East and has laid the groundwork for "a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.")

And those politicians are just the powerful tip of the iceberg. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

Like it or not, faith in the Apocalypse is a powerful driving force in modern American politics. In the 2000 election, the Christian right cast at least 15 million votes, or about 30 percent of those that propelled Bush into the presidency. And there's no doubt that arch-conservative Christians will be just as crucial in the coming election: GOP political strategist Karl Rove hopes to mobilize 20 million fundamentalist voters to help sweep Bush back into office on Nov. 2 and to maintain a Republican majority in Congress, says Joan Bokaer, director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University.

Because of its power as a voting bloc, the Christian right has the ear, if not the souls, of much of the nation's leadership. Some of those leaders are End-Time believers themselves. Others are not. Either way, their votes are heavily swayed by an electoral base that accepts the Bible as literal truth and eagerly awaits the looming Apocalypse. And that, in turn, is sobering news for those who hope for the protection of the earth, not its destruction.


Once Upon End Time

Ever since the dawn of Christianity, groups of believers have searched the scriptures for signs of the End Time and the Second Coming. Today, most of the roughly 50 million right-wing fundamentalist Christians in the United States believe in some form of End-Time theology.

Those 50 million believers make up only a subset of the estimated 100 million born-again evangelicals in the United States, who are by no means uniformly right-wing anti-environmentalists. In fact, the political stances of evangelicals on the environment and other issues range widely; the Evangelical Environmental Network, for example, has melded its biblical interpretation with good environmental science to justify and promote stewardship of the earth. But the political and cultural impact of the extreme Christian right is difficult to overestimate.

It is also difficult to understand without grasping the complex belief systems underlying and driving it. While there are many divergent End-Time theologies and sects, the most politically influential are the dispensationalists and reconstructionists.

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heady dose of dispensationalism, an End-Time doctrine invented in the 19th century by the Irish-Anglo theologian John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalists espouse a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that offers a detailed chronology of the impending end of the world. (Many mainstream theologians dispute that literality, arguing that Darby misinterprets and distorts biblical passages.) Believers link that chronology to current events -- four hurricanes hitting Florida, gay marriages in San Francisco, the 9/11 attacks -- as proof that the world is spinning out of control and that we are what dispensationalist writer Hal Lindsey calls "the terminal generation." The social and environmental crises of our times, dispensationalists say, are portents of the Rapture, when born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven.

"All over the earth, graves will explode as the occupants soar into the heavens," preaches dispensationalist pastor John Hagee, of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. On the heels of that Rapture, nonbelievers left behind on earth will endure seven years of unspeakable suffering called the Great Tribulation, which will culminate in the rise of the Antichrist and the final battle of Armageddon between God and Satan. Upon winning that battle, Christ will send all unbelievers into the pits of hellfire, re-green the planet, and reign on earth in peace with His followers for a millennium.

Dispensationalists haven't cornered the market on End-Time interpretation. The reconstructionists (also known as dominionists), a smaller but politically influential sect, put the onus for the Lord's return not in the hands of biblical prophesy but in political activism. They believe that Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, and that the first step in readying His arrival is to Christianize America.

"Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ," writes reconstructionist George Grant. Christian dominion will be achieved by ending the separation of church and state, replacing U.S. democracy with a theocracy ruled by Old Testament law, and cutting all government social programs, instead turning that work over to Christian churches. Reconstructionists also would abolish government regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, because they are a distraction from their goal of Christianizing America, and subsequently, the rest of the world. "World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish," says Grant. "We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less." Only when that conquest is complete can the Lord return.


Don't Worry, Be Happy

People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word?

Many End-Timers believe that until Jesus' return, the Lord will provide. In America's Providential History, a popular reconstructionist high-school history textbook, authors Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell tell us that: "The secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's Earth. The resources are waiting to be tapped." In another passage, the writers explain: "While many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

Natural-resource depletion and overpopulation, then, are not concerns for End-Timers -- and nor are other ecological catastrophes, which are viewed by dispensationalists as presaging the Great Tribulation. Support for this view comes from an 11-word passage in Matthew 24:7: "[T]here shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." Other End-Timers see suggestions of ecological meltdown in Revelation's four horsemen of the Apocalypse -- War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death -- and they cite a verse mentioning costly wheat, barley, and oil as foretelling food and fossil-fuel shortages. During the End Time, the four horsemen shall be "given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth." Some End-Timers note that Revelation 8:8-11 predicts a fiery mountain falling into the sea and causing great destruction, followed by a blazing star plummeting from the sky. This star is called "Wormwood," which dispensationalists say translates loosely in Ukrainian as "Chernobyl."

