Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
". . .Why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" (Luke 12:56)
In last week's commentary I wrote about the recent onslaught of accusations being leveled in print against evangelical and charismatic Christians to the effect that we are really trying to turn America into a theocracy---that tyrannical right-wing Christians want to systematically dismantle democratic institutions and usher in an American facism. As laughable as this may seem to most of us, these authors are deadly in earnest in pressing their attacks. Unfortunately, just as some folks took seriously the absurd fictions of the Da Vinci Code, people are reading these books. I have counted nine of them, one of which was ranked number one on the New York Times bestseller list for a while. So, instead of simply ignoring the accusations, I have chosen to respond in this two-part commentary.
In American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips is evidently afraid of the Southern Baptist Convention becoming the "State Church" of the South! Now, apart from the ridiculous supposition that southern Baptists could ever agree on enough things to actually become an established Church, the fact of the matter is that no denomination in America is capable of that kind of influence today in our society. The days of the old WASP liberal mainline denominational hegemony in American society are long gone decades ago. Further, the evangelical influence that these writers are attacking is characterized by the lack of ecclesiastical organization that would enable it to wield any effective sort of power. The power of evangelical Christianity with the American public is pretty much limited to the powers of persuasion.
One example of an attempt at persuading the public comes to mind---the boycotts of certain American corporations' products organized by my friends at the American Family Association. They have launched consumer boycotts of corporations such as Walt Disney and the Ford Motor Company. Both of these boycotts have protested the companies' blatant support of the homosexual rights movement. How effective are they? That's hard to measure. Ford's sales have dropped dramatically while the boycott has been underway, but American car companies are in real trouble anyway, due to explosive sales growth by Toyota and BMW. In the past, AFA boycotts have caused a few companies to change their policies, but even in those cases it seems impossible to tell how effective the boycotts were. Was it that the boycotts actually caused their sales to drop, or it was that they were so conscious of their public image that they wanted to get rid of the boycott quickly? We'll probably never know.
Or, to take another example, it is granted that Focus on the Family 's Jim Dobson can put out a notice that will unleash a torrent of emails, phone calls, and letters on the members of Congress or the President. But, even that kind of campaign can be, and frequently is, ignored by Senators and Representatives and Presidents who are determined to do what they want to do. The ultimate influence of Christians on policy-makers of any governmental level is limited to the same level of power as the influence of any other type of Americans---the vote.
As our society becomes more secular, it should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the New Testament that the number of attacks on Bible-believing evangelical Christians is on the rise. Still, the falsity of the accusations against us and the absurdity of the attackers' reasoning knows no bounds. Bill Moyers, who has drifted very far away from what (if memory serves correctly here) are his evangelical southern Baptist roots, accuses us of not caring about global warming or the environment. In a New York Review of Books essay entitled "The Evangelist Menace" he wrote: "Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture?"
Oh, good grief!! In the first place, Christians are just as divided on the global warming issue as the rest of the public. There are those who have jumped on the bandwagon, saying that this is a terribly urgent problem that the U.S. Government must address immediately. And, there are others that agree with me that although there are definite minor temperature changes, there is no demonstrably proven evidence that these are outside the limits of normal periodic change, and that the Michael Moores and Al Gores of the world are fomenting all this hype mainly to create careers for themselves.
Second, Christians are also quite divided on the issue of the rapture. There are those who believe that the Lord Jesus will whisk off the earth all true Christian believers before the period during the End Times that the Bible calls the Great Tribulation. And, there are many others, including myself (and ALL of the great 16th century Reformers, by the way) who do not look for the Rapture to occur until at least half-way through the Tribulation. In addition, no Christian knows when any of this will occur, whether soon or millennia from now. I have never met anyone, nor have I ever read about anyone adopting the attitude that Moyers accuses us evangelicals of having. No one in their right mind would choose to not care about the obvious deterioration of the world around us, if in fact it were obvious. Especially since no one has any firm idea of when the END is coming.
Third, both the Clinton administrations and the Bush administrations have refused to take drastic steps to deal with global warming. To view their refusals as based on Biblical teachings on the last days is a stretch that puts credulity totally out of joint. Would to God that these administrations had been that concerned about Biblical teachings! No, it really has much more to do with economics, and with good reason. To spend the kind of money attempting to fight global warming to the extent that is called for by the Kyoto protocol and many environmentalist organizations would bankrupt the American economy, for a very questionable cause.
