6 Sneaky Ways the Christian Right Foists Its Biblical Agenda on America

reply to post by puzzlesphere


Thank you. your response to colbe is how I see the article, too.

reply to post by windword

THANK YOU so much.


Also, thank you for answering colbe's question. I'm not even sure what post he was referring to, but I'll go back and look. I'm not at all worried for my "soul", but he apparently is. I suppose I should be grateful, for whatever it's worth.

I get frustrated sometimes being so misrepresented and misunderstood and maligned!

(And I STILL don't get what LadyGreenEyes is trying to say.....but s/he's left now, anyway. I really tried, too, to see where I was missing the point. As far as I'm concerned, if a person doesn't understand what I am saying, it's MY JOB to make it more clear. Oh well.)

I think the thread has gotten plenty of appropriate attention and like you, I'm not going to shut up about it just because somebody like LGEyes gets huffy with me.

Originally posted by wildtimes
I get frustrated sometimes being so misrepresented and misunderstood and maligned!

(And I STILL don't get what LadyGreenEyes is trying to say.....but s/he's left now, anyway.

I can't speak for LadyGreenEyes, but I will point out that from reading over this entire thread it seems like the response to individuals (like LGE and Texastig, etc) who try to explain their point of view is that you and others go "you said you support these points! My rant is vindicated! Bad Christians/conservatives!" You guys seem to be missing that they are posting the reasons they support those points and those points don't line up with the reasons listed in the highly biased article presented in the op.

Why even pretend you care what the opposition thinks if you fully buy this article's view points hook, line and sinker?

reply to post by FaithandArms

Why even pretend you care what the opposition thinks if you fully buy this article's view points hook, line and sinker?

Because it's my 'job' as a human being and peacemaker to dig in and figure out what is wrong with society and humanity. And obviously there is a lot wrong with it.

My objective is to erase what I see as backward thinking and correct what I see as faulty thinking.

And I am IN NO WAY PRETENDING. Ever.

reply to post by FaithandArms


Actually, if you had really read this entire thread you would see that myself as well as the OP and others are still waiting for someone else to give reason of why they feel the way they do OTHER than those reasons mentioned in the article. So far, their responses are the same exact reasons that the article talk about. Except LadyGreeneyes who keeps speculating that its the communists in this country and the gay bullies in school that are somehow responsible.

So far the "opposition" has done nothing but confirm everything with their own words said in the "highly biased" article.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by FaithandArms

 

Actually, if you had really read this entire thread you would see that myself as well as the OP and others are still waiting for someone else to give reason of why they feel the way they do OTHER than those reasons mentioned in the article.

What are you talking about? You've been told, repeatedly, that most of those issues are conservative political issues, not religious issue. The only one that's truly "religious" is the anti-evolution one.

So far the "opposition" has done nothing but confirm everything with their own words said in the "highly biased" article.

You just don't think it's biased because you agree with it.

Here's an example:

4) What they want: A ban on gay marriage. Often cast as "protecting" traditional marriage.

The secular reasons they give: The argument presented in favor of Prop 8 before the Supreme Court is that marriage was established to make sure children are raised by the parents who created them through sexual intercourse, and that expanding it to include gay couples (it’s already expanded to include stepfamilies and infertile couples) would redefine it in a way that would cause vague damage the anti-gay lawyer refused to describe.

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: The Old Testament harshly condemns homosexuality, saying, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13). Christian fundamentalists have downgraded this simply to mean that their government shouldn’t endorse marriages that go against right-wing religious teachings.

I am against same sex marriage, and I am not a Christian Fundamentalist. My reasons are both legal and theological, and neither of those have anything, at all, to do with Leviticus.

I have spelled out exactly why my position on this matter is what it is, please explain how my stated reasons are the same as those in that quoted passage, to support your statement that you're still waiting for anyone who feels "the way they do OTHER than those reasons mentioned in the article".

posted by wildtimes
it's my 'job' as a human being and peacemaker to dig in and figure out what is wrong with society and humanity...
My objective is to erase what I see as backward thinking and correct what I see as faulty thinking.

Interesting, I will take you at your word for that then. So basically you view Christianity & conservatism as backwards. So this really is a political thread, more than a religious thread since you are trying to correct what you view as incorrect thinking related to public policies and laws.

