Act Like Christians

[Petra]

http://www.alternet.org/story/20507/

Very interesting article, from a perspective I'd not considered. Recommended reading.

[Socratoad]

Great article Luna. Not having the ability suspend disbelief the tenet of the Christian faith I've always admired an respected has been the "Golden Rule" although I point out the this rule is not an exclusive Christian property.

Under this right-wing twisted version of Christianity hate has actually become a family value. To my way of understanding of Christianity, the term right-wing Christianity is an oxymoron.

This neo-con right-wing evangelic movement is the most dangerous soul destroying movement on the face of the planet at this time. Its intellectually dishonest. And those who say that we should all should try to just get along with them are are guilty of promoting moral cowardice.

[Larry]

I just went to the article and before I could get into it this . . .

For the next four years and well beyond, liberals and progressives will need to emulate the original Christians, who stood against imperial Rome with their bodies, their hearts and their souls.

. . . caught my attention before I could continue. Is it really an accurate assessment to say they "stood against" rather than they "stood for" and therefore it was imperial Rome that "stood against" them? Just thought I'd ask. Now back to the article.

[viscousmemories]

That is an interesting article. I can't say I'm impressed by all the paranoid, divisive rhetoric about the "Christianization" of the "red states" that's now slowly seeping into the "blue states". It's pretty sad how wholeheartedly the "alternative press" has embraced that artificial polarization of Americans.

Mainstream, even liberal, churches also provide a range of services, from soup kitchens to support groups. What makes the typical evangelicals' social welfare efforts sinister is their implicit – and sometimes not so implicit – linkage to a program for the destruction of public and secular services.

I understand what she's getting at, but branding churches 'sinister' for offering basic social services like assistance with food, clothing and shelter isn't going to win her opinion a big fan base. And when further down she encourages progressives to adopt the same tactics, it looks a bit like a double-standard:

Secondly, progressives should perhaps rethink their own disdain for service-based outreach programs.

I suppose the biggest problem I have with the article is the underlying assumption that all Christians are part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow America through a two-pronged approach of providing basic social services to the poor while attacking government sponsored social services. It just seems more than a little paranoid to me, and clearly negated by my own interaction with Christians from all walks of life.

[Socratoad]

Hey vm, did we read the same article? Seems to me that she is not condemning Christians per se, but rather that one scary relatively new phenomena of those who call themselves Christians but bear no resemblance to Christianity as I understand it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Socratoad

Hey vm, did we read the same article? Seems to me that she is not condemning Christians per se, but rather that one scary relatively new phenomena of those who call themselves Christians but bear no resemblance to Christianity as I understand it.

Right. And she characterizes the growth of that scary minority view as the "religious transformation of America." This particular variety of evangelical apparently aren't just a relatively small coalition of right-wing nutjobs, they are an "alternative welfare state", implicitly widespread and powerful enough to challenge the very foundations of our political system in this country.

I'm sorry but if I knew nothing about politics and religion in America besides what I read in that article, I would think religious fundamentalism was the status quo here. Believe it or not it really isn't. Nearly half of the people in America voted against Bush. This idea that evangelical Christianity is sweeping the nation is not only palpably ludicrous, it's insultingly simple-minded.

[livius drusus]

I agree that Ehrenreich seems to have fallen for the red state-blue state-moral values/evangelicals electing Bush shibboleths spouted by the press in the election aftermath. It's particularly ironic given her berating of the democrats for falling for the last part of it even as she does.

That aside, I think her concluding paragraphs contain excellent advice for progressives (although I do agree with Larry that the standing against imperial Rome thing is more rhetoric than reality).

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I'm sorry but if I knew nothing about politics and religion in America besides what I read in that article, I would think religious fundamentalism was the status quo here. Believe it or not it really isn't. Nearly half of the people in America voted against Bush. This idea that evangelical Christianity is sweeping the nation is not only palpably ludicrous, it's insultingly simple-minded.

