Fourtyrulz

I was recommended this book by my father, of all the people in the world I still respect, and found myself punched in the throat by it's blatant lies, exaggeration, and baseless religious/political claims...and that's only within the first 50 pages!

Those of you who have had the mind boggling experience of reading any of this book know what I mean, but here's some snippets from the very first page of the chapter titled Introduction:

(after a completely fictitious and outrageous beginning chapter titled "It Could Happen...")

He later claims that "Which of these two option you choose (Secular Humanism or Fundamentalist Christianity) will affect the way you live now and ultimately where you will spend eternity."

I was hoping for some profound insight into the Christian right and boy did I ever get it. Is stuff like this what is currently running through the minds of Christian voters and citizens of the US: Act/vote accordingly or go to Hell? Folks on the boards here are always wondering what is driving this country apart and one of them is definitely the view that the political Left is on the wrong side of a righteous war. Now I realize not all Christians are like this, but the sales of this book are astounding and stunning reviews by Christian sources are proof that it is having some kind of impact. So far I have read that he is decidely opposed to a collective global civilization ("...if patriotism is better than globalism...") and to a strengthened UN, that the nation is in trouble because of "our leaders trust in man.", that in New York "frank scenes of homoeroticism, pederasty, and beastiality" are "part of nature and therefore beautiful.", that "Christians have ALWAYS fought for liberty and freedom", that atheists are amoral, and that "buzz words" like: "social justice...global security...question authority...homophobic...intolerance...feminism...alternate lifestyles...universal healthcare...celebrate diversity...sexism...gay rights...animal rights...participatory democracy..." are all part of the Secular Human plan to eradicate "every idea that Christians hold dear", and finally that "America does not have to remain on its current course of becoming Sodom and Gomorrah."

To sum up my feelings of this book I will borrow from amazon.com. As one reviewer put it "Not since Mein Kampf have I heard such malice."

Edit: Some typos.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

alansmithee

You haven't heard this kind of malice before? Look at any of the anti-Bush threads on this board. A large part of what you say he says I agree with. Secularists are striving to destroy Christianity, and any sort of absolute morality. The only thing I seriously disagree with in what he says is that Christians have always fought for liberty and freedom, that is false.

Fourtyrulz

Bush is one man, and we can judge him based on his actions as the highest ranking executive in America. Secular Humanists are a massive group of people, there are probably as many differing humanist views as there are humanists. To slander them all in one page by labeling them the outright enemy of God and basically declaring a spiritual war is quite different.

It is apparent that readers of this book who agree with LaHaye have drawn the lines. He makes it very clear in his book, there is no grey area on any issue; you are either siding with the Righteous Right or you are in league with Satan. This kind of attitude is what I think is polarizing the country, instead of black and white we deal with red and blue...either you're with us or you're against us. The book itself is proof!

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

maximusveritas

Wow, I had heard alot about these books but I had no idea it was that bad.
Are all the quotes you provide written from the POV of the author or are some written from the POV of the fictional character, Bruce Van Horn?

Fourtyrulz

All the quotes are right from the author. I was going to simply type out the entire first page but I didn't have enough time. Bruce Van Horn is a father character from the previous 1984-esque chapter, in which Christians are literally institutionalized and church services are violently broken up by a brutal police state. Where instead of patriotism we settle on a view that no country is important and nothing is done without thought to one's nationality (Huxley anyone?), and evangelical Christians are jailed under charges of terrorism.

The rest of the book beyond that is the author's view, the quotes from LaHaye in the chapter called Introduction (which is after the Bruce Van Horn story/exercise in hyperbole) just seem to sum it up perfectly.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

liquidlight

This sort of extremists divisive philosophy is the same sort of doctrine that leads to the Islamic jihad that so many of these "good christians" proclaim to detest and abhor.

Why is it nearly impossible in our modern society to look at people as individuals and respect them for the particular beliefs without necessarily attempting to change them to coincide with our own?!