Well, enough of the silly accusations about evangelicals wanting to turn America into some imitation of 17th Century Puritan Massachusetts. What is it that we evangelicals actually do want?
We definitely do not want to equate Christians getting involved in trying to change American society with their joining some political party or movement. In talking with a woman at the gym where I work out, after asking about some of my views she said, "You must be a Republican." "No," I said, "actually, I'm registered Independent. I vote for the candidate that seems to best stand for the values I believe in." In my experience there are literally tens of millions of Christians around the country that share my position on this. Sadly, several of the books mentioned in last week's commentary, especially Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, advocate "Christian" positions on issues that simply amount to the Democratic Party platform. He, and many of these authors attacking evangelical Christians, seem to believe that collective social action is the primary vehicle of Christian involvement, as opposed to the efforts of individuals. Taking that position inevitably results in party politics eclipsing religion. Which is precisely what they accuse evangelicals of doing---blindly supporting the Republican Party. Ironic, isn't it?
Proof that the Religious Left is really promoting political party action is seen in their advocated solutions for three issues: poverty, environmental concerns, and peace. In the case of dealing with poverty, to their credit authors Carter, Lerner, Meyers, Wakefield, and Wallis are indeed serious about feeding and clothing the hungry and poor. But, they think that this should all be handled by the government. Some of them are in favor of the government forcibly redistributing assets, which is Marxist policy, and not remotely Christian. Though government policies are necessary, Christian care for the poor and needy does not consist in lobbying the government to take care of things. Where is the private sector involvement? Trying to deal with poverty through politics simply excuses the individual from the personal responsibility to get involved---hardly what Jesus had in mind when he said that we should offer a cup of cold water in His name.
Some of these writers equate peacemaking with pacifism, which the Bible never does. In Romans 13, the Word of God makes it clear that the punishment of evildoers in society will involve the use of the sword. And certainly, there are times when the defense of my next-door or across-the-ocean neighbor will necessitate violence, such as deterring a rapist, or the present war on terrorism.
The positions of many on the Religious Left in regard to environmentalism raise serious concerns. Pressure from Western governments on developing nations to adopt our environmental regulations will stifle their fragile economies and thus bring more harm than help to their people. Besides, it smacks of what to them is an all-too-familiar imperialism. There is also the great danger of a proper reverence for God's creation sliding into a decidely non-Christian pantheism, or the worship of the creation. Any policy that denies the primary place in the creation to man, or equates human beings with the animals in value, is a policy that rejects Biblical truth, and must be resisted by Christians. A proper Bible-based environmental policy will be one that emphasizes proper stewardship of the creation as people who will have to give an account to the Creator. True environmentalism is an exercise in stewardship. We must neither rape and plunder the creation on the one hand, nor become captive to it and worship it on the other. As God instructed Adam, we are to "till" it, and to take care of it.
Christians are most definitely called to be involved in matters of public policy. To take seriously the call of the Lord Jesus Christ to love your neighbor is to accept the necessity of reforming whatever society we find ourselves in. We are also commanded by our Lord to be "salt and light," which means that we are to season and illuminate all issues of public policy with a Bible-based wisdom and discernment.
We seek no lasting strongholds of power, for the Kingdom to which we bear first allegiance is not of this world. I know of no Christian leader who advocates evangelicals "taking over" the reins of power. Our influence is to be persuasional, not coercive, after the example of our Lord. For no one can be forced to change his mind. Reformation and renewal in society can never be forced on people from the top down---from the seats of power down to the citizenry. Rather, reformation and renewal have to come about as a grass-roots movement of Christians being used by the Spirit of God to change their neighbors---one at a time, two at a time, a city at a time. By definition, it is a strictly voluntary movement, one that will have the characteristics of a revival. That is what we want to see happen.
What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today? A quick and by no means exhaustive list would include things like: a general prohibition of abortion; the allowance of prayer in public schools; the rejection of embryonic (not adult) stem-cell research; the Federal prohibition of homosexual marriage (either by law or by an admendment to the Constitution); further restrictions on pornography; a tightening of obscenity laws in movies and television; vigorous law enforcement against pedophiles both on the Internet and in the society at large; the replacement of sex education programs for students with abstinence-based programs; putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration; and stopping the Federal court system's twisting of the First Amendment to find some supposed "separation of Church and State" that in turn is used to remove all public expression of the Christian faith from American society.