A plethora of End-Time preachers, tracts, films, and websites hawk environmental cataclysm as Good News -- a harbinger of the imminent Second Coming. Hal Lindsey's 1970 End-Time "non-fiction" work, The Late Great Planet Earth, is the classic of the genre; the movie version pummels viewers with stock footage of nuclear blasts, polluting smokestacks, raging floods, and killer bees. Likewise, dispensationalist author Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" novels -- at one point selling 1.5 million copies per month -- weave ecological disaster into an action-adventure account of prophesy.

At RaptureReady.com, the "Rapture Index" tracks all the latest news in relation to biblical prophecy. Among its leading environmental indicators of Apocalypse are oil supply and price, famine, drought, plagues, wild weather, floods, and climate. RaptureReady webmaster Todd Strandberg writes to explain why climate change made the list: "I used to think there was no real need for Christians to monitor the changes related to greenhouse gases. If it was going to take a couple hundred years for things to get serious, I assumed the nearness of the End Times would overshadow this problem. With the speed of climate change now seen as moving much faster, global warming could very well be a major factor in the plagues of the tribulation."

Another prophecy index points to acts of nature (drought in Ethiopia, famine in South Africa, floods in Russia, fires in Arizona, heat waves in India, and the breakup of the Antarctic ice shelf) as proof of the approaching doomsday, noting that "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:28).

[ladyinred]

According to a chart on the End-Time website ApocalypseSoon.org, we are at "the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:3-8) marking the Great Tribulation. The site links to a BBC News article on infectious diseases and a chronicle of extreme weather events on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan's climate-change website as evidence of those unfolding sorrows. However, it adds a stern disclaimer regarding these external links: "We do not, by any means, approve or recommend some of the sites that this page links to. They were chosen simply because they document literally what the Word of God prophesies for the End Days."


If I Had a Hammer

To understand how the Christian right worldview is shaping and even fueling congressional anti-environmentalism, consider two influential born-again lawmakers: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

DeLay, who has considerable control over the agenda in the House, has called for "march[ing] forward with a Biblical worldview" in U.S. politics, reports Peter Perl in The Washington Post Magazine. DeLay wants to convert America into a "God centered" nation whose government promotes prayer, worship, and the teaching of Christian values.

Inhofe, the Senate's most outspoken environmental critic, is also unwavering in his wish to remake America as a Christian state. Speaking at the Christian Coalition's Road to Victory rally just before the GOP sweep of the 2002 midterm elections, he promised the faithful, "When we win this revolution in November, you'll be doing the Lord's work, and He will richly bless you for it!"

Neither DeLay nor Inhofe include environmental protection in "the Lord's work." Both have ranted against the EPA, calling it "the Gestapo." DeLay has fought to gut the Clean Air and Endangered Species acts. Last year, Inhofe invited a stacked-deck of fossil fuel-funded climate-change skeptics to testify at a Senate hearing that climaxed with him calling global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

DeLay has said bluntly that he intends to smite the "socialist" worldview of "secular humanists," whom, he argues, control the U.S. political system, media, public schools, and universities. He called the 2000 presidential election an apocalyptic "battle for souls," a fight to the death against the forces of liberalism, feminism, and environmentalism that are corrupting America. The utopian dreams of such movements are doomed, argues the majority leader, because they do not stem from God.

"DeLay is motivated more than anything by power," says Jan Reid, coauthor with Lou Dubose of The Hammer, a just-published biography of DeLay. "But he also believes in the power of the coming Millennium [of Jesus Christ], and it helps shape his vision on government and the world." This may explain why DeLay's Capitol office furnishings include a marble replica of the Ten Commandments and a wall poster that reads: "This Could Be The Day" -- meaning Judgment Day.

DeLay is also a self-declared member of the Christian Zionists, an End-Time faction numbering 20 million Americans. Christian Zionists believe that the 1948 creation of the state of Israel marked the first event in what author Hal Lindsey calls the "countdown to Armageddon" and they are committed to making that doomsday clock tick faster, speeding Christ's return.

In 2002, DeLay visited pastor John Hagee's Cornerstone Church. Hagee preached a fiery message as simple as it was horrifying: "The war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse!" he said, urging his followers to support the war, perhaps in order to bring about the Second Coming. After Hagee finished, DeLay rose to second the motion. "Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "what has been spoken here tonight is the truth from God."