I agree. I don't see it mentioned in the press, but I think it's a pretty amazing thing to see a wartime incumbent president to come so close to losing reelection. Incumbents usually win anyway; incumbents in the middle of prosecuting a war are virtual shoo-ins. The more I think of it the more the election results indicate to me the opposite of what the mainstream press has interpreted them to mean.

[Socratoad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I agree that Ehrenreich seems to have fallen for the red state-blue state-moral values/evangelicals electing Bush shibboleths spouted by the press in the election aftermath. It's particularly ironic given her berating of the democrats for falling for the last part of it even as she does.

That aside, I think her concluding paragraphs contain excellent advice for progressives (although I do agree with Larry that the standing against imperial Rome thing is more rhetoric than reality).

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind. I can hardly think of any article where passionate feelings are involved about sincerely held values where rhetoric does not creep in. If we insist that passion and rhetoric be removed from all thought pieces surely puters could be programed for such a task. The woman was just trying to give a wakeup call to the vast numbers of people who wish not to speak to the issues, but rather stick to a "don't worry be happy" state of mind. And yes there is much rhetoric in this post, however some issues require both passion and some rhetoric IMO.

I believe, as a former editorial writer, if the woman stuck to pure dry analytic writing her readership would soon dwindle away. Gawd only knows the right-wing evangelical pronouncements are purely rhetoric as is most of the present double-speak crap spewing from the White house and affiliates

[viscousmemories]

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind.

I guess maybe we didn't read the same article. I read the one that was 90% inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric and 10% interesting information. If that's what you call the authors passionate feelings "creeping in", I doubt I could even comprehend an article where her passionate feelings were exaggerated. You're probably right about her readership dwindling away if she stuck to the facts, though. Most people do seem to be more impressed by sensationalism than journalism. Not me, though.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Socratoad

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind.

I specifically said in the passage you quoted that her last paragraphs were excellent advice for progressives. Who's missing whose point again?

[Socratoad]

Oh dear, I was hoping it would not come to this, but as the valley girls used to say I'm like totally outa here. Every time I find some an issue that I'm very interested in I have run up against the issue deadening effects of the resident Punch & Judy show. No hard feelings but our perceptual processes are just too far apart for a meeting of the minds. Its just way too frustrating.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Socratoad

Oh dear, I was hoping it would not come to this, but as the valley girls used to say I'm like totally outa here. Every time I find some an issue that I'm very interested in I have run up against the issue deadening effects of the resident Punch & Judy show. No hard feelings but our perceptual processes are just too far apart for a meeting of the minds. Its just way too frustrating.

Yeah no hard feelings, I'm sure.

[wildernesse]

I've read this article before somewhere, but the thing is that even though she almost equates liberals and centrists with "non-Christians", I think she does have a point that the right is not a fan of the welfare state.

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument. This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves. It does seem to result in voting against those people (Dems) who support social service nets to catch people who are falling out of our society and support those of us on the edge.

The call for Democrats to wake up and take a stand for the poor and hopeless in our nation and the greater world is one that I wish someone would hear. I think Ehreinreich has some good points in there, but the stupid liberals = non-religious and religious = alien weirdos is annoying to say the least.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument.

Very true. I've heard those arguments many times: that it's unfair to use tax money to support the indigent/unemployed/mentally ill/poor or needy of any stripe, that the private sector is more "efficient", etc.

This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves.

Indeed, and faith-based initiatives tie in well to this syndrome as taxes are funnelled to private charities and laws are modified to allow for those monies to be disbursed without government oversight.

They work very well together, no question about it, but I'm not sure how much the two hammers are actually in collusion, though.

The call for Democrats to wake up and take a stand for the poor and hopeless in our nation and the greater world is one that I wish someone would hear. I think Ehreinreich has some good points in there, but the stupid liberals = non-religious and religious = alien weirdos is annoying to say the least.

[Petra]

Hmmm, when I read the article at approx 2am last night, I was thinking "hell, yeah!" as I was given the whole social welfare angle.

I'm not long awake (and it's debatable as to whether I am actually awake or not), but after I've done all my major chores around here I'll reread the article and comment further on the isssue of welfare, etc.