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

alansmithee

The only problem I have is that the amoral left also uses the same polarizing tactics. And it seems that this is often ignored in their attacks on the religious right. They fail to see how their language is just as polarizing. It doesn't make it polarizing speech just because you don't agree with it.

host

I don't regard any of the posts made on TFP Politics as particularly "polarizing" or
as "attacks", if they are accompanied by references to supporting sources; news
reports, research from secular academic and scientific sources, and opinion polls from established polling organizations. The NY Times, the AP news pool, Chicago Tribune, LA Tribune, are sources that I prefer to quote. Historically, along with the three major broadcasters, these have been the sources of record in the U.S.

Feel free to counter my posts that are supported by these sources. You can accuse me of being extremely critical of Bush and Republican politics and it's
leaders and orchestrators, and of the political communications and other activities of the Christian right, but I try hard to post accurate reports from reliable sources every time.

If you start your post or thread by including sources such as Fox News, the Washington Times, Agape Press, or townhall.com, IMO, you run the risk of
seeming less credible than you need to be. I try to restrain myself from simply shooting your "messenger", because it is easy to refute the information in the source you point to, because it is much more often one sided and inaccurate than the sources that I try to use. When anyone attempts to discredit my points by bashing the reporting of the Times or of one of the "Tribs", in general, instead of mounting an argument on the merits of what they report,
you communicate to me and to other readers, that you are not interested in a discussion that includes the accuracy or the reliability of what is reported.

Now.....as far as LeHaye and "Mind Siege"......not to worry, IMO. The book is
in print over two years, now. It is the 429,000 most popular sale at Amazon,
and LeHaye's newest book is #249 in popularity.

Here is a link to the top 20 current bestsellers:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref=pd_dp_ts_b/">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref=pd_dp_ts_b/</a>

I am concerned about the popularity of the #10 book, Mark Levine's rant against the Supreme Court, but not so much after the damage that the
right inflicted on itself in the recent "Weekend Coup". "States Rights" and the
"Sanctity of Marriage" are empty slogans after Bush's rush back to D.C. to sign that bill in oorder to "err on the side of life". "Mind Siege" already did it's damage......Bush was voted his "mandate" and is spending his political capital with all the competence and the intuitiveness that he showed the world during his presidential debate performances last fall. LeHaye's readers were
impressed enough by Bush to vote "four more" of his mediocrity.

raveneye

LeHaye is saying, quite well, what the religious right has believed for at least the last 50 years.

The only difference now is that Bush's re-election has made them bolder than they ever have been in the past. They believe that now is their time, and that Bush has made them, finally, a legitimate force in political discourse.

LeHaye is doing us all a favor by laying it out explicitly in black and white. I think the message we should all take from his book is that these people are fundamentally, at their core, anti-American.

They believe that absolute religious morality is more important, more sacred, more true, than anything else, including the United States Constitution.

There is a Higher Law, and only these people know what it is.

Fourtyrulz

Fucking hell, I just had probably two pages of stuff typed up over the course of the last 45 minutes, and when I go to post it I get the login screen...followed by an invalid thread page...followed by me hitting the back button 3 times to get an empty content box.

Fucking kill me.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

roachboy

there have long been absurd books like this.
there has long been a demographic that consumes them.

previously, this segment would have been understood as extreme conservative, reactionary religious groups----far-right protestant evangelicals, products of any one of many waves of far right protestant evangelism that has swept across parts of the states....from aimee semple mcpherson to robertson to anglo-israelites to the backwash from the 1970s mobilizations----there are many books about this history, many analysis of how when and why this religious movement began to become politicized, etc.

what has changed is that now elements of their discourse shape a singificant aspect of the frame of reference within which what passes for american politics operates.

it is interesting--the political organization of this type of churches under the aegis of the christian coalition and other such is not identical with the churches themselves that are part of his organization--the ideologies of the churches (not to mention the belief systems of memebrs) are not identical to their political correlates. there is no need for the political right to extend its efforts that far into the grass roots level--it is easier and cheaper to integrate these churches into a kind of political relay system--and the christian coalition (among others) has been very creative in working out how to develop and maintain such a system. you got to hand it to them, not matter how vile their politics.