With those words -- broadcast to 225 Christian TV and radio stations -- DeLay placed himself squarely inside the End-Time camp, a faction willing to force the Apocalypse upon the rest of the world. In part, DeLay may embrace Hagee and others like him in a calculated attempt to win fundamentalist votes -- but he was also raised a Southern Baptist, steeped in a literal interpretation of the Bible and End-Time dogma. Biographer Dubose says that the majority leader probably doesn't grasp the complexities of dispensationalist and reconstructionist theology, but "I am convinced that he believes [in] it." For DeLay, Dubose told me, "If John Hagee says it, then it is true."


Onward Christian Senators

James Inhofe might be an environmentalist's worst nightmare. The Oklahoma senator makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and probably an apocalyptic worldview -- and he chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

That committee's links to corporate funders are both easier to trace and more infamous than its ties to religious fundamentalism, and it's true that the influence of money can scarcely be overstated. From 1999 to 2004, Inhofe received more than $588,000 from the fossil-fuel industry, electric utilities, mining, and other natural-resource interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Eight of the nine other Republican members of Inhofe's committee received an average of $408,000 per senator from the energy and natural resource sector over the same period. By contrast, the eight committee Democrats and one Independent came away with an average of just $132,000 per senator from that same sector since 1999.

But the influence of theology, although less discussed, is no less significant. Inhofe, like DeLay, is a Christian Zionist. While the senator has not overtly expressed his religious views in his environmental committee, he has when speaking on other issues. In a Senate foreign-policy speech, Inhofe argued that the U.S. should ally itself unconditionally with Israel "because God said so." Quoting the Bible as the divine Word of God, Inhofe cited Genesis 13:14-17 -- "for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever" -- as justification for permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and for escalating aggression against the Palestinians.

Inhofe also openly supports dispensationalist Pat Robertson, who touts every tornado, hurricane, plague, and suicide bombing as a sure sign of God's return; who accused both Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. of being followers of Lucifer; and who makes no secret of the efforts of his Christian Coalition to control the Republican Party, according to Theocracy Watch.

A good fundamentalist, Inhofe scored a perfect 100 percent rating in 2003 from all three major Christian-right advocacy groups, while earning a 5 percent from the League of Conservation Voters (and a string of zeroes from 1997 to 2002). Likewise, eight of the nine other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee earned an average 94 percent approval rating in 2003 from the Christian right, while scoring a dismal 4 percent average environmental approval rating. The one exception proves the rule: Moderate Lincoln Chafee (R.-R.I.) last year earned a 79 percent LCV rating and just 41 percent from the religious right.

As committee chair, Inhofe has subtly chosen scripture over science. The origins of his 2003 Senate speech attacking the science behind global climate change, for example, reveal his two masters: the speech is traceable to fossil fuel industry think tanks and petrochemical dollars -- but also to the pseudo-science of Christian right websites. In that two-hour diatribe, Inhofe dismissed global warming by comparing it to a 1970s scientific scare that suggested the planet was cooling -- a hypothesis, he fails to note, held by only a minority of climatologists at the time. Inhofe's apparent source on global cooling was the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a Christian-right and free-market economics think tank. In an editorial on that site called "Global Warming or Globaloney? The Forgotten Case for Global Cooling," we hear echoes of Inhofe's position. The article calls climate change "a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restriction on our cherished freedoms. Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism." Inhofe's views can be heard in the words of dispensationalist Jerry Falwell as well, who said on CNN, "It was global cooling 30 years ago ... and it's global warming now. ... The fact is there is no global warming."

Inhofe's views are also closely tied to the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship, a radical-right Christian organization founded by radio evangelist James Dobson, dispensationalist Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who has been editing Vatican texts to align the Catholic Church's historical teachings with his free-market philosophy, according to E Magazine.

The ICES environmental view is shaped by the Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth." The group says this passage proves that "man" is superior to nature and gives the go-ahead to unchecked population growth and unrestrained resource use. Such beliefs fly in the face of ecology, which shows humankind to be an equal and interdependent participant in the natural web.

Inhofe's staff defends his backward scientific positions, no matter how at odds they are with mainstream scientists. "How do you define 'mainstream'?" asked a miffed staffer. "Scientists who accept the so-called consensus about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream." But Inhofe is no Galileo. In fact, his use of lawsuits to try to suppress the peer-reviewed science of the National Assessment on Climate Change -- which predicts major extinctions and threats to coastal regions -- arguably puts him on the side of Galileo's oppressors, the perpetrators of the Christian Inquisition, writes Chris Mooney in The American Prospect.

"I trust God with my legislative goals and the issues that are important to my constituents," Inhofe has told Pentecostal Evangel magazine. "I don't believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn't been dealt with in the Scriptures." But Inhofe stayed silent in that interview as to which passages he applies to the environment, and he remained so when I asked him if End-Time beliefs influence his leadership of the most powerful environmental committee in the country.