Those of some of the things we want.
How far back do you want to go? How inclusive do you want to be? What are your goals? Are your goals based on improving society or following your religion?
"Then how do societies that are without the Bible or that don't support a biblical worldview come to the conclusion that homosexuality is taboo? The belief that homosexuality is dangerous to society has not historically been restricted to judeo-christian based societies."
Such as?
Many societies not based on Judaic principles do not conclude that homosexual behaviour is taboo. Even some very 'gay' societies have contributed to our current political, philosophical and scientific state.
In any case, is the reticence to change the marriage laws (or any other point made by the author) shown by the original author and the members of his belief system, based on societal consequences or some passage from the Bible?
If it is based on the Bible, then fine, but don't pretend that it is based on non-biblical concerns.
Please see my post at #57 above on the limitations of science regarding the question of life. As you know, Darwin's theory does not deal with life, only speciation issues.
Assuming that the conservative Christian I was listening to was correct.
"Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going."
You have something to back this up?
Is the conservative Christian group not the biggest gay haters and bashers of any group going?
Where did this mutual hatefest start, with the gays or with the conservative Christians?
"They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen.
You have something more than a fearful feeling to support this?
"They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish.
Marriage has more than just a legal importance to many people. For some reason, it has an emotional importance for most people.
"The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
Since when is society based on the definition of family? Is not a family's most important function to support, foster, and train future adults? How do gay marriages change that?
I'm sorry but your argument sounds to me like an unfounded conspiracy theory.
As an aside, did the Greek culture not survive from at least 1000BC to 146BC? Did the Roman culture not last 1200 years?
The other thing is, a theocracy is rule by God. Not rule by religion, not rule by denomination, not rule by whacko sect leader. Without God's direct intervention, a theocracy is impossible.
Not really. The term, generally speaking, also implies rule by people who believe they make policy decisions on the direct advice/instigation of their particular deity, and/or according to the rules of their particular religion.
Sincerely,
d
Your statement "The Framers would have had no reason to believe otherwise." isn't really an answer. Everything you mention above is based on your current belief in when human life begins, which isn't necessarily the same as in the past. At one time life was thought to start at birth. At one time it was thought to start when 'blood entered the body', which would be at about 18 weeks. It has even been thought that life begins when the zygote is implanted.
What did the Framers believe?
Sopater made a point about the start of human life being in some way different than just the start of life, say as with a bacterium. This sounds to me that at some point in ontogenesis, human development becomes different from all other organisms. At what point does this (human life) occur - at conception, the formation of the bastula, implantation, the end of gastrulation, the end of embryogenesis or some other point?
What is it that demarks this beginning?
In a purely pragmatic sense, a cell or small group of cells is not a human,It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul.
"How do you know? What basis do you use for that decision?
Let me be clear that my statement was in regard to the initial zygote and blastula. There is nothing in those few cells which are human like except the string of DNA. There is a potential that the zygote will turn out to be a human, but there is also a good likelihood that the zygote/blastula will not implant and will be flushed from the woman's body. For anyone to believe that this simple complex of cells is a human rather than a potential human means they have to imbue the cell bundle with more than just potential. I mentioned the soul because this is what most people who believe in God use to elevate the human zygote from just a collection of cells with a lot of potential.
"How do you know that the soul doesn't come into existence at conception? That it's *added* at some later point?
I don't believe there is such a thing as a soul.
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
"Abortion is neither "good, nor "bad"; it's wrong. It's murder. That would be asking whether murder is good or bad."
Whether or not abortion is murder depends on your definition of life. That is what this discussion is about, when does the life in a womb become more than just a cell or two and become human. Is it murder to kill a cell? How about two cells? If you believe that human life starts at conception then you must postulate something that gives the initial cells more than their physical existence.
"What makes the making of laws on "scientific" or "societal" grounds any more valid a reason or any better a reason than religious reasons?
Laws shouldn't be based on science unless the science itself helps decide a salient point that no other approach will do as well.
All laws are based on societal values, even religiously based laws. However, all societal laws and conventions tend to evolve with the society as the society adapts to new technologies and memes, something religions are notoriously bad at. They do not adjust and become either irrelevant or dangerous to the society as a whole. Religion, and the beliefs behind the religion are very powerful and persuasive forces able to convince many to perform ultimately damaging actions. At some point the society outgrows the religion and a struggle between the static nature of religion and the fluid growth of society causes upheaval and in some cases violence. This is obvious throughout history.
