The founding fathers don't care about you or your religious causes. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2005, 02:40 PM

Well I would agree not the religion so much as a whole, but then again we disagree on the effect Christianity has played in American history and life.

Manx · 02-22-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

wow... before i respond to this thread i'd like to you back up your fundamental assumption that christianity is playing a bigger role in government. the thread-starting premise is unsubstantiated.

it seems to me that, overall, the role of christianity in the government (and world politics in general) is in decline. the prevailing trend seems to be a growing opposition to the christian institutions already in place... not a increase of christian influence in total.

From the start of this country, there was no Christian component to the gov't. So it is impossible for there to be less.

But here is an example of how there is FAR more Christianity in gov't today:

Quote:

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

Quote:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

There is no chance that a document with content that states this country was not founded on the Christian religion would pass today, let alone pass unanimously and without debate or dissent and receive no public outcry. Because there is a very vocal group of Christians and there is a block of government officials who agree with that vocal group of Chrisitians or at the least, want those votes.

irateplatypus · 02-22-2005, 04:38 PM

a hypothetical situation given without historical context? surely you can do better.

Halx · 02-22-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

wow... before i respond to this thread i'd like to you back up your fundamental assumption that christianity is playing a bigger role in government. the thread-starting premise is unsubstantiated.

it seems to me that, overall, the role of christianity in the government (and world politics in general) is in decline. the prevailing trend seems to be a growing opposition to the christian institutions already in place... not a increase of christian influence in total.

I declare that all of the above is grossly false.

One of my basic philosophies is that there is no real good or evil, there is only perspective. In order to judge something as good or evil, you must come from a background that takes issue with said thing. This current government is content to polarize the population by labeling everything as good or evil, based on a Christian set of morals.

"evildoers"
"they hate us for our freedom"

All these moral laws that are being pressed on us.. gay marriage, abortion, drugs, euthanasia... none of these things would be an issue if not for the strong religious 'morality' at work.

irateplatypus · 02-22-2005, 05:37 PM

halx,

your position is essentially post-modern... the backbone of our legal and moral codes are firmly entrenched in modernity independent of religious dogma. if you were to say to the founding fathers what you posted you would be greeted with a mix of bitten lips and confused frowns. i'm not saying you are right or wrong... but that mindset would be completely foreign to the framers of our law.

tecoyah · 02-22-2005, 05:41 PM

As would every ammendment added to it since they died

irateplatypus · 02-22-2005, 05:57 PM

there are differences between being foreign to an idea from a practical or cultural vantage point and being foreign to an idea from a moral point of view.

Kadath · 02-22-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

there are differences between being foreign to an idea from a practical or cultural vantage point and being foreign to an idea from a moral point of view.

And now we're back to "Guess what the framers wanted and win!"

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2005, 06:28 PM

I would bet the farm that they wouldn't be down with Gay marriage...call it a hunch.

tecoyah · 02-22-2005, 06:34 PM

Then I am extremely happy we , as a society, have managed to evolve our understanding of human nature to the point where we are no longer bound by 16th century Dogma.
Perhaps it is best if we consider these situations in the context of the future....or at the very least....the present.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2005, 06:44 PM

Some people don't agree that all change and evolution are always a good thing. Perspectives, right Halx?

tecoyah · 02-22-2005, 07:04 PM

And those people are entitled to the opinions they hold....I simply tend not to associate with them, as our communications tend to be dissapointing. Fortunately, we as a species have a wonderful history....short though it may be....of accepting change as a means of evolution of the population. I tend to think in terms of decades to centuries...not months to years.

flstf · 02-22-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Then I am extremely happy we , as a society, have managed to evolve our understanding of human nature to the point where we are no longer bound by 16th century Dogma.
Perhaps it is best if we consider these situations in the context of the future....or at the very least....the present.

No doubt times have changed and modern ways should be considered when enacting new laws. But I'm not so sure I trust today's polititians with our Constitution. They seem to be hell bent to ammend it with things that are probably better off leaving as is (marriage definition, abortion, gun control, etc..) Perhaps it's better to let it stand as the old guys wrote it (18th century dogma) rather than trust today's version of statesmen to mess with it.

Manx · 02-22-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

a hypothetical situation given without historical context? surely you can do better.

So you believe that if the gov't attempted to write a document, today, that stated the country was not based on Christianity, that it would pass unanimously and without any significant debate or dissent from anyone within the government or from the populace?

I don't believe that you believe that.

I wish I lived in that country. Wherever it is.

fibber · 02-22-2005, 08:01 PM

"It was an act of cowardice
and it was evil. The United States will not tolerate it.
And I will not allow the people of this country to be
intimidated by evil cowards. " -Bill Clinton

The current admin isn't the only one using the term "evil" to describe folk.
That goddamn Christian bastard. How dare he try to force his perspective on me. I don't believe in that, just perspectives.

-fibber

filtherton · 02-22-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibber

"It was an act of cowardice
and it was evil. The United States will not tolerate it.
And I will not allow the people of this country to be
intimidated by evil cowards. " -Bill Clinton

The current admin isn't the only one using the term "evil" to describe folk.
That goddamn Christian bastard. How dare he try to force his perspective on me. I don't believe in that, just perspectives.

-fibber

Ah, ye olde "Clinton did it too" argument. This isn't about republican v. democrat, so you can take that tired old response back to limbaugh circa 2004.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

wow... before i respond to this thread i'd like to you back up your fundamental assumption that christianity is playing a bigger role in government. the thread-starting premise is unsubstantiated.

it seems to me that, overall, the role of christianity in the government (and world politics in general) is in decline. the prevailing trend seems to be a growing opposition to the christian institutions already in place... not a increase of christian influence in total.