And the Cow Jumped Over the Moon

So weird have the attempts to hasten the End Time become that a group of ultra-Christian Texas ranchers recently helped fundamentalist Israeli Jews breed a pure red heifer, a genetically rare beast that must be sacrificed to fulfill an apocalyptic prophecy found in the biblical Book of Numbers. (The beast will be ready for sacrifice by 2005, according to The National Review.)

It can be difficult for environmentalists, many of whom cut their teeth on peer-reviewed science, to fathom how anyone could believe that a rust-colored calf could bring about the end of the world, or how anyone could make a coherent End-Time story (let alone national policy) out of the poetic symbolism of the Book of Revelation. But there are millions of such people in America today -- including 231 U.S. legislators who either believe dispensationalist or reconstructionist doctrine or, for political expediency, are happy to align themselves with those who do.

That's troubling, because the beliefs in question are antithetical to environmentalism. For starters, any environmental science that contradicts the End-Timer's interpretation of Holy Writ is automatically suspect. This explains the disregard for environmental science so prevalent among Christian fundamentalist lawmakers: the denial of global warming, of the damaged ozone layer, and of the poisoning caused by industrial arsenic and mercury.

More important, End-Time beliefs make such problems inconsequential. Faith in Christ's impending return causes End-Timers to be interested only in short-term political-theological outcomes, not long-term solutions. Unfortunately, nearly every environmental issue, from the conservation of endangered species to the curbing of climate change, requires belief in and commitment to an enduring earth. And yet, no amount of scientific evidence will likely shake fundamentalists of their End-Time faith or bring them over to the cause of saving the environment.

"It's like half this country wants to guide our ship of state by compass -- a compass, something that works by science and rationality, and empirical wisdom," quipped comedian Bill Maher on Larry King Live. "And half this country wants to kill a chicken and read the entrails like they used to do in the old Roman Empire."

Those who doubt the dangers of such faith-based guidance need only recall the 9/11 hijackers, who devoutly believed that 72 black-eyed virgins awaited them as their reward in paradise.

In the past, it was not deemed politically correct to ask probing questions about a lawmaker's intimate religious beliefs. But when those beliefs play a crucial role in shaping public policy, it becomes necessary for the people to know and understand them. It sounds startling, but the great unasked questions that need to be posed to the 231 U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right, and to President Bush himself, are not the kind of softballs about faith lobbed at the candidates during the recent presidential debates. They are, instead, tough, specific inquiries about the details of that faith: Do you believe we are in the End Time? Are the governmental policies you support based on your faith in the imminent Second Coming of Christ? It's not an exaggeration to say that the fate of our planet depends on our asking these questions, and on our ability to reshape environmental strategy in light of the answers.

Many years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to his "religious grandparents," who, whenever they were asked about the future, proclaimed, "Armageddon's comin'!" And they believed it. Christ was due back any day, so they never bothered to paint or shingle their house. What was the point? Over the years, I drove by their place and watched the protective layers of paint peel, the bare clapboards weather, the sills and roof rot. Eventually, the house fell into ruin and had to be torn down, leaving my friend's grandparents destitute.

In a way, their prediction had proven right. But this humble apocalypse, a house divided against itself, was no work of God, but of man. This is a parable for the 231 Christian right-backed legislators of the 108th Congress. Their constituency's cherished beliefs may lead to the most dangerous and destructive self-fulfilling prophecy of all time.


*[Correction, 04 Feb 2005: The asterisked section of the article, above, originally read:


But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism -- when was the last time you heard a conservative politician talk about that?

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan's first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

Today's Christian fundamentalist politicians are more politically savvy than Reagan's interior secretary was; you're unlikely to catch them overtly attributing public-policy decisions to private religious views. But their words and actions suggest that many share Watt's beliefs. Like him, many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future.
In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book Setting the Captives Free by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation.]

[Update, 11 Feb 2005: Grist has been unable to substantiate that Watt made this statement. We would like to extend our sincere apologies to Watt and to our readers for this error.]

[ladyinred]

I will say one thing, it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote republican with these nutjobs at helm. The democratic party may not be beyond corruption but they are alot saner. You might have exceptions like Ron Paul ,but remember one thing about Guilianni , he's courting the right wing .Most of the republicans and righters are pro war, anti-environment, pro dictatorship like govt,(Theocratic style) anti separation of church and state, anti social services or welfare, pro gun, pro big business, anti civil rights anti gay rights, anti unions, anti worker rights, anti -regulation,(Care to bite into that peanut butter sandwich which may have ecoli?)anti- constitution. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM. They are the ones who would like to see your rights pass away to oblivion. They also hate liberals , environmentalists and people who oppose the war or disagree with Bush's policies, they also hate the first amendment and your right to free speech.They also undermined the FDA and EPA and compromised your safety through deregulation, the FDA ,does from what I've read, 53% less inspections and 75% of childrens drugs being used now are not even FDA approved, many foods are not inspected until it's too late,especially fruits and other produce, forget about medicare ,they are going to cut by 63 billion in the next ten years. That is not the kind of government I want to represent me, would you? Does CORRUPT ring a bell?