" Is doing something on scientific or societal grounds a superior reason than doing them on religious grounds?
Yes, in many cases. There are many times when societal needs and religious views overlap, which is to be expected since religious laws and moral behaviour is a direct result of the advent of writing and the accretion of large numbers of people in agricultural communities where control became necessary.
On the other hand there are many times when the religious laws and morals need to change and do not leading to a situation where society as a whole or the individuals within that society are affected negatively. An example of this would be the 'dark ages'. Bad religious ideas are far more difficult to overcome than any other. With religion, stasis is the rule of law.
Sincerely,
d
Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going. They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen. They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish. The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
Wait, wait--are you seriously trying to say that all the gay people who are advocating for the right to marry are doing so, not out of a desire to change their own lives for the better, but in a concerted effort to destroy society as we know it? Seriously?
Sincerely,
d
The definition of 'human' life is different than for any other organism?
" It must be, b_sharp. For I know of no other class of living organisms that writes constitutions. Do you?"
Then the definition of 'Aves' life is different than all others because they can fly higher, faster and more agilely than any other organism and do so without machines.
And the definition of 'Cetacean' life is different than any other organism because they can swim faster and sing louder than any other organism.
I'd go on but I suspect you get my point.
In what way is the ontogenesis of humans different than other organisms, such as any other mammal?
Sorry, dear lady, but the difference between human life and that of other organisms is one of degree not kind.
"Get your nose out of your doctrine and do some original looking and thinking for a change. Please."
You would prefer that I stick my nose in your doctrine? Sorry, I can't do that, I have no idea where that doctrine may have been.
If you consider 'thinking' to be the acceptance of mysticism, new-age madness, astrology, magnetic bracelets, questionable logic, nonsense such as comes from cranks like Attila Grandpierre who in his haste to be special, makes mistakes first year astronomy students would avoid, or other zeroth reality silliness then you can have it.
I will stick with rational, logical, skeptical, critical and informed modes of first reality thought, thank you.
Thank you so much for responding.
I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts."
"Quote miner? You posted that statement in post 22.
Here is the restored context:
You missed my point. I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts. AG was very clear in our discussion of what defines life that the continuum fallacy does not exist and had been debunked right here on FR. She in fact claimed that a pro-evo poster here invented that fallacy.
Please note the bolding, it becomes important in a moment.
From the post (8) the above was a response to:
Question: By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?
And to go all the way back, the post (3) the immediately previous comment was a response to:
Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Now if you follow those very carefully you will see that I was not the author of post 3 so I did not claim that science cannot identify life. Nor did I use the continuum fallacy, I in fact called the original author on his use of it.
"Why don't YOU go back and read the post if you have that short of a memory.
Oops. I'll just look away while you clean up that mess.
"You never answered the question either. I asked: "Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?"
"So what's your answer?
Your question is irrelevant since I did not say that science could not identify life.
Furthermore, your question is not the same as what was originally posted.
I will stick with rational, logical, skeptical, critical and informed modes of first reality thought, thank you.
Here is my version of that list:
They can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.LOLI'll stick to science.
"So what's your answer?
b_ sharp: Your question is irrelevant since I did not say that science could not identify life.
It's not irrelevant. That's what I was trying to clear up, whether that was your opinion or not. That's all I asked.
Furthermore, your question is not the same as what was originally posted.
You mean the original question I asked in post 34? If so, on the contrary it is. I copied and pasted the original question from post 34 instead of retyping it and I just noticed that it contains the same grammatical error (which spell check won't catch) in each post; that is post 34, 50, and 54. I did not change the question.
OK, so sopater made this statement:
Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Now, you still haven't answered the question. I've read through all the posts. You refer to what what betty boop, Alamo-Girl, MHGinTN have had to say on the topic, you discuss ideas, but have never stated what you personally think about the question. So the question still remains:
Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?
What do YOU think? What is YOUR opinion? Is Sopater correct? You never denied it.
Universal? Where?
Across the whole world for virtually all of recorded history and in virtually all cultures and religions. Of course, there are going to be groups who advocate it and occasionally have some success but that is not the norm, just as homosexuality is not the norm.
Basing constraints purely on religious grounds will not better society, nor individual lives and so should be avoided.