you can see from the quotes at the outset of this thread one or two ways in which the positions (evangelical protestant churches/right politics) map onto each other: the notion of an absolute seperation between the Correct views of these churches and everyone else maps onto the tendency of the right apparatus to draw clear lines whenever possible between itself and the rest of the world--the refusal to compromise (which in political terms is endelssly projected onto those who oppose right politics)--the assumption that god speaks to evangelicals and evangelicals alone maps onto the moralizing discourse of right politics in general--on and on---the rhetoric of spiritual warfare dear to evanglicals these days, the idea that "we" are entering "the end times" and so are "forced" to realign around the notions of "good vs. evil" (which of course rightwing evangelicals obviously get to define because god talks to them and only to them).

at the same time, it is obviously possible to oppose the politics without really caring what the individual envangelicals or their churches believe or do not believe. because the politics of these churches as churches and the image of their politics that have been worked into rightwing politics, to right media etc., are not identical. i will type this in big letters so even alansmitheee will understand it: THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL.

i dont know what sense it makes for far right protestant evangelicals to imagine themselves, and their particular belief systems, to be explicitly under attack at every turn--maybe vanity drives this? it is flattering to think your personal beleifs are that significant, isnt it? ask any aging trotskyist about this kind of thing, if you do not fear contamination by doing it.

what is frightening not a little, and what you see for some reason surfacing through the fog and ooze of conservative ideology is an increasingly explicit claim that there is an absolute morality and that evanglical protestants know what that absolute morality is. both elements of this are simply insane internally--a really bad consequence of hamfisted "literal" readings of a complex heterodox text like the bible---and more than dangerous politically in that, combined with the other elements noted above, it is a recipe for a politics that combines brutal oppression with sanctimonious back-patting. it seems to me then that the far right should be grateful for the rest of us who work to keep them far far from actual power--they know not what disaster they would visit upon the rest of us were they to actually get uncontested power.

the logic of this kind of claim--combined with the apparent fact that this absolute morality is rooted in some type of illumination and so is not amenable to argument, to contestation, to friction---is of the worst kind of totalitarian intolerance. but this problems comes not from the churches themselves, and not from the believers themselves--but from the ways in which their worldviews are being and have been incorporated politically. it is the political stuff that seems to me worth opposing. i personally could not care less what evangelical christians as human beings choose to believe. which would i suppose make me evil.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

boatin

I guess I need specific examples. Is it my belief that gays should marry that is destroying the christian's beliefs? Is it my belief that Islam's values are as important to respect as Christianities values that is make me seeking world domination?

The "big picture" language makes this hard to follow for me. How are my "secular" beliefs threatening to anyone??


I have some malice towards the current administration, but that is direct and about specific positions held by specific people. I have no malice towards blocks of people. I sure see malice in the quotes in the original thread.

I can despise a particular black man, the only problem I see is if I despise him because he's black - rather than because of his actions. Or if I despise others because of my (theoretical) justification of despising the one.

Can someone help me understand how I'm a threat because of my beliefs?

sprocket

Their beliefs about society and what it should be (and ultimately, whether its pleasing to God) revolve around a few key assumptions and taboos. Most of wich are derived from the bible. They view things like divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexuality etc as problems with moral fabric of society that they are charged with upholding.

Any publicity or public acceptance of any of those practices is what they consider an assault on their beleifs. They seem to fear nothing else like they fear the disolving of a societal taboo. The dissappearance of a taboo is like satan scoring a point. So we all hear them crying loudly over rediculous things like janets super bowl nipple because in their mind there is a connection between that nipple, and say, teens having sex; wich to them is an unacceptable problem that needs to be fixed. A problem where no practical solution is acceptable other than stopping kids from having sex. period. So anyone who teaches a teen how to have responsible sex, and anyone not opposed to seeing a nipple on tv is assaulting their way of life (in their mind).