You accuse me of unsubstantiated premise, then go on to put forth your own unsubstantiated premise. I don't care if you don't agree with mine, i never claimed it as fact, just my opinion. Though, if you'll notice our president, an evangelical who believes that all of his actions are divinely sanctioned...

Do you think a stronger fundamentalist/evangelical undercurrent is good for our country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I would bet the farm that they wouldn't be down with Gay marriage...call it a hunch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

if you were to say to the founding fathers what you posted you would be greeted with a mix of bitten lips and confused frowns. i'm not saying you are right or wrong... but that mindset would be completely foreign to the framers of our law.

For the purposes of this thread, the founding fathers can fuck right off. Let's pretend that we all realize that none of use can speak for the founding fathers.

irateplatypus · 02-22-2005, 08:34 PM

oh come on filtherton, your language clearly indicates you proposed it as a fact. another caveat, your original question asked if christian influence was a good thing... then you asked if increased fundamentalism in government was a good thing. you can't have it both ways because they are not the same thing.

for the record, i do believe that any increase in christian morality is a good thing for our country. i don't care if the inspiration for such thought comes from buddha, mohammed, confucious or john doe... as long as it aligns with christian moral principles i do not care an ounce for its source. being a christian myself, i don't believe that christ's message is just good for me... i believe it holds redemption for all of mankind.

when religion (not morality mind you) plays a role in government it tends to pervert both. that is why i support the moral standards of christianity being public policy though i would abhor christianity being established as a state religion or steps taken in that direction.

edit: i deleted part of this post because i was unsure of the meaning of the original post's intent.

fibber · 02-22-2005, 08:39 PM

Ummm, that point is valid as long as someone continues to try to force me to believe this admin is any better or worse than any other. If halx can say that this admin does wrong by labeling things as "evil" then I can certainly call instances that show that this isn't exclusive to this admin.

Of course this is repub VS democrat.

I would hope that those that don't identify with either group, like myself. Would be free to point out the complaints aren't new.

If you chastise a pres. for basing his morals on religion, you should be allowed to extend the same criticism to whatever makes up any leader's "moral compass" be they economic, diplomatic, charitable or otherwise.

I personally see no difference in religion or politics.
Both attempt to dictate my actions.
Both have certain parties who are absolutly certain they are right, and those who don't share their beliefs are either wrong, or not informed/intelligent enough to understand.
Both are primarily concerned with furthering their own interests.
Both have harmed countless people in the persuit of these interests.
and in an upstroke,
Both have done some real good mixed in with all the nasty.

Don't attempt to dismiss my argument by associating it with a blowhard with a bad rap here. I could just as easily say that this guy I know who raped babies said Dubbya is an "evangelical who believes that all of his actions are divinely sanctioned." and therefore I can't accept your point. Take it back to my baby-rapin' buddy circa last tuesday.

-fibber

filtherton · 02-22-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

oh come on filtherton, your language clearly indicates you proposed it as a fact. another caveat, your original question asked if christian influence was a good thing... then you asked if increased fundamentalism in government was a good thing. you can't have it both ways because they are not the same thing.

I made clarifications further along in the thread about my original intent. It only seems like i want it both ways because you haven't been paying attention, as is evidenced by your mention of the founding fathers.
You assume that when i speak for myself i am speaking on behalf of the entire kingdom of facts. You doubt my premise all you want, it doesn't bother me. I didn't make this thread to convince anyone about an increase in the fundamentalism of our nation's leaders. Many people came to that conclusion without any help from me. Even so, that idea is peripheral to my point in this thread.

Quote:

for the record, i do believe that any increase in christian morality is a good thing for our country. i don't care if the inspiration for such thought comes from buddha, mohammed, confucious or john doe... as long as it aligns with christian moral principles i do not care an ounce for its source. being a christian myself, i don't believe that christ's message is just good for me... i believe it holds redemption for all of mankind.

Fair enough, but what if those in power aren't the same kind of christian as you? Their christian ideals may be different than yours. There are many christians who believe that christ would endorse gay marriage. There are many christians who don't believe in war. Which christian morals would you want to see? Your own, of course. How does that work?

Quote:

when religion (not morality mind you) plays a role in government it tends to pervert both. that is why i support the moral standards of christianity being public policy though i would abhor christianity being established as a state religion or steps taken in that direction.

I see what you're saying, but christianity can't even agree on which morals are important and which aren't. How is christianity in any kind of position to be the standard by which moral standards are judged?

irateplatypus · 02-23-2005, 05:03 AM

it just appears to me that you're still trying to have it both ways. on one hand or on one thread christianity is battered for being this monolithic moral force bearing down on society with great weight... now i'm told that it's fractured and inconsistent. of course i'm not quoting your single person specifically but rather those who i would imagine sharing your position.

i'm not sure where you got the idea that there are many christians who endorse gay marriage. that is just simply not so. an accurate statement would be that there are some.

a proper response to your question would require a couple hours and a few beers... but i think the argument, once again, transitions from a semi-relativistic post-modern view of truth versus a traditional one. the inconsistencies you perceive in the christian ranks are the inroads post-modernity (in large part anyway) have made in millenia old institutions. the very ideas that seem to be fractures are often the very same modes of thought that you employ in this thread. it's hard to discuss christianity as a cohesive whole in a societal sense because its impact on systems of thought is dying. there have been very recently conceived foreign things thrust into christianity that should not yet be judged part of the whole. gosh... i feel like roachboy being so ridiculously abstract. sorry, i'll think on this some more.

roachboy · 02-23-2005, 07:41 AM

ok so i see i have been invoked here
following on that....