1) What they want: A rollback on environmental protections. This is but one of many ways the religious right has merged its interests with that of corporate America.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions. On the surface the EPA seems like it would be a good organization, I mean who doesn't want fresh clean water and air, non-polluted soil, healthy happy wildlife? However what the EPA does is it heavy handedly charges in and screws over land owners and then creates legislation that prevents people from getting a legitimate hearing from them.
For example:
cnsnews.com...
The couple bought land in a residential neighborhood and were stopped from building their own home because the EPA charged in and said its protected wetlands... however it isn't and the property doesn't show up on wetland EPA registries. The EPA instead of apologizing said "oh well, screw you" and proceeded to block & fine the couple.
news.heartland.org...
from this link:
"The couple sought a formal EPA hearing, but EPA declined to hold one.
The Sacketts then sued in federal court. EPA claimed the couple had no standing to sue because they had yet to suffer any harm or adverse action. The Sacketts could sue, EPA argued, only if they affirmatively defied EPA and began racking up $75,000 per day in fines."

So basically the message is "you can't challenge us we are the government!!!"

The EPA also chokes out the spread of industrial and manufacturing plants for fear of the environmental damage. Nevermind that we need jobs here in America. EPA would be better served in making sure that proper safety procedures are followed. The pipeline in Arkansas that just burst was 60-70 yrs old and the pipe was only rated for 30 yrs of use. EPA should be following up on old infrastructure to prevent accidents not bullying home owners on their own property or telling businesses they can't build or expand.

2) What they want: For the government to take money from the public school system and give it to private schools in the form of vouchers.

Public schools get a portion of their funding from property taxes. The point of a voucher system is you take a voucher worth your taxes and sent it with your child to the school of your CHOICE, not necessarily the school whose district you belong to geographically.
Some public schools are good and do their job, others (especially in inner city areas) have terrible track records for their students.
Why would anyone be against a parent using their tax money to try and send their kid to a better school in a nearby area? Worst case scenario would be the poor quality schools loose so much money they are forced to do a better job to earn tax money back. Is the reason you guys are against vouchers because you fear only the super poor kids will be left behind in the failing schools if vouchers are allowed?

3) What they want: No Equal Rights Amendment. While this battle to prevent the Constitution from being amended to give women equal rights, which the right won, was mostly fought in the late '70s and early '80s, Christian right-controlled legislatures occasionally take time to vote against it today.

Honestly I had never even heard of this proposed amendment before... it seems redundant. You have things like Equal Opputunity laws and lawyers standing by to help you sue if needed.
The only reason I think this amendent would be needed would be for the potential future. If we have a lot of immigrants coming over from countries where women ARE property and they begin to get into political or judicial positions, they could start seeking to change how women are treated in the US.

This is from the UK, but the concept is the same: frontpagemag.com...
Man rapes 13 yr old girl, but it's ok according to the courts because he didn't know that rape is frowned upon in the UK and that UK people believe women have value.

Couldn't find the link, there was a story in the US where an immigrant beat a 14yr old because she ignored him whistling at her. It made him lose face in front of the other men, so he chased her down and beat her.

4) What they want: A ban on gay marriage. Often cast as "protecting" traditional marriage.

Marriage is a church/religious ceremony. What should happen and what should have been in place from the very beginning is that marriage certificates are NOT honored by government at any level. If government is supposed to have separation of church and state they shouldn't make people apply for marriage licenses or give tax incentives to married couples, etc.
Government only stuck it's hands into marriage because it gives them 1.) control into people's lives and 2.) money.
People should be lobbying for government to scrap all records involving marriage licenses and tell everyone in the country get married if you want, we don't care, but if you want government tax breaks, etc you will have to come sign up at the court house for a civil union. Then they need to make all the businesses switch to accepting only civil union paperwork.
Government would then only ackowledge and accept its own civil union paperwork and the marriage institution goes back to being a religious only aspect that is between the couple, their church and their community. Then everyone has equal access to government benefits without infringing upon the actual churches and people's religious beliefs.

5) What they want: To end the teaching of evolution in schools. This battle has been going on since at least the 1920s, and every time it comes around, the religious right gets a little better at hiding its religious motivations behind secularist claims.