Of course it will better society, if it's based on the Judeo-Christian religion. That's been demonstrated time and again throughout history. If it should be avoided, then on what do you propose to base constraints on? Popular opinion? Whatever whoever is in power feels like that day? The phase of the moon?
A Theocracy wants to impose constraints not in an attempt to better society, and consequently lives, but to limit actions to a very narrow, easily controlled range. Authority is useful and necessary, but damned scary in the hands of religions.
That's a bunch of poppycock, to put it nicely. Abuse of authority is not a religious issue, it's a human nature issue. It's scary in the hands of anyone with unbridled power. Tell that to the people who lived under Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, or any other atheistic dictator of choice. Authority is scary in the hands of someone with no constraints on their behavior, in the hands of the atheist as well as the corrupt politician who may choose to hide behind the cloak of religion. Christianity puts moral constraints on people's behavior to prevent evil. That's why a government based on Christianity's moral constraints will be successful and free.
You clearly know nothing of Christianity of you lump it together with all the other religions of the world and blame it along with all the other religions of the world, for all the worlds ills.
No. Christianity does not teach to hate, which you would know if you really knew what Christianity was really about. The hatred demonstrated by homosexuals comes across loud and clear when you read their rants and diatribes against Christians. They're the ones accusing Christians of hating gays.
Homosexuality is abnormal and deviant behavior, but recognizing that does not mean you hate the person. Christianity also recognizes that adultery, murder, lying are wrong and condemns them also but that doesn't mean that Christians hate the people who do that. It's the world system that can't seem to distinguish the difference condemning the behavior and hating the person.
ibtz
You clearly know nothing of Christianity of you lump it together with all the other religions of the world and blame it along with all the other religions of the world, for all the worlds ills.
So is it your position that Christianity should not be lumped "together with all the other religions of the world"? Do you believe, then, that religion has played no part in "all the worlds ills"? Not trying to be abrasive, here, but I find this stance intriguing. :)
Sincerely,
d
Christianity is not the same as most religions. It’s not man’s effort to reach of appease a god or gods; it’s God reaching down to man.
The teachings of Jesus stand head and shoulders above those of other religions.
Some religions have played a part in the world’s ills, but only in the sense that people use it to justify their bad behavior. The problem with the worlds ills is human nature, not religion.
In the event that I’m being baited here in regards to islam, there is debate as to whether it is a valid religion of merely a political system devised by a raving lunatic.
coyoteman is threadcrapping again - I would suggest ignoring him.
In the event that Im being baited here in regards to islam
I was not thinking of Islam in particular, so no, you're not being baited. (Not my style, anyway.)
Christianity is not the same as most religions. Its not mans effort to reach of appease a god or gods; its God reaching down to man.
Hmmm ... I expect the adherents of other religions would disagree with you. Buddhists who strive to emulate the Bodhissatva of Compassion, Kwan Yin, do not try to appease her. Her name means "she who hears the cries of the world", and she pours out compassion on those who need it, from her "vase of sweet dew".
The teachings of Jesus stand head and shoulders above those of other religions.
It's understandable that Christians think so. More objectively, though, and again taking Buddhism as one example, the Buddha taught many of the same things Jesus did, and before Jesus did it. The Buddha was born about 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth, and there is even some speculation that Jesus knew of the Buddha's teachings.
Some religions have played a part in the worlds ills, but only in the sense that people use it to justify their bad behavior. The problem with the worlds ills is human nature, not religion.
Who started religion? Who are its adherents? People, of course. Many wars have been fought in the names of religions of various stripes, down through history--Christianity most definitely included.
It seems to me that the dangers posed by any particular religion increase in direct correlation to the certainty of its devotees that their religion is "the right one" or "the only one".
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for offering yours!
Sincerely,
d
An atheist coworker of my husbands is intrigued by Christianity because he says that it’s the only religion that talks about forgiveness.
Yeah, some teachings of some religions overlap, but the love mercy and forgiveness offered to people that God does, is unprecedented.
He’s not a god who needs to be appeased to ward off His wrath. He himself did for us what we couldn’t do ourselves so that we could spend eternity with Him. It’s offered as a free gift to anyone who wants it; just for the taking.
He offers us everything of His for everything of ours, which I consider a pretty good trade off.
No, Christianity is not like other religions, even if some of the other teachings overlap, which is bound to happen.
And so what if Jesus knew of Buddah’s teaching? That has nothing to do with His message and what He came to do. His knowing about them is irrelevant to His death and resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.