(maybe better to leave me out of debates i otherwise would not participate in, irate)

1.

where i agree with irate:

the thread is not really about christianity in general: it starts with a critique of the ridiculous doctrine of original intent floated by the far right in various guises--this doctrine of original intent--totally indefensable though it is---functions to open a space for a series of political outcomes, most of which involve a kind of collapse of any coherent boundary between secular and religious.

original intent operates in the interest not of christianity in general, but rather in the interests of a particular political formation--largely evangelical protestant--mobilized as political by organizations like the christian coaltion (and others). one of the quirks characteristic of this particular formation is that it claims to BE christianity.

the problem with recapitulating this claim in the context like a debate here is that it hopelessly blurs the analytic object on the one hand, and cedes political ground to a very particular group advancing very particular, reactionary claims behind the mask of christianity in general.

in other words, you cede something basic if you allow these particular people to effectively win a political battle by working their way into how you understand christianity.

no-one is really talking about say left-leaning methodists here--no-one is really talking about catholics---no-one is really talking about most mainline protestant denominations--these groups do not agree amongst themselves--each entails different types of politics--for example, as much as i find john paul 2 to be repellent, at least he is consistent in his "prolife" position and extends it directly into opposition to capital punishment and a refusal to endorse bush's war in iraq.
the evangelicals do not do this--they support both.

the term "christian" used in political debates like this wipe out the space even for the pope.
it is amazing.

2.
where i fundamentally reject his position:

what i think irate is talking about has nothing to do with the "post-modern" as over against something else--he is talking about the split that seperates those who believe from those who do not.

the "post modern" is a code that bundles (under a dubious term) the simple fact that people who do not believe in evanglical protestant ideology tend to relativize it.

there is nothing "post modern" (whatever that means--i know the range of options for the term--none of them are necessary or helpful here) about it.

the question of "truth" follows from a prior set of beliefs, which irate tries to erase by shifting the question onto more secular-seeming grounds.

what seems to grate on him--and on others who operate from similar positions--is that there is any diversity of belief at all--that everyone everywhere is not an evangelical protestant. because absolute uniformity of belief is the only condition that would make claims to absolute truth compelling.

the question of "absolute truth" is indefensable on philosophical grounds--it is something of a joke.
it has a history of being enormously destructive when translated into the basis of political theory/ideology
such claims have been situated for over 150 years as being central to ideology--such claims are of a piece with attempts to remove political conflict from history in general, and from the specific history of specific conflicts in particular.

the relation of this division between those who believe (and by believing flee from history) and those who do not (who for all that might well want nothing to do with facing history--but at least their position does not preclude the possibility a priori) plays out directly across the ridiculous debate, framed and advanced by the right, over "the founders" and their "intent"....it is obvious that there is nothing necessary about the right's position--except as it functions as a way to advance their particular claims to power, claims that are part of a particular history--this one, that we are moving through now.

filtherton · 02-23-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it just appears to me that you're still trying to have it both ways. on one hand or on one thread christianity is battered for being this monolithic moral force bearing down on society with great weight... now i'm told that it's fractured and inconsistent. of course i'm not quoting your single person specifically but rather those who i would imagine sharing your position.

i'm not sure where you got the idea that there are many christians who endorse gay marriage. that is just simply not so. an accurate statement would be that there are some.

a proper response to your question would require a couple hours and a few beers... but i think the argument, once again, transitions from a semi-relativistic post-modern view of truth versus a traditional one. the inconsistencies you perceive in the christian ranks are the inroads post-modernity (in large part anyway) have made in millenia old institutions. the very ideas that seem to be fractures are often the very same modes of thought that you employ in this thread. it's hard to discuss christianity as a cohesive whole in a societal sense because its impact on systems of thought is dying. there have been very recently conceived foreign things thrust into christianity that should not yet be judged part of the whole. gosh... i feel like roachboy being so ridiculously abstract. sorry, i'll think on this some more.

I know that it started out treating christianity as a monolithic whole, but at some point i amended that and began to only refer to fundamentalism and evangelicalism, two mentalities that seem by their very definitions to be unable to accept the "live and let live" aspect of the golden rule to any great degree.

Certainly the christians who endorse gay marriage are in the minority number-wise, but their christian morals are just as valid as any other denomination.

I don't think you can blame post-modernism for the fracturization of christianity. The christian church has been fractured for centuries.
for example:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm

Quote:

How the Christian "families" evolved:

With the exception of the first few years after the execution of their founder Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ), Christianity was never a unified religion.
-By the end of the 1st century CE three main movements remained:
- Pauline Christians: a group of mainline congregations, largely of non-Jewish Christians. Some had been created by Paul and his co-workers. They evolved to become the established church.
- Gnostic Christians: They claimed salvation through special, otherwise secret gnosis (knowledge). Some were members of mainline congregations; others were part of Gnostic groups. They were declared heretics and were gradually suppressed and exterminated.
- Jewish Christians: remnants of the group originally headed by James, the brother of Yeshua, and including Jesus' disciples. They were scattered throughout the Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and gradually disappeared.
- Circa 400 CE: The Bishop of Rome began to be recognized as the most senior of all bishops. Siricius (384-399 CE) became the first bishop to be called Pope.
- 1054 CE: A lengthy power struggle between eastern and western Christianity culminated in a schism between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Rite (later often called the Roman Catholic Church). Many Christian sects broke away from the Western Rite throughout the Middle Ages (Cathars, Knights Templars, etc.). These were generally exterminated by the central church in various genocidal wars.
- 1517 CE: Martin Luther attacked certain practices and beliefs of the Church, and the authority of the Pope. He was followed by other reformers which produced a mass movement -- the Protestant Reformation. They were driven largely by two fundamental principles:
- "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone): The belief that the Holy Bible was the ultimate authority for all matters of religious belief and practice.
- The Priesthood of all Believers: The belief that no priest or other intermediary is needed between the Christian believer and God.
- Into modern times: Protestant Christianity became fractured into over 1,500 individual denominations, as individuals and groups began to interpret the Bible in their own unique ways. They continually formed new sects that they felt were closer to Jesus' intentions for the church. In the past fifteen decades in North America schisms occurred over the legitimacy of human slavery, and whether to allow women to be ordained. A number of mainline denominations -- Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal -- are attempting to keep their organizations intact in spite of differences of belief about sexual orientation. They are debating whether to grant equal rights to gays and lesbians, and whether to recognize same-sex relationships.