Some Christians might want to end teaching evolution in school, but most that I know simply want evolution and creationism taught side by side so the student can pick whatever they want to believe. If you only want evolution taught in school you are just as bad as the individuals who want creation only taught in schools. You both are trying to use the same playbook of silencing the opposition and FORCING the children to believe what you want them to believe instead of encouraging learning and critical thinking so they figure out what they feel is the right answer.

6) What they want: To restrict access to abortion and contraception. Everyone knows the religious right has it out for abortion rights, but recently attacks on contraception access have also been increasing.

Don't take this personally, but I wish more contraception was available, cheap and over the counter. Once you hit a certain age you can pop out all the kids you want and the "beauty" of our system is you don't even have to take care of them... you have the government take someone else's money to pay for your kids. Some people are good parents, some aren't. Some people shouldn't have kids ever, and some should just wait till they are older and more settled down. Please get the pharma companies to make it dirt cheap and over the counter.

As far as abortion goes, I and most other Christians believe you are murdering another human being. I however think you should be allowed to get an abortion. The Bible says we have free will. Therefore it's your choice to damn yourself by committing murder of an innocent. If I were to force you to not have an abortion... well one I am trying to circumvent your free will and two you would just go and get it down in an alley or something. I dislike abortion and I think late birth abortions are horrifying, but I can't make someone have or keep a baby.

However that doesn't mean that I just sit back and watch people get abortions. As a Christian we are supposed to tell people when they are committing a sin (regardless of which one it is). Our duty is to point it out so that someone knows and then from that point it is up to them to decide if they want to stop and repent or if they want to full steam ahead to damnation. Often people who dislike or hate Christians try to argue that we are committing a sin by telling them they are sinning. That is incorrect. The phrase about don't judge lest ye be judged yourselves is relating to judgement of the human soul. Only God can judge if a person is going to hell, so if a Christian comes up to you and goes "you're going to hell!!!" politely correct them and tell them they are in the wrong. If they come up to you and tell you that you are committing "X" sin and would go to hell if you don't repent, politely thank them and move on. If someone is attempting to educate you about your sins they aren't judging you in the way the Bible condems, they are simply trying to help save you.

The other aspect to the abortion/contraception debate is we don't want to pay for your immortality or methods of keeping yourself kid free. Condoms are cheap, you or your partner could head off a lot of problems by keeping them handy. This is less a Christian thing & more of a be responsible for yourself mentality vs an entitlement mentality of childlike adults who want everyone else to take care of them.

reply to post by FaithandArms

So basically you view Christianity & conservatism as backwards.

I view only the 'Evangelical 'Bring-on-Armageddon' "Christianity" (which is in no way, shape, or form 'Christian' thinking) and ultra-right wing "conservatism" as backwards. Yep.

Thanks for acknowledging that.
And thanks for taking me at my word. Generous of you.

reply to post by adjensen

You've been told, repeatedly, that most of those issues are conservative political issues, not religious issue. The only one that's truly "religious" is the anti-evolution one.

Thing is though, Conservative religion takes it upon itself to cast its involvement in these issues which should be left to politics.

You just don't think it's biased because you agree with it.

I think it has to be at least somewhat biased because the main group it addresses (conservative christians) are a very heavily biased group in and of themselves. I live in the deep south and believe me, it is rampant here.

I am against same sex marriage, and I am not a Christian Fundamentalist. My reasons are both legal and theological, and neither of those have anything, at all, to do with Leviticus.

The only thing you have so far said that has been any different is because you think the churches will get sued for discrimination. And it has been pointed out to you several times that it is an easy fix. Only let the churches who don't mind performing these marriages do them. As Benevolent Heretic said let the rest of them be as bigoted as they want. Honestly, I don't see why anyone who is not even gay would care.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
The only thing you have so far said that has been any different is because you think the churches will get sued for discrimination.

Kindly point out where I said that being gay was wrong and cited Leviticus for support.

My reasons are completely different from those cited in the article.

And it has been pointed out to you several times that it is an easy fix.