As long as society accepts behavior that is opposed by the bible, they will feel under assault. Because if the behavior is acceptable, they are in danger of having their sheep wander from the flock.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

alansmithee

It isn't your beliefs alone that are threatening (if they are). It is the fact that many who share the same beliefs are trying to force those beliefs on society. It's no different than what the amoral left accuses the religious right of doing-forcing their beliefs on society. The only reason religion comes into the discussion is because by labelling the beliefs of the right as having a religious basis, the amoral left tries to marginalize those beliefs as not having merit or a logical basis. They fail to see that many of the religious right's beliefs could be arrived at through logic and truly come from someone's personal belief as to what is best for society.


Would you have malice toward people who share the same beliefs of the current administration, or people who support that administration? If so, that's no different than the quotes in the article. Both are cases of holding malice against people who have differing viewpoints.

You can be a threat due to you beliefs in the same way that the amoral left feels that the religious right can be a threat because of their beliefs.

Manx

Sorry alansmithee, but no. You are forgetting the primary difference between what you call the moral right and the amoral left:

The right wants everyone to do what they want. The left wants each of us to make our own choices.

This is evidenced in almost every issue that the right views as an "attack" on their philosophy. Of course it is an "attack" on their philosophy: their philosophy is one of exerting control over other people - when you try to do that, you're going to get push back.

The moral right and amoral left, as you put it, are not equivalent in the respect that you would like to believe.

roachboy

"the amoral left" ...interesting...i wonder where you got that particular parody of an understanding of those who oppose fundamentalist/evangelical protestant ideology **as a political force** (not as a belief system that anyone might, for whatever reason, choose to adopt).....

because you do, in fact, in your world, have a monopoly on what morality is, alansmithee?

if you do not believe that you, and only you (or those who believe in the same way you do) control the absolute definition of morality, then your claims make no sense.

in my youth, i had a pentacostalist period--during it i learned many things--lilke that in many of these types of churches there is no distinction between political and religious arguments, that group leaders and pastors sometimes abuse their positions of authority in this regard--but what is most relevant here is that the group i was part of was into its members making a show of their beliefs by wearing crosses and that kind of thing--the idea seemed to be to draw attention to oneself as believer--and to also draw rejection from others, which served as a kind of inverted confirmation of one's beliefs.
i dont see much of anything different going on here, with the hallucination of the "amoral left"--it may be a hallucination, but it is a structurally necessary one the existence of which operates to provide evangelicals/pentecostalists confirmation of their status precisely because through the workings of this hallucinated entity, these soldiers of chirst can draw a line that seperates the "good" themselves) from the "instruments of satan" (everyone else).

if any number of evangelicals/pentecostalist protestants (for the most part) choose as groups to beleive that everyone and everything that opposes them is inspired by some devil, then fine: you translate this into politics and it is a logic of extermination of those who oppose you.
if you want examples from the past, you have any number of brutal wars, from the crusades through the wars of religion, that might be instructive to think on.

it is because of the political correlates of these positions that i think most people oppose the contemporary american right, and particularly the religious component of it.

of course, pointing out the problem with translating this religious ideology into mass politics positions me as one of the "amoral left" in the simpleminded grid of the political landscape that alansmithee seems to imagine he is arguing for by repeating it many times....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

I would dispute that claim. The left desire to control what people can and cannot do just as much as the right. Gun control is just one issue, the left wants to limit people's legal right to own firearms. They don't want people to make their own choice about government ownership, they want to ban guns.

Both sides have ideas of what they think should and shouldn't be allowed. Both sides also seek to control people into doing and not doing what they believe to be proper and improper, respectively. To think otherwise is silly. Both sides have philosophies that are about control. Both sides push back.