or another section on homosexuality and christianity:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm

Quote:

Overview:

Most Christian denominations, sects, and new religious movement have stated policies towards gays and lesbians:
- Whether to allow known, sexually active homosexuals to:
- become and remain church members with full privileges.
- be considered for ordination
- hold other positions of power.
- Whether to allow known celibate homosexuals to:
- become and remain church members with full privileges.
- be considered for ordination
- hold other positions of power.
- Whether to provide a formal religious ceremony for committed gay and lesbian couples. These are variously called union, civil union, commitment or marriage ceremonies.
- Whether to have an active study program to reduce homophobia within the denomination.

There is no consensus within Christianity about:
- The nature of homosexuality,
- What the Bible says about homosexuality, or
- What policies to enforce about gay and lesbian members, candidates for ordination. commitment rituals or study programs.

The response of Christian faith groups to homosexuality varies greatly, depending upon their position in the liberal - fundamentalist continuum. More liberal denominations and Christians tend to view homosexuality as a civil rights matter; they generally believe it is fixed, unchosen, normal, natural, and morally neutral sexual orientation for a minority of adults. More conservative denominations and Christians tend to view homosexuality as a profound evil; they generally believe it is changeable, chosen, abnormal, unnatural and immoral behavior, regardless of the nature of the relationship.
- The more liberal denominations, like the United Church of Christ, have changing their positions on homosexuality, in recent years, to adopt a more inclusive stance.
- Mainline denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are actively debating the question. A future church schism may result., particularly in the case of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Similar splits have occurred in the past over human slavery, whether women should be ordained, and certain theological debates.
- More conservative denominations are taking no significant action at this time, except to occasionally condemn homosexuality.
- Fundamentalist denominations commit significant effort against homosexuality and homosexual rights. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention expelled three of their congregations who had conducted a study of homosexuality, had concluded that the denomination's beliefs were invalid, and who welcomed gays and lesbians as members.

All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more accepting stance of today's youth. We are unaware of any religious groups becoming less inclusive.

The term "christian morals" doesn't mean anything specific.

As i said above, i have no problem with christianity in general. I don't have a problem with the legislation of morality. What i do have a problem with is one particular group attempting to use the power of the united states government to push a religious agenda. What the president fails to mention when he claims that he doing god's work, is that he isn't doing your god's work, he's doing his god's work. It's only a matter of time before his god tells him to do something that is in conflict with what your god tells you to do. The issue of freedom from religion is something most christians feel like they don't have to worry about, but they're wrong. Christianity as it exists today is also threatened by an increasingly fundamentalist/evangelical ruling class.

If someone can come up with a well reasoned argument as to why gays shouldn't marry, good for them. I should mention, though, that the criteria for an argument to be well reasoned, when debating public policy, doesn't involve bible citations.

jhkayakr · 03-08-2005, 06:51 PM

I thought America was the land of the free, who says Christianity is the only religion in the us. Bible thumpers should stay home

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-08-2005, 07:01 PM

Free to everyone except for Christians right?

guy44 · 03-08-2005, 07:02 PM

Ok, ok, lets not resort to unsubstantiated, one-line attacks here. Let us all explain our positions lucidly, genially, and cordially, please.

That includes us on the left and those on the right, eh?

Hardknock · 03-08-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

It is bad to assume that all "true" Christians believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

Maybe, but that's the perception that everyone has and they're not doing too much to squash it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-08-2005, 10:00 PM

You guys give more trust and benefit to Muslims from around the world that they aren't all crazies, then you afford Christians in America, a group of people that make up at least 70% of the population.

filtherton · 03-09-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You guys give more trust and benefit to Muslims from around the world that they aren't all crazies, then you afford Christians in America, a group of people that make up at least 70% of the population.

Who are you talking too?

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-09-2005, 02:47 PM

People here who get down on Christians in America, but adamently defend Muslims world wide. It's blatantly hypocritical.

filtherton · 03-09-2005, 04:48 PM

Mojo, nobody's talking about muslims besides you.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-09-2005, 05:26 PM

I was talking about the pleathora of threads that touch on Islamic fundamentalism put against the threads of this nature.

scout · 03-09-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You guys give more trust and benefit to Muslims from around the world that they aren't all crazies, then you afford Christians in America, a group of people that make up at least 70% of the population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

People here who get down on Christians in America, but adamently defend Muslims world wide. It's blatantly hypocritical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I was talking about the pleathora of threads that touch on Islamic fundamentalism put against the threads of this nature.

He does have a very valid point that should not be dismissed lightly.

filtherton · 03-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I was talking about the pleathora of threads that touch on Islamic fundamentalism put against the threads of this nature.