The point is not whether I'm right or wrong, you and I won't be able to sort that out -- the point is whether people can be in favour or opposed to these issues for reasons other than those cited in the article, and I am proof that they can be, and, in turn, that is evidence that these are political, not religious issues, which is what we've been saying all along.

reply to post by adjensen


As I stated above, when religious groups (in this case conservative evangelicals) take it upon themselves to get involved in political matters then it becomes a matter of religion interfering in lawmaking. These groups should not be allowed to be making any type of domestic policy. That does mean mean individuals should be excluded on things like the gay marriage topic but so far I have yet to hear one reasonable argument against it.

And yes, there is about 3-4 pages of banter between you and wildtimes arguing about the churches getting sued from discrimination. I never said that you said it was wrong to be gay or cited Leviticus. I said that the only thing DIFFERENT that you have said is because you believe the churches will get sued for discrimination. Which is a moot point considering they should not have to be forced to perform them.

I am not about to reread 10 pages of this thread to find any other reasons that you might or might not have cited because that is all I remember you saying different. If you can tell me one thing that is going to be negatively impacted in your life by gay people getting married I would like to hear it.

Now several others (LadyGreenEyes is a prime example) have done nothing but cite the exact same reasons that are listed in the OP article which gives it even more credence.

reply to post by adjensen


I see your point, however the article doesn't say those are the only reasons, it just states a specific secular example for each.

Regardless of your specific view, (in regards to homosexuality you categorised your views as both a legal and a theological issue), the legal side of an issue can change, depending on current legislation which is what far right elements are pushing for. In the theological side the outcomes of your views and the far right views align (and communist views apparently, though that could be the same thing as the OP, a theological writer using the communist agenda to push their ideals), regardless of the differing particularities of your views. In the end you both want gay marriage to be illegal.

Your approach seems very level headed and considered, while on the other hand the far right seems to be hijacking politics in order to push their theologically influenced beliefs. This is fundamentally wrong in US politics, as the separation of Church and State is very specific.

I am against any theology trying to forcibly influence the way I live.

You (i don't perceive you as being extreme), have provided a good compromise for one of the OP points - civil unions - where CU's are afforded the same rights as a religious marriage under the law... but I essentially see this as semantics.

If I were to get a civil union, I would likely tell people I was married because it is a socially understood concept, plus telling people I was civilly joined is a cumbersome term.

If semantics are really the issue, the terms can easily be applied as Religious Marriage and State Marriage in legislature, allowing both camps equal access to the word marriage.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by adjensen

 

As I stated above, when religious groups (in this case conservative evangelicals) take it upon themselves to get involved in political matters then it becomes a matter of religion interfering in lawmaking. These groups should not be allowed to be making any type of domestic policy.

What?

You think people should be denied their democratic rights because they are religious? What on earth makes you think that's even remotely appropriate?

News flash for you -- separation of church and state is intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. Jefferson was very intentional in that, because he was not a Christian, but he was religious, and he certainly didn't disqualify himself from office because of that.

Theists of all stripes will have their moral and ethical positions impacted by their faiths and the teachings of their religions. Short of banning religion or, as you suggest, disenfranchising them, that will always be the case.

And yes, there is about 3-4 pages of banter between you and wildtimes arguing about the churches getting sued from discrimination. I never said that you said it was wrong to be gay or cited Leviticus. I said that the only thing DIFFERENT that you have said is because you believe the churches will get sued for discrimination.

Except that that is the ONLY reason that I gave, and that is a legal issue, not a religious one, so my argument is 100% different than the one that you claim represents all Christians.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see your point, however the article doesn't say those are the only reasons, it just states a specific secular example for each.

Right, but it then says that the "real" reason Christians are against it is something else, implying that Christians who are against something on a basis that isn't religious are really just lying about it.

Regardless of your specific view, (in regards to homosexuality you categorised your views as both a legal and a theological issue), the legal side of an issue can change, depending on current legislation which is what far right elements are pushing for. In the theological side the outcomes of your views and the far right views align (and communist views apparently, though that could be the same thing as the OP, a theological writer using the communist agenda to push their ideals), regardless of the differing particularities of your views.

Not really -- my theological argument is mostly that the church (Roman Catholic, in my case,) has internal rules and practices that are based on their religious perspective and can't be just arbitrarily changed to suit society's demands.

I am against any theology trying to forcibly influence the way I live.