As a small aside, that's why I personally think that debating the tactics of one side or the other is ridiculous, because both sides use the same tactics. To fail to see that shows blindness to reality, and bias that frequently makes much debate degenerate into slander. IMO, it's much more important to discuss the validity of being on one side or the other of an issue, without resorting to identifying that side as belonging to a certain belief system. If your point cannot be made without mentioning that the left or right holds that view, you probably don't have a significant point in the first place.

Manx

Now you're changing the definition of "left". Prior, your amoral left were those people in opposition to the moral right. As defined in the book that started this thread, secular humanists.

We need to get back to the terms used in the book and not the terms you coopted in your responses:

Secular humanists are not trying to control anyone. Fundamentalists are. You attempted to equalize them when in fact they are not equal.

alansmithee

How are "secular humanists" not trying to control people? They desire to enforce their beliefs on others, they seek to control how discussions are phrased. I don't see how I changed any definition. They aren't secular humanists, they are secular fundamentalists. They believe that any form of morality is wrong, and seek to eliminate the right for people to have absolute morality.

Manx

alansmithee -

The book mentioned delineates two types of people: the people that agree with the book and the people who do not agree with the book. The former are commonly called Christian Fundamentalists, the latter the book calls "secular humanists".

You defended the book by stating that the "amoral left" uses the same tactics. Are you referring to a group that is a subgroup of the "secular humanists" or are you referring to the same group the book is referring to? The difference is, in the former, you have jumped down in scope which destroys your argument because the book does not represent the scope you are discussing (I could do the same by listing a single ultra-fascist leftie and claim that single person now represents everyone who disagrees with the book, I'd be wrong, but I could do it just as you have). In the latter, you are wrong for the reason I outlined above: "secular humanists" do not want to force anyone to do anything. Take the example of gun control that you provided - there are staunch conservatives who are pro-gun yet still clearly fall into the category the book calls "secular humanists". There is no guaranteed portion of the definition of "secular humanist" that is an element of forceable control. There may be some people who are otherwise "secular humanists" who want to control, but the term as used (those defined by the book) does not require any element of control over others.

As for your last sentence, you're essentially saying that people who are intolerant of intolerance are the same as people who are intolerant of everything. Clearly that is nonsense.

smooth

Do you honestly believe this or would you like to amend it to make your point more clear?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

abaya

Alansmithee, please be careful with your words. I am a former evangelical (and I mean EVANGELICAL, no holds barred!!) and even during those ten years of my life I could see that secular humanists were not evil worshippers of satan. It is offensive that you think secular humanists actually want to eliminate someone's right to have morals. How can you love someone when you believe they are amoral and damned to hell?

Cultural relativism is not the same as extreme relativism; there is a major, crucial difference. The absolute exists whether or not our little human minds can apprehend it, no matter what side we shout from... left, right, above, below, etc. Tolerating and loving the rest of the planet who does their very best to live the good life, appeal to their own morals and sense of the absolute, and not hurt anyone is something I can't imagine Jesus disagreeing with. Why are you so intent on converting everyone in this thread?

If anyone's interested, see my last three posts in Coming Together on "Virginity being a lie" for more details on the whole relative/absolute thing with sex brought into it (yee ha): http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...37#post1728637

/takes second swig of Absolut for the day, sans Red Bull this time.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

boatin

A couple of things:

Good question. I have malice (to keep using that word - I wouldn't have chosen that word, but it suffices) towards the administration that starts programs, but doesn't fund them (no child left behind), or cuts workforce retraining programs, and claims to be expanding them, or works to limit the rights of people to marry.

I hold no malice towards people that support that administration. I just think they are foolish, shortsighted, or concerned about other issues. My dad is a single issue voter, and voted for Bush. He just doesn't care about the other stuff - he falls into the shortsighted camp...

I have "malice" where I believe people are hurting other people in a varied and systematic way. I reserve the right to disagree with anyone that supports them, but "malice" (for me) is reserved for those that DO.

I'm sure there is a deep philosophical discussion in this that will go over my head.