If you think that this thread is for bashing christianity than you need to pay more attention. In fact, the idea of christianity as a single belief-homogenous entity is a completely meaningless one. If you want to play the christian v. muslim game than by all means make a thread for it. As it stands, any mention of islam in this thread is a super-sized scarecrow.

roachboy · 03-09-2005, 06:16 PM

how could the point(s) be valid if mojo has never--not once--acknowledged that there is a basic problem with the term "christian" in this political context, the one in which we live. i am not sure how ignoring attempts to raise these problems--often in quite careful ways--earlier in the thread can be equated with validity.

if you look more specifically at the entire range of denominations lumped behind this category--which the evangelical churches like to claim for themselves, as if they monopolize the entire belief system--then the idea that christians in the united states are in any way persecuted turns into a meaningless assertion.

that mojo chooses to construe an argument about the doctrone of original intent as it crosses with the interests of the types of christian organizations that are quite a powerful block on the right these days as an example of how christianity is somehow persecuted here is strange. maybe the problem is that not everyone believes as he does, and the sense of being persecuted follows from the fact of different beliefs.

if it is not that, i dont understand what he is talking about.
maybe he would care to explain?

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-09-2005, 06:39 PM

In no dire sense of the word are Christians "persecuted" in America. I think we are all big enough to accept the fact that we all hold our opinions of America's foundation, I'm not talking about original intent. Historically, America is a nation that was founded by Christians (starting from Plymouth), inhabited primarily by people who relate and claim to the judeo more important Christian tradition, and established as a country with it's underpinning that touch under the Judeo-Christian influence and beliefs. I've said all this before, so it may or may not be a dead horse to you, but what I've stated above isn't my point.

Historically this country has ties to Christianity, in the modern sense less and less directly and overtly, this is ofcourse due to a secular push in our country. My rantings in this thread mostly are stemmed from the fact that myself and others in the past arguments have pointed out about the reality of fanatical and fundamental Islam, whether in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, etc or the growth of Wahabism at large and the real and corporeal problem it poses in the world. Then people from the board who tend to be the more left leaning types jump up and assert it's not the majority and that by and large all muslims are great and good, which by the way you'll get no argument from me, and that there isn't a problem (again not really the point). But the catch is There have been some shots in this thread (and others) that have been taken at Christianity directly by people like Hardknock jhkayakr, and less overtly (but more regularly outside of this thread) by people like Filth, Host, CShine, and Shakran. Many of you broadly and widely assert that there is some great problem with the "Christian right" in America, equating them to some deviant and plotting evil group of bigots, and frankly to me at least it's getting old. Hope that clears some of it up, I'm distracted atm and am desperately trying to make sense out of my words in this rant.

roachboy · 03-10-2005, 07:55 AM

thanks for posting that, mojo:
for me at least it helped quite alot in making sense of your position.

some questions:
1.
i have never really understood the version of the history of america that starts with plymouth and then works its way outward--while it works formally, that is chronologically (chronology is in itself a factor, but not necessarily an explanatory factor, in ordering historical material)--what it also does it to drag the particular issues that motivated the particular factions within the english puritan movement to emigrate across the whole history of the states, and with that also drags the centrality not just of religion and the "escape from religious persecution" but radical protestant ideology across that history, as if everything that happened thereafter was somehow shaped by the same motivation, by the same issues--which even a cursory look at the diverse histories of the colonial period shows to be false empirically.
even in massachusetts, the puritan communities were not long the only game in town--the area around gloucester was founded on quite different, more commercially oriented grounds (though it might seem a strange book to cite here, charles olson's maximus poems are about this counterhistory, renarrating the early history of america around a different mythology)...the various stories of the colonies running north to south are well known, the distinctions between them obvious (e.g. the cavalier culture of virginis--a playground for the second sons of the english aristocracy who were doomed from birth by way of primogeniture has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of georgia has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of new york has nothing to do with the puritans--nor maryland (catholic)--and on and on.)

so the idea that from the outset the u.s. was geared around religion seems more an ideological than historical narrative. but you run into this ideological narrative in elementary school and later, presented as if it was The history of the states. if you keep going, taking university-level classes for example which do not work around the same assumptions, and then go back to the starting point, you find things are strange indeed.

the small (and still-marginal) "history" dear to some of the more important conservatives (from gingrich through--shudder--lynne cheney) is not only committed to the replacement of analysis with heroic mythology, but also would reinscribe the history of the states around this same plymouth narrative--but in their case, the motives for doing so are obvious--it is about the claims they are making in the present, which they want to backwrite. which brings us to the conservative instrumentalization of christianity....

secondly: for myself at least, when i react to posts in various threads about islam, it is usually motivated by either factual errors or by the sense that islam is now the object of "legitimate" racism--its "legitimacy" follows from its centrality in packaging the war footing that the bush administration has exploited and continues to exploit for its own ends. most assertions from folk who i take to be conservative about islam--about "fundamentalism" in particular (because this is almost inevitably the wedge that starts or anchors the arguments) are based on no research whatsoever, no attempt to figure out who people are where they come out of what their goals are. too often you see the slide from "fundamentalism" as anchor point to a whole series of arbitrary assertions about the "nature" of islam, etc--which have everything to do with the degenerate state of discourse in the present context in the states and little or nothing to do with its purported object (islam).

this kind of racism strikes quite close to home for me.

that said, i dont think that you can simply stand this on its head, mojo, when it comes to thinking about the treatment accorded the christian right even in this thread--the positions outlined here tend to work from a much different level of familiarity with the object, and work to split apart claims made to the basic category "christian". secondly, they are made from within a particular ideological context which is and has been the object of a sustained campaign mounted in the context of what the neocons have understood from the early 80s (at least) as being a cultural war. within that campaign, the rhetoric of christianity has operated in very particular ways to structure the belief system itself (conservative ideology) and as a trope within that system that tends to be associated with the most intolerant, more regressive aspects of conservative social policy.