Believe it or not, I am, as well -- I am fully in support of the Constitutional separation of church and state, though what it actually is, not what some people incorrectly think it is.

You may have missed a question that I asked earlier, because it is on the bottom of the previous page of the thread:

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
The OP article was highlighting that certain extremist elements of Christianity are pushing a political agenda in the guise of secularism, often using corrupt politics and sneaky tactics (like taking large sums of money from corporations for their political support)

Was it "sneaky" of the pro-same sex marriage people in Minnesota to take large sums of money from corporations to finance their political campaign that resulted in the failure of the "Marriage" amendment to the state constitution?

reply to post by adjensen


There are a ton of conservative evangelical religious groups in this country. None of them should be allowed to lobby yet there are many lobbying groups of theirs trying their best to influence domestic policy. Just google Conservative evangelical christians and there is a plethora of lobbying groups that pop up.

I never said anything about individuals being banned, in fact I just said above individuals should not be banned especially if they have a reasonable argument. So far the only argument I have heard is to "protect traditional marriage from immorality." Which is nothing but a purely religious statement. So far nobody can name one thing that would be negatively impacted in their lives by gay people getting married.

Except that that is the ONLY reason that I gave, and that is a legal issue, not a religious one, so my argument is 100% different than the one that you claim represents all Christians.

Like I said before it is easily solved if you just allow the churches to marry whomever they wish. Kinda like the majority of them do anyways. And this is the last time I am saying that to you sir, I am not going round and round with you like you did with wild for 3-4 pages because you insist on being right.

reply to post by adjensen

Was it "sneaky" of the pro-same sex marriage people in Minnesota to take large sums of money from corporations to finance their political campaign that resulted in the failure of the "Marriage" amendment to the state constitution?

How do you know that the failure of that amendment was the sole result of the pro-same sex folks up there? Unless you have some kind of article/evidence it is nothing but speculation on your part.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by adjensen

 

There are a ton of conservative evangelical religious groups in this country. None of them should be allowed to lobby yet there are many lobbying groups of theirs trying their best to influence domestic policy. Just google Conservative evangelical christians and there is a plethora of lobbying groups that pop up.

Who cares? The fact that there are a lot of them would appear to be indicative of there being a lot of support for them.

Again, what is your legal basis for denying an entire class of people their voice in government? Unless you propose to ban all lobbyists, both liberal and conservative (something that I would personally support,) your suggestion is discriminatory in the highest degree and would never be upheld by any court.

Like I said before it is easily solved if you just allow the churches to marry whomever they wish. Kinda like the majority of them do anyways. And this is the last time I am saying that to you sir, I am not going round and round with you like you did with wild for 3-4 pages because you insist on being right.

That's probably just as well, as you clearly have a poor understanding of the American political and legal systems. That's not intended as an insult, merely a suggestion that you might want to do some studying on the state and basis of both of them.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by adjensen

 

Was it "sneaky" of the pro-same sex marriage people in Minnesota to take large sums of money from corporations to finance their political campaign that resulted in the failure of the "Marriage" amendment to the state constitution?

How do you know that the failure of that amendment was the sole result of the pro-same sex folks up there? Unless you have some kind of article/evidence it is nothing but speculation on your part.

Because I live here and watched the campaign, of course. The numbers changed from a fairly strong majority in favour of the amendment to it losing by a sizable margin, and that shift occurred simultaneous to millions of out-of-state dollars being spent on an advertising blitz.

That isn't the question, though -- Puzzle said that it was "sneaky" for conservative Christians to take money from corporations, I'm just asking if the liberal same sex marriage people doing the same thing was "sneaky", too.

reply to post by adjensen


You are taking things that I say from one post to the next and completely misconstruing/manipulating them. Which is fine, the fact that you also can give no coherent reason why gay people should not be married tells all.

Unless you propose to ban all lobbyists, both liberal and conservative (something that I would personally support,)

Me too actually.

That's probably just as well, as you clearly have a poor understanding of the American political and legal systems. That's not intended as an insult, merely a suggestion that you might want to do some studying on the state and basis of both of them.

No offense taken. Thank you for your suggestion. It seems my understanding of the American political and legal systems works just fine with people that actually discuss instead of stubbornly cling to their own notions.