[ladyinred]

Originally Posted by awediot
I'll be there big boy. And wear that bad ass drag king outfit.

Zerbie, I rarely see Christianity portrayed positively here, unless it is the watered down, liberally enlightened version that believes we're all perfectly lovable, Heaven bound, above judgment little innocent lumps of chewy godness. Whole books are dissolved and Christ-consciousness is worn proudly in the face of explicit, dire warnings that we will do just that. Huge elements of God's judgment, requirements, and consequences of rejection are off handedly dismissed in the name of knowing what the Bible really was saying and no one ever points it out."

I don't think most people here attack Christianity, because most people on this board consider themselves as devoted Christians, but what they and I myself included ,disagree with is a form of Christianity that some people espouse that promotes bigotry, hatred, fear and intolerance and is a distortion of what Jesus taught.( Let's look backward in time at the inquisitions, why did they occur? Would not people today, say this type of religion is a danger to man when it promotes hatred an intolerance and even murder? They did some pretty horrible things in the name of God, even torture and boiling people in pots and of all things eating them, that is too horrible to even contemplate)

Do we have the right to be concerned,absolutely, do we have the right to disagree and stand up against what we view as obscene,unjust , tyrannical and what we feel demoralizes us.Absolutely. For one, don't confuse dissent, dialogue and critcism or debate and even disagreement as hate speech. I see it too often, someone states their values , opinions or disagreement and it is automatically lauded as hate speech.
Let's have a understanding of what hate speech is, it is attacking, denigrating, abusive and intolerant. I have every right to say I'm concerned about the religious right and what they are trying to do to the rest of us and it should be a legitimate concern for any of us who care at all about our democracy.

.Many people may have disagreements on religion or like issues. But I think it is distorted to accuse people on this forum as being anti Christian. We do have a right to speak out against religious fanaticism and bigotry as well. And those of you who would use the bible to suppress and oppress people and their civil rights are way off base, that goes against sound judgment and humanity and even morality. Not to speak out against such forms of oppression and tyranny and just to sit by on the sidelines and do nothing , is unconscionable. It's allowing those with corrupt morals, who call themselves Christians to take over and finally destroy what is truly Christian.

[ladyinred]

Let's not forget that in the past alot of evil things have occurred in the name of Christianity, as I mentioned before, the inquisitions, witch burnings, slavery and the oppression of women and gay rights to name a few. Is this an attack on Christianity ,if I say this? No, I don't believe so, because I don't believe that most devout Christians want to intentionally harm anyone and believe in the golden rule and justice, in fact there are many who may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but don't agree with taking away our rights or violence against homosexuals .We can rightfully assert that such practices in the past and now are not truly representative of Christ or his teachings.

We unfortunately have fanatics in all religions , but we have to examine these destructive practices and beliefs and their negative impact on people's lives.I don't think you will find any black person praising what was done in the name of religion in the past to help promote slavery and keeping him locked into an unjust sytem that deprived him of his humanity and basic rights. Does this means he hates Christianity or Christians,of course not. Some of my thoughts..Someone posted a song here in the inspirational music forum and its lyrics state alot of what I think is relevant,it goes on to say," I'm not afraid of your Jesus, I'm not afraid your bible,I'm not afraid your praying,I'm AFRAID of what you are doing in the name of your God." Something to think about.

[ladyinred]

I don't know why, but I'm also afraid to call myself a Christian , though I have a tremendous amount of respect for people on this forum and what they stand for and how they live their lives, but what frightens me is the spirit of exclusion, there are those who are Christian and i'm not talking about people here on this forum , but those who believe if you are not Christian or are of another faith , that you are going to hell, I cannot lead myself to believe that, because there are people who are hindu, buddhist and even atheist whom I feel stand for alot of the right things. I will not allow myself to denounce them or see them as any less devoted in their beliefs and stands on civil and human rights. I just cannot believe in the idea that one size (One religion) fits all. While Christianity may be right for certain people, other people may not fit into that or may prefer another religion. I cannot condemn that . I have to respect the person's walk and also sincerity to find their own way to truth.