for me at least, for what its worth, when i talk about the christian right, it usually has to do with this political correlation. the effects of the politics that tries to define the term christian in one way and one way only tend to be a problem in my view. i try to limit what i say to this register--whether i manage it or not is another matter, and comes down to obscurity on my part or a slipping in mode brought about by getting annoyed as i write--which are my problems.

i sometimes wonder what kind of correlation really exists between individual evangelicals and the ideology created and floated in the name of evangelical christianity. one of my oldest friends is an evangelical preacher--his particular politics are very very different from the ideology that would speak in the name of the religious position he occupies. but i find that he allows that ideology to structure his views on topics that are more removed from his immediate experience/involvements. i expect that there is considerable diversity of position within the actual evangelical protestant communities. it is curious that you do not really hear about such diversity as i assume exists.

thinking about these questions from this angle serves to isolate the ways in which the word christianity is used and manipulated by conservative ideology from the positions occupied by individual believers. i find that seperation strange.

once again, my apologies for the length of this post.

02-22-2005, 02:40 PM	#41 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well I would agree not the religion so much as a whole, but then again we disagree on the effect Christianity has played in American history and life. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-22-2005, 04:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	a hypothetical situation given without historical context? surely you can do better. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-22-2005, 05:37 PM	#45 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	halx, your position is essentially post-modern... the backbone of our legal and moral codes are firmly entrenched in modernity independent of religious dogma. if you were to say to the founding fathers what you posted you would be greeted with a mix of bitten lips and confused frowns. i'm not saying you are right or wrong... but that mindset would be completely foreign to the framers of our law. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-22-2005, 05:41 PM	#46 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	As would every ammendment added to it since they died __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-22-2005, 05:57 PM	#47 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	there are differences between being foreign to an idea from a practical or cultural vantage point and being foreign to an idea from a moral point of view. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-22-2005, 06:28 PM	#49 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I would bet the farm that they wouldn't be down with Gay marriage...call it a hunch. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-22-2005, 06:34 PM	#50 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Then I am extremely happy we , as a society, have managed to evolve our understanding of human nature to the point where we are no longer bound by 16th century Dogma. Perhaps it is best if we consider these situations in the context of the future....or at the very least....the present. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-22-2005, 06:44 PM	#51 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Some people don't agree that all change and evolution are always a good thing. Perspectives, right Halx? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-22-2005 at 06:49 PM..

02-22-2005, 07:04 PM	#52 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	And those people are entitled to the opinions they hold....I simply tend not to associate with them, as our communications tend to be dissapointing. Fortunately, we as a species have a wonderful history....short though it may be....of accepting change as a means of evolution of the population. I tend to think in terms of decades to centuries...not months to years. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-22-2005, 08:01 PM	#55 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	"It was an act of cowardice and it was evil. The United States will not tolerate it. And I will not allow the people of this country to be intimidated by evil cowards. " -Bill Clinton The current admin isn't the only one using the term "evil" to describe folk. That goddamn Christian bastard. How dare he try to force his perspective on me. I don't believe in that, just perspectives. -fibber

02-22-2005, 08:34 PM	#57 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	oh come on filtherton, your language clearly indicates you proposed it as a fact. another caveat, your original question asked if christian influence was a good thing... then you asked if increased fundamentalism in government was a good thing. you can't have it both ways because they are not the same thing. for the record, i do believe that any increase in christian morality is a good thing for our country. i don't care if the inspiration for such thought comes from buddha, mohammed, confucious or john doe... as long as it aligns with christian moral principles i do not care an ounce for its source. being a christian myself, i don't believe that christ's message is just good for me... i believe it holds redemption for all of mankind. when religion (not morality mind you) plays a role in government it tends to pervert both. that is why i support the moral standards of christianity being public policy though i would abhor christianity being established as a state religion or steps taken in that direction. edit: i deleted part of this post because i was unsure of the meaning of the original post's intent. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 02-22-2005 at 08:51 PM..

02-22-2005, 08:39 PM	#58 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Ummm, that point is valid as long as someone continues to try to force me to believe this admin is any better or worse than any other. If halx can say that this admin does wrong by labeling things as "evil" then I can certainly call instances that show that this isn't exclusive to this admin. Of course this is repub VS democrat. I would hope that those that don't identify with either group, like myself. Would be free to point out the complaints aren't new. If you chastise a pres. for basing his morals on religion, you should be allowed to extend the same criticism to whatever makes up any leader's "moral compass" be they economic, diplomatic, charitable or otherwise. I personally see no difference in religion or politics. Both attempt to dictate my actions. Both have certain parties who are absolutly certain they are right, and those who don't share their beliefs are either wrong, or not informed/intelligent enough to understand. Both are primarily concerned with furthering their own interests. Both have harmed countless people in the persuit of these interests. and in an upstroke, Both have done some real good mixed in with all the nasty. Don't attempt to dismiss my argument by associating it with a blowhard with a bad rap here. I could just as easily say that this guy I know who raped babies said Dubbya is an "evangelical who believes that all of his actions are divinely sanctioned." and therefore I can't accept your point. Take it back to my baby-rapin' buddy circa last tuesday. -fibber Last edited by fibber; 02-22-2005 at 09:18 PM..

