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]

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.

[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).

[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