[seebs]

While the evangelicals are not a majority, the various movements like this do seem to be growing.

One thing I would love to have is more detailed information on neo-cons. My mom is a near-libertarian atheist, but she generally likes neo-cons, because their rhetoric (when they're pitching it to general audiences, not Rapture Ready folks) sounds fairly similar to her positions. I think that, if the various claims about these people and their end times beliefs could be substantiated clearly, it would erode their support substantially among people like her.

[viscousmemories]

A general comment on my posts in this thread:

My very first sentence on this thread was "That is an interesting article." Those five simple words were meant to convey exactly what they suggest: That I found the substance of the article interesting overall. However, it occurs to me in retrospect that I gave a lot more words to my criticisms of the article. This seems to be a bad habit of mine, for which I apologize.

I shall henceforth try to be more shiny and happy.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

They work very well together, no question about it, but I'm not sure how much the two hammers are actually in collusion, though.

I could be horrible and say that church, especially mega-churches, are big business, who ya think is running them, but I won't say anything about that.

Just joking, really.

It's certainly convenient, though, that morals pushers and big business align more often than not.

[seebs]

I think there's a certain amount of inherent commonality between any two major institutions; if they learn to cooperate, they do even better. (This is why I think institutionalizing Christianity is a very bad idea; Christians are called to fight nearly every institution there is, and making exceptions in a case like this can be bad theology.)

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument. This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves.

And...once demolished, anyone needing assistance will have to suffer the "Lighthouse Remedy" of sitting through some sermon or other moral superiority harangue in order to get help. Preference will go to those actively involved with some faith-based organization. No faith, no help.

Fuck that.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

And...once demolished, anyone needing assistance will have to suffer the "Lighthouse Remedy" of sitting through some sermon or other moral superiority harangue in order to get help. Preference will go to those actively involved with some faith-based organization. No faith, no help.

What do you base this on? Do these evangelical churches require people to attend sermons or anything before receiving aid now? I honestly don't know, but if they aren't doing it now I don't see any reason to assume it'll happen later. Again, not that it's at all impossible or anything.

Then again my family got a lot of help from the members of the religious community I grew up in, from food and clothing donations to people helping with construction projects at the house. And it did occur to me that this support might've dwindled and eventually stopped if my Mother had ever stopped going to the prayer meetings.

But I'm not so sure about that. I think some of those people would've kept coming around regardless. Most of them were just genuinely compassionate, generous, loving people. I've personally never met a hateful Christian, that's why I have such a hard time believing they're sweeping the Nation. I think the results of some of their beliefs were very dangerous and damaging, but I don't think their motives were ever impure.

[seebs]

Can't speak for other churches, but I know mine participates in some aid programs, and I laugh at the idea of making people sit through sermons. We don't sit through sermons, why should anyone else?

I did a couple of volunteer shifts for Project Home (homeless shelter overflow), and on reflection, we do preach and witness a fair bit. We just don't do it verbally. I figure, giving someone a roof over their head, making breakfast for 'em... That's preaching the Gospel. But I don't think the program would be much use if we didn't do it.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, in my day, it was the Lighthouse Mission. A mission in the midst of the Pennsylvania steel country. I took shelter for three days there and was required every day to attend the sermon before dinner was served. Homeless men were in large number and most of us did a part days work on the facility, cleaning or whatnot, in exchange for a meal and a cot. It was predicated upon our attending a half-hour sermon.

I have no objection to this. It's a known going into it. Plus, it was over 30 years ago. But what I fear in a "faith-based" approach is that "we protect ours" comes first. If things get tight, you gotta sign on with us to get any. Given the religious factions of this country, I don't think that's a particularly wise way to go about social care. And, I note here, that I'm not a big fan of routing a whole lot of our money through bureaucracies in Washington...but I consider that doing it at all may not have occurred without interference from powers that high. If Washington has money to give away, then either stop collecting it, or return it to the local governments and school districts that can use it to improve public services to the entire community.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

Wait, you mean slapping a metal fish on the back of your car isn't enough to get you into heaven? You actually have to do stuff too?