02-23-2005, 05:03 AM	#60 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	it just appears to me that you're still trying to have it both ways. on one hand or on one thread christianity is battered for being this monolithic moral force bearing down on society with great weight... now i'm told that it's fractured and inconsistent. of course i'm not quoting your single person specifically but rather those who i would imagine sharing your position. i'm not sure where you got the idea that there are many christians who endorse gay marriage. that is just simply not so. an accurate statement would be that there are some. a proper response to your question would require a couple hours and a few beers... but i think the argument, once again, transitions from a semi-relativistic post-modern view of truth versus a traditional one. the inconsistencies you perceive in the christian ranks are the inroads post-modernity (in large part anyway) have made in millenia old institutions. the very ideas that seem to be fractures are often the very same modes of thought that you employ in this thread. it's hard to discuss christianity as a cohesive whole in a societal sense because its impact on systems of thought is dying. there have been very recently conceived foreign things thrust into christianity that should not yet be judged part of the whole. gosh... i feel like roachboy being so ridiculously abstract. sorry, i'll think on this some more. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-23-2005, 07:41 AM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so i see i have been invoked here following on that.... (maybe better to leave me out of debates i otherwise would not participate in, irate) 1. where i agree with irate: the thread is not really about christianity in general: it starts with a critique of the ridiculous doctrine of original intent floated by the far right in various guises--this doctrine of original intent--totally indefensable though it is---functions to open a space for a series of political outcomes, most of which involve a kind of collapse of any coherent boundary between secular and religious. original intent operates in the interest not of christianity in general, but rather in the interests of a particular political formation--largely evangelical protestant--mobilized as political by organizations like the christian coaltion (and others). one of the quirks characteristic of this particular formation is that it claims to BE christianity. the problem with recapitulating this claim in the context like a debate here is that it hopelessly blurs the analytic object on the one hand, and cedes political ground to a very particular group advancing very particular, reactionary claims behind the mask of christianity in general. in other words, you cede something basic if you allow these particular people to effectively win a political battle by working their way into how you understand christianity. no-one is really talking about say left-leaning methodists here--no-one is really talking about catholics---no-one is really talking about most mainline protestant denominations--these groups do not agree amongst themselves--each entails different types of politics--for example, as much as i find john paul 2 to be repellent, at least he is consistent in his "prolife" position and extends it directly into opposition to capital punishment and a refusal to endorse bush's war in iraq. the evangelicals do not do this--they support both. the term "christian" used in political debates like this wipe out the space even for the pope. it is amazing. 2. where i fundamentally reject his position: what i think irate is talking about has nothing to do with the "post-modern" as over against something else--he is talking about the split that seperates those who believe from those who do not. the "post modern" is a code that bundles (under a dubious term) the simple fact that people who do not believe in evanglical protestant ideology tend to relativize it. there is nothing "post modern" (whatever that means--i know the range of options for the term--none of them are necessary or helpful here) about it. the question of "truth" follows from a prior set of beliefs, which irate tries to erase by shifting the question onto more secular-seeming grounds. what seems to grate on him--and on others who operate from similar positions--is that there is any diversity of belief at all--that everyone everywhere is not an evangelical protestant. because absolute uniformity of belief is the only condition that would make claims to absolute truth compelling. the question of "absolute truth" is indefensable on philosophical grounds--it is something of a joke. it has a history of being enormously destructive when translated into the basis of political theory/ideology such claims have been situated for over 150 years as being central to ideology--such claims are of a piece with attempts to remove political conflict from history in general, and from the specific history of specific conflicts in particular. the relation of this division between those who believe (and by believing flee from history) and those who do not (who for all that might well want nothing to do with facing history--but at least their position does not preclude the possibility a priori) plays out directly across the ridiculous debate, framed and advanced by the right, over "the founders" and their "intent"....it is obvious that there is nothing necessary about the right's position--except as it functions as a way to advance their particular claims to power, claims that are part of a particular history--this one, that we are moving through now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-23-2005 at 07:45 AM..

03-08-2005, 06:51 PM	#63 (permalink)
jhkayakr Insane Location: under the skirt	I thought America was the land of the free, who says Christianity is the only religion in the us. Bible thumpers should stay home __________________ ........gotta need for speed....

03-08-2005, 07:01 PM	#64 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Free to everyone except for Christians right? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-08-2005, 07:02 PM	#65 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Ok, ok, lets not resort to unsubstantiated, one-line attacks here. Let us all explain our positions lucidly, genially, and cordially, please. That includes us on the left and those on the right, eh? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-08-2005, 10:00 PM	#67 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You guys give more trust and benefit to Muslims from around the world that they aren't all crazies, then you afford Christians in America, a group of people that make up at least 70% of the population. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-09-2005, 02:47 PM	#69 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	People here who get down on Christians in America, but adamently defend Muslims world wide. It's blatantly hypocritical. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-09-2005, 04:48 PM	#70 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Mojo, nobody's talking about muslims besides you.