In a connected way, the idea that someone can be a threat because of their THOUGHTS is amazingly frightening to me. I'm no spokesperson for the 'amoral left', but I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding someone that would tell you the "right" is a threat because of their beliefs.

The "right" is a threat because they seem to want their beliefs to be MY beliefs. From my persepective, you can believe what ever you want. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, or that Santa Claus is a blue alien that wears a costume and performs gay marriages in the off season for all I care. But when the "right" tries to legislate that, I have a problem. Not that I believe the "right" would try to legislate THAT.

Do mean the part of the "left" that is amoral (in the way that there are moral and amoral members of any group)? Or do you mean that the entire left is amoral?

And if you mean the latter, don't you realize how insulting you are to everyone on this board that would call themselves "left"?? You are saying none of us has morals. How freakin' dare you??

If you don't like being characterized in a particular way because of your political beliefs, you should be calling people on it. Help people understand what is offensive, if anything. I sure don't see it here.

Assuming it's there at all, 2 wrongs sure don't make a right.

NCB

Not directed at you solely, but isn't liberalism as much of a belief system? Who are the one's who seem the most passionate about their beliefs? Who are the ones demonstrating on almost a daily basis and over many diffferent issues? Who ar ethe ones that want to move to Canada (perhaps a Pilgram analogy would work here) over a political election lose?

Is it all the liberals? Of course not, just like it's not all the Christian Right. However, I think one can make a good argument that liberalism is a religion in itself

__________________

Fourtyrulz

Let's hear it then.

After reading more of the book and digesting more of LaHaye's philosophy and comparing it with some of my history "book learnin'" it is brutally clear how he wants the American government run, and it's a form of totalitarian antimodernism called Fundamentalism, in particular:

1) Hostility towards liberalism - self explanatory.
2) Apocalypticism - Obsession with the end times...co-author has also written the Left Behind Series.
3) Indoctrination of youth - Set up aggressive outreach programs to children, give them black and white answers , them on one side and everyone else in league with Satan. Provides then with a feeling of importance.
4) Ideological conformity - You may not disagree with the word of the party, or in this case the church.
5) The Big Lie - If a lie is repeated often enough it will become the truth: Evolution is "just a theory", Humanists are amoral.
6) Strict moral standards - All in the attempt to run your life - very much about the "culture of life." Hitler and Mussolini also banned abortion and birth control, among other sexual practices.
7) Paranoia of subversion - Spread lies about conspiracies that attempt to undermine your way of life: "Humanists goal of world domination", Orange alerts right around election time.

He also attacks Harvard, Yale, UC Berkely, and many other colleges quoting that "Recent surveys reveal that the more educated a person becomes (especially in the social sciences and humanities), the more likely he is to be an atheist." AND he makes a call to the Evangelical Christians to do whatever they can to get the "amoral, one-world humanist overlords out of office and replace them with traditional, pro-moral leaders."

Later in the same chapter titled "The Wisdom of Man" he lays out the 5 Tenets of Humanism:

1) Atheism
2) Evolution
3) Amorality
4) Autonomous Man
5) Globalism

By equating the following with the evil Humanists he makes it easier to set up a grossly inaccurate straw man attack on evolution, at one point calling "unscientific". All of LaHaye's attacks on science and modernism are completely baseless, hes quotes creation "scientists" and other religious leaders instead of actual scientists. Hell, LaHaye's doctorate is in pastoral studies! Instead of relying on facts, following in other fundamentalists footsteps, he relies on his BELIEF in the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, that it is the direct word of God.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Fourtyrulz

Passion and demonstration are only manifestations of the belief that human beings should be controlled by no one except themselves. I wouldn't call it systematic either, it isn't bogged down with dogma or any sort of creed. It's just the basic belief that human beings should be able to live their life without interference as long as they do it responsibly with respect to other human beings trying to do the same.