03-09-2005, 05:26 PM	#71 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I was talking about the pleathora of threads that touch on Islamic fundamentalism put against the threads of this nature. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-09-2005, 06:16 PM	#74 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	how could the point(s) be valid if mojo has never--not once--acknowledged that there is a basic problem with the term "christian" in this political context, the one in which we live. i am not sure how ignoring attempts to raise these problems--often in quite careful ways--earlier in the thread can be equated with validity. if you look more specifically at the entire range of denominations lumped behind this category--which the evangelical churches like to claim for themselves, as if they monopolize the entire belief system--then the idea that christians in the united states are in any way persecuted turns into a meaningless assertion. that mojo chooses to construe an argument about the doctrone of original intent as it crosses with the interests of the types of christian organizations that are quite a powerful block on the right these days as an example of how christianity is somehow persecuted here is strange. maybe the problem is that not everyone believes as he does, and the sense of being persecuted follows from the fact of different beliefs. if it is not that, i dont understand what he is talking about. maybe he would care to explain? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-09-2005, 06:39 PM	#75 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	In no dire sense of the word are Christians "persecuted" in America. I think we are all big enough to accept the fact that we all hold our opinions of America's foundation, I'm not talking about original intent. Historically, America is a nation that was founded by Christians (starting from Plymouth), inhabited primarily by people who relate and claim to the judeo more important Christian tradition, and established as a country with it's underpinning that touch under the Judeo-Christian influence and beliefs. I've said all this before, so it may or may not be a dead horse to you, but what I've stated above isn't my point. Historically this country has ties to Christianity, in the modern sense less and less directly and overtly, this is ofcourse due to a secular push in our country. My rantings in this thread mostly are stemmed from the fact that myself and others in the past arguments have pointed out about the reality of fanatical and fundamental Islam, whether in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, etc or the growth of Wahabism at large and the real and corporeal problem it poses in the world. Then people from the board who tend to be the more left leaning types jump up and assert it's not the majority and that by and large all muslims are great and good, which by the way you'll get no argument from me, and that there isn't a problem (again not really the point). But the catch is There have been some shots in this thread (and others) that have been taken at Christianity directly by people like Hardknock jhkayakr, and less overtly (but more regularly outside of this thread) by people like Filth, Host, CShine, and Shakran. Many of you broadly and widely assert that there is some great problem with the "Christian right" in America, equating them to some deviant and plotting evil group of bigots, and frankly to me at least it's getting old. Hope that clears some of it up, I'm distracted atm and am desperately trying to make sense out of my words in this rant. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 03-09-2005 at 06:41 PM..

03-10-2005, 07:55 AM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks for posting that, mojo: for me at least it helped quite alot in making sense of your position. some questions: 1. i have never really understood the version of the history of america that starts with plymouth and then works its way outward--while it works formally, that is chronologically (chronology is in itself a factor, but not necessarily an explanatory factor, in ordering historical material)--what it also does it to drag the particular issues that motivated the particular factions within the english puritan movement to emigrate across the whole history of the states, and with that also drags the centrality not just of religion and the "escape from religious persecution" but radical protestant ideology across that history, as if everything that happened thereafter was somehow shaped by the same motivation, by the same issues--which even a cursory look at the diverse histories of the colonial period shows to be false empirically. even in massachusetts, the puritan communities were not long the only game in town--the area around gloucester was founded on quite different, more commercially oriented grounds (though it might seem a strange book to cite here, charles olson's maximus poems are about this counterhistory, renarrating the early history of america around a different mythology)...the various stories of the colonies running north to south are well known, the distinctions between them obvious (e.g. the cavalier culture of virginis--a playground for the second sons of the english aristocracy who were doomed from birth by way of primogeniture has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of georgia has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of new york has nothing to do with the puritans--nor maryland (catholic)--and on and on.) so the idea that from the outset the u.s. was geared around religion seems more an ideological than historical narrative. but you run into this ideological narrative in elementary school and later, presented as if it was The history of the states. if you keep going, taking university-level classes for example which do not work around the same assumptions, and then go back to the starting point, you find things are strange indeed. the small (and still-marginal) "history" dear to some of the more important conservatives (from gingrich through--shudder--lynne cheney) is not only committed to the replacement of analysis with heroic mythology, but also would reinscribe the history of the states around this same plymouth narrative--but in their case, the motives for doing so are obvious--it is about the claims they are making in the present, which they want to backwrite. which brings us to the conservative instrumentalization of christianity.... secondly: for myself at least, when i react to posts in various threads about islam, it is usually motivated by either factual errors or by the sense that islam is now the object of "legitimate" racism--its "legitimacy" follows from its centrality in packaging the war footing that the bush administration has exploited and continues to exploit for its own ends. most assertions from folk who i take to be conservative about islam--about "fundamentalism" in particular (because this is almost inevitably the wedge that starts or anchors the arguments) are based on no research whatsoever, no attempt to figure out who people are where they come out of what their goals are. too often you see the slide from "fundamentalism" as anchor point to a whole series of arbitrary assertions about the "nature" of islam, etc--which have everything to do with the degenerate state of discourse in the present context in the states and little or nothing to do with its purported object (islam). this kind of racism strikes quite close to home for me. that said, i dont think that you can simply stand this on its head, mojo, when it comes to thinking about the treatment accorded the christian right even in this thread--the positions outlined here tend to work from a much different level of familiarity with the object, and work to split apart claims made to the basic category "christian". secondly, they are made from within a particular ideological context which is and has been the object of a sustained campaign mounted in the context of what the neocons have understood from the early 80s (at least) as being a cultural war. within that campaign, the rhetoric of christianity has operated in very particular ways to structure the belief system itself (conservative ideology) and as a trope within that system that tends to be associated with the most intolerant, more regressive aspects of conservative social policy. for me at least, for what its worth, when i talk about the christian right, it usually has to do with this political correlation. the effects of the politics that tries to define the term christian in one way and one way only tend to be a problem in my view. i try to limit what i say to this register--whether i manage it or not is another matter, and comes down to obscurity on my part or a slipping in mode brought about by getting annoyed as i write--which are my problems. i sometimes wonder what kind of correlation really exists between individual evangelicals and the ideology created and floated in the name of evangelical christianity. one of my oldest friends is an evangelical preacher--his particular politics are very very different from the ideology that would speak in the name of the religious position he occupies. but i find that he allows that ideology to structure his views on topics that are more removed from his immediate experience/involvements. i expect that there is considerable diversity of position within the actual evangelical protestant communities. it is curious that you do not really hear about such diversity as i assume exists. thinking about these questions from this angle serves to isolate the ways in which the word christianity is used and manipulated by conservative ideology from the positions occupied by individual believers. i find that seperation strange. once again, my apologies for the length of this post. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-10-2005 at 07:58 AM..