See, one HUGE difference between the Christian right and liberals is that liberals hold the belief that man is intrinsicly good and will continue to be good unless corrupted (by what I am not sure), whereas Christianity is based on the belief that mankind was good only before the Fall and we are now still making up for it, that we are born corrupted and can only become good through divine worship.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

alansmithee

There was something that you attributed to the current administration that I would disagree with, but that's irrelevant to the current subject matter.

You say you don't have malice toward people who agree with the administration, but you do think they are foolish and/or shortsighted. I personally don't see that as being much better.

Fair enough. But maybe the author of the above book feels the same way about the secular humanists. He sees them as systematically trying to hurt society as a whole.


But would they still be a threat if their beliefs were the same as yours? If you think that you are correct in your beliefs (and I have yet to see someone who thinks they are wrong) why wouldn't you want everyone else to think that same way? You stated earlier that those without your beliefs are either foolish or shortsighted. Do you want people to be foolish and/or shortsighted?

And I belive that both sides work the same way-they seek to impose their beliefs on the public. Not trying to divert the current debate, but take homosexuality. Many people think that homosexuality is a sin. The secular humanists try to change that belief. They are clearly trying to put their beliefs on others.



How dare I? I dare because I see the same treatment directed toward the right and Christians. Apparently name-calling and blanket statements should be the sole province of the left? I've personally found that simply saying that something is offensive won't stop it's use on these boards. So if the right/Christians can wear the labels bigots/racists/sheep/stupid/ignorant/foolish/facists/crazy I think the left can fairly be tagged with amoral.

boatin

You have become what you despise.

I thought I addressed this in my post. Because others do this to the right, you can do it to the left??

Look, we use shorthand when we talk. When many on the right take a position I disagree with, it's easy to talk about 'the right'. And vice versa. But when you use an insulting LABEL for the entire group, that can't make things better. Can it?

By labeling the entire 'left' with that word, you label all individuals that way. There is nothing inherantly insulting in the label "religious right" or "christian conservative" is there?

On a more personal level: YOUcalled ME amoral. You probably weren't singling me out, but that's what happens when you use insulting group labels.

I will certainly cop to being ignorant, foolish, crazy or other labels people use when they disagree with me. But telling me I am without morals is an entirely different scale of insult.

If you can find a single instance where I was derogatory to the "right", I would be shocked. If you do, I owe you an apology. That is never my intent, and if it happened, I was either inarticulate or inappropriate. Either way, I will apologize, learn something, and move forward.

If you feel that it's ok to address your fellow TFPers this way, I request that you remove yourself from these boards. We are better than that.

Further, if you see other posters being insulting, please call them on it and let the kick-ass moderators solve it.

tecoyah

Before we get carried away here.....Take a deep breath


Insults of any kind are not acceptable....and are dealt with as needed....this debate need not sink to that level.

Step back, and try again

__________________
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

jorgelito

Whoah, Liberalism is a bit different that the oft-used, ill-defined, generic term liberal. For discussion's sake here is a definition.

lib·er·al·ism Audio pronunciation of "liberalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.


I included all the definitions for clarity.

I also agree, all sorts of extremism is not "good".

Locobot

Well it's not like anyone actually reads this drivel...oh...wait...

As a comic reader it saddens me that the #1 selling comic of all time is the illustrated version of the Left Behind books.

host

The man has all the answers............

Fourtyrulz

People have been saying stuff like this for thousands of years; selling all of their belongings and standing on hilltops waiting for that holy vaccuum to suck them up into eternity.

Just a hunch is all? That's exactly right, nobody will ever know not even LaHaye himself. Who says evolution is scientifically unprovable in the first place...creation "scientists"? The Bible?

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Manx

Hahahahaha. That is hilarious.
That's what it's all about, isn't it? Obedience.

smooth

It's unfortunate the interviewer didn't know more scriptures. LaHaye should have been pressed to explain bibilical literalness in regards to these two glaring pieces:

1) when someone prophecies and it doesn't come to pass, that person is not from the deity.

2) jesus told the disciples that they would see the end-times in their own lifetimes.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman