Is the U.S. headed for a religious showdown?

[mopaul]

not knocking good christians here....just the bad ones. the bad ones, sometimes called bornagains or fundamentalists, are the ones who make the most noise, and stir up the most trouble.

more and more, the fundies are pushing the limits or our tolerance for zealotry. tom delay, sam brownback, and countless others are doing their best to ignite a confrontation between what they see as ungodly people and pious people. these people are pushy, and powerful. and their rhetoric is getting extremely nasty here lately.

all through history, religions have changed, morphed into other branches and sects, usually peacefully, but many times violently.
religions clash. religions split into groups and turn on one another.
Shiites vs. Sunnis, Hindus vs. Muslims. catholics against protestants, jews against Muslims.

right now, in America, there is an undercurrent of unrest among the more passionate Christian conservatives, and even they are dividing into groups. the very separation of church and state, guaranteed by the constitution is being threatened. some say they don't have a voice in government, some want more power, some say we are a judeo/christian nation, and no others are allowed.

will there be a religious standoff this election year? you know the right will play it for all it's worth, as recently demonstrated, how bad will it get? will jerry and pat finally get their theocratic nation? will secularists be attacked by believers? will the gay marriage issue fracture the democratic voting block?

the only way to prevent an all out attack on our government by zealots is to PRE-EMPTIVELY STOP THEM, before they become too politically powerful. they want it all, they'll never be happy with just a little, they want the whole world to fall in line behind their newly re-tooled Christ. we can't let them get away with it, cause they WILL not give up, and neither should we. given their way, non believers would eventually be interred and isolated and executed, nazi style.

[Colin Ex]

1. Holy Jesus!

MoPaul, haven't seen much of you lately. How've you been?

[mopaul]

5. I drift in and out of lucidity...

...but i'm doing o.k. now. still here in the bunker, preparing for Y-2K, heavily armed, well stocked up on creamed corn, and surviving.

[madfloridian]

88. Lucidity or not......you are missed.

Y-2K? LOL
:7

[Mari333]

2. act locally think globally

an extremist evangelical mayor of our town is trying right now to create a theocracy in our small town
luckily, some of us are on to him and the ACLU is in on it too
every one of the city council members here knows they will be sued if they try it.
christian dominionism...
http://www.charactercities.org/meet.asp
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/w090299a.html
http://www.kimray.com/About/Profile.html
http://www.iblp.org/iblp/
http://www.liberty1st.org/cfirst.aspx
http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/w200203.html
http://www.liberty1st.org/never_judge.asp
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/02-Information/02-OnlineReference/02-Unorthod
oxyGuide/105-IKnowSomething/Gothard-IBLP/Allen-IssuesOfConcern.html
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/ctfgc9-98.html

[noonwitch]

What, you mean Grand Rapids and Holland isn't enough for them?!

My mom lives in GR (where I grew up) and my sister in Holland. All I can say is, at least the stores and restaurants are now open on Sundays there!

[Mari333]

28. Holland is famous for censoring Antonias Line

a movie shown at the fine arts festival there...it was the 1995 Academy Award winner for International films..and the city censored it.
I went out and bought tons of copies of the film and distributed them to everyone I know .
I NEVER visit Holland or Grand Rapids..scary places for me indeed.
Too many mega churches! and with my antiwar anti Bu$h car, Id be shot or run off the road.

[fudge stripe cookays]

19. Argh....Mari how awful.

I checked out a couple of those links.

That Kimray place...ugh. How can anyone work like that?

I checked out a job opening at Interstate Batteries a year or so ago. They're like that too.

A friend of mine applied there, and they actually told her they have prayer meetings. She's a Jehovah's Witness, and she felt VERY uncomfortable at that interview. The person asked her at least 1 illegal question which she managed to evade, but she just never showed any more interest in the job.

These people scare the crap out of me. Yes. I think a revolution will be occurring soon enough.

Sometimes I wish I had a crystal ball so I could see 30 or 40 years into the future at the fruits of what they're sowing now.

[Atlant]

3. Absolutely yes. And it ain't gonna be pretty. (NT)

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. How do you propose to, "PRE-EMPTIVELY STOP THEM?"

Bearing in mind, they have a Constitutional right to believe as they do.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. i agree

pre-emption, after all, is the realm of the fundie.

And the religious right is always having some sort of showdown with it's new satan-incarnations. It what they do when the rest of us work or fight over scraps.

[DenverDem]

7. They do not have a Constitutional right

to impose their mythology on the civil culture.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

12. but we have a constitutional right

to impose ours?

[asthmaticeog]

29. The Constitution itself

imposes secularity on public process. No-one's telling fundamentalist and evenagelical Christianss not to believe as they do, but they want to legislate against believeing other than as they do. See the difference?

[DenverDem]

31. What the hell are you talking about?

????????????

[SemperEadem]

87. what are "we" imposing?

Our right not to have another religious view forced upon us? Heresy is not a crime in the US.

They can believe whatever they want, as much as they want, as often as they want, but they cannot use their religion to draft laws which impinge upon the religious rights of other to believe what they want or to not believe at all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Ah, "mythology"

I love the catchphrases and terms of the "tolerant."

[truthspeaker]

21. definition of mythology:

(from reference.dictionary.com):

a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

Now, what exactly is intolerant or insulting about that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Words often do as they are intended

Religious people don't think of their beliefs as "myth." Myth is a word typically used by the anti-religious to antagonize those who believe in God.

[DenverDem]

33. If you believe fundamentalism is anything but myth

then you are pretty naive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

Another classic response

You can't actually believe in religion. You must be naive to do so.

What hogwash.

[DenverDem]

45. Climb down off your cross

self crucifier.

I believe in religion. I need some intellectual integrity in my religion, however.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. I'm not on a cross

I only commented on the post.

[DenverDem]

51. You don't comment on posts.

You inject you own agenda into other people's posts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. The agenda was there

I just commented on it.

It appears you don't like being called on it, however.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeahMira]

110. So, define that agenda...

The agenda was there

No, Muddle. You aren't understanding.

Define that agenda. I think you misunderstand a fervent wish that Christians would take some time to see things through the eyes of those who are not Christian.

Let's talk about abortion.

I'm Jewish. If I were facing a pregnancy that endangered my life and I went to my Rabbi to ask his help in deciding how to handle the situation, he would tell me that my life takes precedence over the life of a fetus, no matter how far along I might be into the pregnancy.

Now, we have a late term abortion law in the U.S.

With exactly the same conviction that some Christians believe that abortion is murder, I believe that my life must be preserved even if that means that the life of the fetus is taken. Yes, indeed, I do believe that the a living being is killed, but I see it more as self-defense. (You are more than welcome to browse the web and find out what Jews believe about abortion. We don't take it lightly, but we do say that the mother's life takes precedence in cases where only one or the other will probably live.)

The Christian belief about abortion and the Christian supported ban on late term abortion is preventing me from the free exercise of my religious belief about abortion and my free choice to follow my conscience in this case.

I could talk about other situations... for instance, when there have been laws preventing stores from opening on Sunday, Jewish people have also closed their stores on Saturday. That has meant that they have one less day to do business than Christians do because their religion prevents them from working on Saturday and the Christian-oriented law prevented them from doing business on Sunday.

Jewish children take off from school on the Jewish High Holy Days, which certainly they are permitted to do, but they must also take off from school on the Christian holy days... Good Friday and Christmas Day come to mind right away. Tell me please why my children should be forced to lose two days of school while Christian children are able to attend on all 180 days of the school year. Tell me please why my children will never have the chance to get a certificate for perfect attendance for the school year while Christian children can get one.

Sure, these are small things when it comes to holy days, but every week of the year the devout Jewish person lost a day that his competitors got. And why should I have to observe the Christian beliefs about fetal life when it's not mine?

After a while, with one thing after another, all these little "inconveniences" add up to one royal pain.

No, I don't insist that your spouse have an abortion if her belief goes against that, and no I don't insist that schools stay open on Christmas day. But really. To claim that as a non-Christian, I am interested in imposing my beliefs on Christians is just nonsense.

We in America have all sorts of religious beliefs. Christianity is the majority, but just for that reason I don't think Christians are aware of how pervasive the rhythm of their year and the premises they make about how "everybody" thinks really are. Not only that, but a whole lot of Christians are dismissive of the whole problem. I guess it depends on whose ox is gored, eh?

Also, you can be sure that those of us who are not Christian know a whole lot more about Christian beliefs and Christian frames of mind than Christians know about us. We are forced to know. I'm remembering when my daughter came home in tears and upset from kindergarten because one of her little friends told her she was going to hell, and how sorry this little friend was for her, and how vivid this little friend's description of hell was. Are you a parent, Muddle?

So, anyhow, please don't go getting all over the idea of an "agenda." Non-Christians, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and whomever are just asking that Christians have the same respect for our sensitivities as they require from us. And yes, you made me angry and probably somewhat incoherent. It's not personal. But really, please try to understand and see through my incoherent words to the feelings that are behind my "agenda."

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. I am understanding

The post said: "If you believe fundamentalism is anything but myth then you are pretty naive."

If you don't see an agenda in that post, then you aren't looking closely enough.

OK, let's talk abortion and choice. I am Christian. I am pro-Choice.

The problem we run into with many of the issues in our society is that religious beliefs are the foundation for morality and general beliefs for most of the population. Very few people differentiate between them.

Societies make laws based on morality all the time. Prostitution is illegal in most places. You could argue whether that is based on morality or religious or whatever, but the laws remain. That is not a Christian law, it is merely a law. The same goes for late-term abortion.

Blue laws, that close stores on Sunday, are BS. They are holdovers. Ironically, since most people in the U.S. are still Christian in some way, the laws are supported by unions and businesses so employees have the day off for family. I think such laws are silly. I personally LIKE to shop on Sunday.

We make some laws based on the majority culture. If you know 80-90% of the students will not attend school a certain day, it is silly to plan school that day.

Like it or not, Christiainity is the majority belief in the U.S. I was unshocked when I was in Israel and most places of business were closed Friday night. Why are you shocked by the things you mention?

[SemperEadem]

90. No, that's exactly what is going on with the current regime

A person who has not developed the means by which to question a concept or belief is a person who will readily believe what they are told by those who intimdate them or who can effectively pimp their fear.

This current administration is cutting Education funding left and right, but increasing the spread of fundamental religion instead. If you are smart enough to question, it's harder for you to believe blindly. The bible often terms believers as "lambs"---lambs aren't the smartest animals on the planet. IF a 'lamb' could think for itself, it would take a broader view into consideration, not one narrowly defined by an outside source.

[truthspeaker]

37. "myth" is a word deliberately misunderstood by would-be martyrs

who want to find insult where there is none.

Calling something "mythology" does not necessarily mean it's not true. It just means that particular story has religious and cultural significance. I have no problem with my culture's stories of Odin, Thor, and Loki being called mythology, so unless you're claiming that your culture's stories are more important than mine you have no basis for taking umbrage at the word "mythology".

There's plenty of real discrimination out there; there's no reason to try to find it where it doesn't exist.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. just a note

there are PLENTY of people who find insult where none is intended. I wish some of the people readining this board would get over some of the 'depths' to which they will go to FIND offense when none is intended. I am not speaking about this specific time (I think the word myth IS used to inflame many times) but why must people seek to find something offensive???

theProdigal
/hijack

[SemperEadem]

92. it makes them feel important when they really aren't

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Now they're "stories"

You can call your cultural beliefs whatever you want. I call mine beliefs or religion. Myth and other deliberate attack words seek to denigrate my beliefs.

[truthspeaker]

58. now you think "story" is offensive?!?!?!

What are you, Jerry Falwell's personal web-surfer?

[ButterflyBlood]

61. I don't see story as offensive at all

stories can be true after all. myth implies that something is definately false, and thus can be offensive.

[Walt Starr]

75. Myth does NOT imply "definitely false"

Simnply put, myth implies that something is unverifiable.

You know, like gods, angels, demons, devils, unicorns, dragons, elves, and other mythical beings that have been alleged to exist.

[bobbieinok]

115. what about Bultmann's books on Demythologizing Christianity??

He was a German theologian.

[Bake]

117. I've read Bultmann extensively.

He used the term "myth" in a specific, technical sense. Myth does not mean "not true." It's more of a "not literal" sense. Bultmann, to the surprise of many, was a man of remarkable personal piety. His use of the term "demythologizing" was often misunderstood.

Bake

[Walt Starr]

72. I've always preferred definition #2

"A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable."

Since the existance of any of the over 4000 gods alleged to exist cannot be verified, all gods are myths by definition.

[blindpig]

47. myth is also a word used by xians to denigrate other's beliefs

what's good for the goose.................

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. So it is OK to offend others

Because some have offended you?

Nice logic that.

[BiggJawn]

66. Grow a Hide...

A THICK one.

At least he din't call your myth "fairy tales"

Offended? GOOD.

[texastoast]

93. Don't upset the Wiccans

Fairy tales are TRUE (and a true Celt spells it "faerie"). Just because you can't see the faeries, devas, and sprites come to guard the garden and protect us in our sleep or as we travel, certainly does not mean they are myths! Sometimes they even come down and impregnate humans.

O8)

[Walt Starr]

99. and as a Wiccan, I admit they are myths

I cannot provide independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of faeries, ergo, they are myths by definition.

It doesn't stop my belief in them for faith is a belief in that for which there is no proof.

:D

[BiggJawn]

109. And I have no proof that they don't exist.

Honestly, I'd rather have my neighbourhood over-run with the Faerie folk than Fundies...
Faeries don't stomp through your flower beds when you chase them off your front step....:-)

[texastoast]

151. They are in my garden

You have to invite them. They especially like medicinal herbs. I needed all the help I can get growing organic in Texas.


:7

[blindpig]

80. tit for tat

well proven method of conflict resolution. People in glass houses shouldn't oughtta chuck rocks.

[LeahMira]

104. So which would you prefer?

Religious people don't think of their beliefs as "myth." Myth is a word typically used by the anti-religious to antagonize those who believe in God.

Legends? Traditional stories? Which term should be used... bearing in mind that those who are not of the faith should not be forced to affirm a belief that is not ours. I certainly am not going to speak of eternal Christian truths when I don't believe some of the Christian traditional stories have one bit of factual information in them, and not much by the way of truthful information either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. How about the word religion

Or even beliefs. Both are fairly neutral.

[PsychoDad]

146. The "mythology" as you call it...

Is already a very intergrated part of american culture...
Easter, christmas, who hasn't heard of these? What child doesn't know Christmas is "baby Jesus birthday"?
Ever hear someone get mad, and yell "Jesus Christ"? Ever hear anyone ask "who"?

In fact American culture and Christianity is ingrained with the legicies of many "mythologies" Including secular ones.

[mopaul]

8. no religion shall hold sway over another, or over our government

there is no official religion here, and that's what tom delay and others are trying to establish. hindus should have equal representation with atheists and 7th day adventists

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. That's not an answer

Come on, how?

[Az]

15. People have to speak up

People like yourself. Liberal Christians need to show the world that not all stand in unity with the religious right. Without another voice people can only assume that all Christians are on their side. An atheist standing up and speaking against them will only be discarded by the public. We have no cred. You want to stop the coming clash you have to stand up with us and show that we support each others freedoms and that we will not allow the right to trample us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. As my name would indicate

I am on neither extreme side of this clash. The extremists here want to abolish religion and support even the bigoted laws instituted by the French.

The extremists on the other side (take your pick, Muslim, Christian, whatever) want to ram religion down everyone's throat.

[Az]

22. Careful

The call is for respect of individuas rights to believe as they see fit. Not for an eradication of religion. There may be anger against religion but even the most angry atheist recognises that in protecting others freedoms they protect their own.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. I am careful

As my post indicates, I DO believe people can believe or not as they wish. However, many here DO call for the eradication of religion.

[Az]

35. There is a difference

between seeing something as dangerous and calling for its eradication. This is the crux of the difference. Some may call religion dangerous but will stop short of calling for its eradication. The religious right is calling for an end to our freedoms. They are seeking to drive others from this land.

It is the right of a person to fear something. It is not their right to act on it by removing the others rights.

Look, history of quite full of examples of people in the spirit doing rather horrible things to other people. There is no evidence to suggest that we have evolved so much that such things cannot happen again. Some people are going to be worried about this. They will express their concern. The line they cannot step over is calling for their eradication.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Yes, there is a difference

Some, like you, fall on the good side of that line. Yes, extremes of many sorts are dangerous. Religion, politics, wealth, power, etc. There you and I agree.

However, many here do a lot more than that.

[DenverDem]

36. Calling fundamentalists on their willful ignorance

is hardly calling for eradication of religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. What willful ignorance do you have in mind?

[DenverDem]

48. How about creationism.

How about inerrancy.

How about selectively using old testament verses that contradict gospel to support anti-Christian judgementalism.

How about hypocricy.

Ad nauseum.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. So, you consider it willfully ignorant to disagree with you?

Sure sounds like it.

Or maybe just "willfully ignorant" to interpret the Bible differently than you wish.

Whatever.

[DenverDem]

54. Whatever, indeed.

Waste of intellectual energy.

[truthspeaker]

65. with me,no; to disagree with tons of scientific evidence and plain sense

yes, that is willfully ignorant.

Believing the world is flat is also willfully ignorant.

[Az]

69. Ok, ask yourself this

How is it they maintain their disbelief of science? Figure that out and then you may be able to see how to overcome this issue. Flogging the outline of the decayed horse is not going to change the situation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. The world

So when scientists believed the world was flat, that was OK?

Scientific beliefs change. Right now, the operative belief is in evolution. But that was not always the case. Yes, I believe in it, but scientists throw around many theories and often don't even agree among themselves.

[Solomon]

78. Come on Muddle, this is the lamest argument that religious people make.

"scientific beliefs change." Scientific beliefs are SUPPOSED TO CHANGE. When you find out something you thought was not true, you change your opinion. Scientific beliefs are based upon experiments. If you find that something you thought was true no longer is, you can't just close your eyes and "wish" or "believe" it's still true.

At one time scientists believed that human flight was impossible but I bet you have no problem taking an airplane do you? For some reason, science is now reliable to you in that regard and you accept it.

[Az]

82. Tactics

Yes, we can beat religious beliefs into the ground with logic and reason. We can show that the world operates in definable ways. We can even begin to take on the roll of guiding and creating life. And yet people believe in things.

We have more than enough logical ammunition to destroy the fundimentalists arguments. Yet they persist in believing. Perhaps the issue is not logic. Perhaps it is in understanding how people believe things. We are not going to be able to force people to give up their beliefs just because we come up with a really good argument. Their belief goes a bit deeper than that.

Their belief is the world they live in. Is has bouyed them all their life and is the very essense of what they know to be true. We dismissively state that if they were taught that elves caused rain they would see rain as evidence for elves. Well its true. A persons entire world view hangs together like a massive tapestry. It works. It has been pushed together over time by experience and guidance. The background they came from forms the basic weave of that tapestry.

To expect someone to transform their entire world view on the say so of a few words is beyond reasonable expectations. It takes time, effort, and a lot of patience to shift a person's way of seeing the world around them.

Fight for the continuation of education. Fight to provide a positive voice for reason. Fight for tolerance so that all can be heard and perhaps a path can be found.

[SemperEadem]

103. Big duh!!!!

Scientists didn't believe the world was flat---the Catholic Church espoused that belief and burned anyone at the stake for heresy who believed differently.

It was the scientists who discovered that the world wasn't flat and that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around---and they were persecuted by the church for that. One needs only read about Galileo and his trials, mild in the whole scope of the Inquisition, but nonetheless it demonstrated how fundamentalism will use any method to negate scientific proof in order to retain their sway on people.

[Az]

55. Ok, hold up

Its tricky. Its not willful ignorance. Any more that it is willful ignorance on our part to not acknowledge god. Atheists simply do not believe in god. Yelling at us to do so is not going to make us believe it.

The criteria upon which some view the world is based on a theological standing. Thus their foundation of truth springs from their belief in god. If it does not agree with this premise in their mind it must clearly be wrong.

While they cannot impose their beliefs on the world the world likewise cannot impose its beliefs on them. They can accept or reject what they choose to.

Proclaiming them to be willfully ignorant is an appeal to authority. It postulates that they are wrong because we said so. We do not smile kindly when this argument style is used to proclaim us immoral and they do not take kindly to it when proclaiming them ignorant.

[DenverDem]

57. If it quacks like a duck.

Fundamentalists have a right to be ignorant. I have a right to believe they are ignorant.

Fundamentalists do not have a right, however, to have their ignorance codified into the law of the land.

[Az]

62. 1st Ammendment

I am pretty sure you will find that there are plenty of individuals ready to defend the wall of seperation between church and state. There might be more if we were a little more tactful about how we addressed those we face and work with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Well put

And cool Spidey graphic.

[AgadorSparticus]

116. what willful ignorance? the willful injection of religion into state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. Willful injections

Much of what folks here consider willful injections is an injection of an individual's morality, not necessarily religion. The two are inseparable for most people.

[mike1963]

119. I don't care about religion, but I'd support eradicating stupidity.

...

[truthspeaker]

20. Did you even read the OP?

He wasn't talking about their religious beliefs, he was talking about their intolerant, hate-filled, greed-glorifying words and actions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. The religion threads go on and on

I simply asked for clarity. I don't see how he could accomplish what he wishes without attacking the 1st Amendment.

[mopaul]

27. do you feel you are being attacked?

cause that's how i feel about pushy people like tom delay, they are attacking us all by giving too much power to one particular sect, the republican voting christian conservatives. no one is attacking you here dude. why do you feel so persecuted? no one is trying to take away your religion, i'm just trying to maintain the checks and balances. we should fear falwell and his minions, and i ain't kiddin'

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Many here DO attack religions and the religious

So, if I feel attacked, it's only because it's true.

So, I have yet to see you respond to the question. How DO you accomplish your goal here without violating the 1st Amendment?

[mopaul]

34. simple checks & balances, & common horse sense

simply stop religious fundamentalists from gaining too much political power, that's all. when someone tries to force a particular religion on you, stop them. when they try to make laws based on biblical passages, common sense must come into play, lest falwell become president and round up all non believers and burn them as witches.

simply preventing one religion from having too much power. that's all. we have freedom of religion in america. and we have it written in our constitution that they must be balanced or all hell breaks loose.

i don't want zealots in my government, that's all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Not at all simple

You can't stop "religious fundamentalists from gaining too much political power." That violates our Constitution.

I don't want any zealots in my government either -- religious zealots OR anti-religious zealots.

[SemperEadem]

106. I had this very experience last night

"when someone tries to force a particular religion on you, stop them."

There is a fundamental organization called One Nation Under God who has undertaken a telemarketing campaign to out corporations they believe are partners in providing pornography on the web or cable. This woman asked me who my long distance telephone carrier is, since the internet is done primarily on phone and cable lines. I lied and said "AT&T" and she started reading from a list of their blue investments, going on about family values, etc., and I said "You are assuming that I have a problem with it... I don't, but what I do have a problem with is you calling me, disturbing me by trying to pimp what you arrogantly think is my fear in order to deny my neighbor of his constitutional right to spend his money and watch whatever he wants to watch in the comfort of his own home. IF I don't want TEN or Ecstasy in my home, guess what? I don't order it. That's where my and your involvement in this ends and I resent your organization calling me, trying to spin this into something it's not."

All she could say was "Oh, ok... goodbye".

[truthspeaker]

39. so that justifies assuming an implicit attack when one isn't stated?

The OP SPECIFICALLY excluded Christians like the kind you claim to be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Attacks on religion attack all religions

You start taking away rights from some religious folk and we all suffer. That is why I ask for clarity about how this would be accomplished.

[truthspeaker]

70. but the OP didn't attack all religions

It specifically described which beliefs and values the poster objected to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. And the poster proposed action

Being concerned is one thing. Taking action to stop it is another. That's why I asked what action he proposed.

[BigMcLargehuge]

84. I took it to mean...

that we organize on the local level as well as, or better than, the extreme right and/or fundamentalists. The reason MoPaul makes the case is that since the 1980's the Christian Coalition has worked hard to capture small and otherwise seemingly meaningless local offices by organizing through Charismatic Churches, and with seed money from much larger organizations like The 700 Club.

The aggregate result of this effective organizing is the slow capture of school boards, town councils, and state legislative seats that leads to things like Kansas and/or Georgia removing the teaching of Evolution from their curricula.

So the idea of preemptively defeating them is to use the same sort of effective local level organizing to retake and retain seats in the lowest eschelons of government and build upwards from there.

I think the argument could be made that this is an effective tactic to use on both sides. It's worked extremely well for the Christian Coalition, and could work just as well for us.

I hope that sheds a little light on my interpretation... Muddle? MoPaul?

Comments?

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. Your interpretation

Sounds benign.

I know at one point MoPaul called for a ban of certain religious broadcasters from TV, but, IMHO, described it in a way guaranteed to violate the 1st Amendment.

[Walt Starr]

91. I could see an effective ban on certain religious broadcasters

by taxing them like any other business.

But then again, I am of the opinion that all religious organizations should be taxed like any other corporation regardless. The tax exempt status of religious organizations was originally argued under the auspices of religious organizations taking a burden off government by taking care of the poor. I submit that religious organizations have not only failed to hold up their end of the tax exempt bargain, they have been detrimental because now many expect the federal government to take up even more of the burden through the so-called "faith based initiatives".

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. They aren't businesses

And they are protected by the Constitution. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The government needs to be restrained from exerting power against or for religions.

[Walt Starr]

98. There is no place in the constitution banning the taxation of religious

organizations. What we have now are laws regarding it, no constitutional ban upon it.

I submit that religious organizations are incorporated and as such,. should be taxed like any other corporation. There is but one reason they are not currently taxed, that being the argument that they would take the burden of caring for the poor away from the government, a task at which religious organizations have failed miserably.

[BigMcLargehuge]

113. I think you might be painting all religious organizations with a broad

brush.

I am relatively certain that the vast majority of churches do offer help to the poor in a very beneficial manner. But there are some, like in any structure that needs donated money to survive, who abuse the provisions set up to facilitate that help.

I cook in my mom-in-laws 7th Day Adventist church soup kitchen on Sundays (even though I am atheist). We service between five and ten homeless men each week. All of the food we cook comes in through donations as does the electricity to power the stove and lights and to buy oil for the furnace. Because the church doesn't pay taxes we can afford to keep the kitchen open and get the food to these people.

Could we do the same in a non-religious structure? Certainly, but he parts are already in place to do it in the Church. Now, my mom-in-law's church partners with the Baptists and Catholics and Methodists in town and share resources and transportation and clothes drives, all for the benefit of those in desperate need.

That is the reason that all religions enjoy tax exempt status.

We generally see the abuses, like Jim and Tammy Bakker's mansions, Robert Tilton's Bentley's and prayer clothes, and Pat Robertson's political clout, but the VAST majority of participants are working at the street level, like me, to help alleviate the suffering of the less fortunate.

For that reason I have to agree with Muddle (which everyone knows is a rarity) that the tax exempt status DOES have a purpose, and a good one, that is not being abused as much or as often as most people think.

[Walt Starr]

124. The problem is, even the religious groups doing the most for the poor

are still not fulfilling the original bargain for tax exemption. So long as any governmental intervention is required for helping the poor, the religious organizations have failed in their obligation.

The tax exemption serves no purpose because the religious organizations have failed to keep up their end of the bargain. What's worse is now they are asking for governmental support beyond the originally bargained for tax exemption via the "faiuth based initiative"!!

[BigMcLargehuge]

125. none of the churches I mentioned receive any money from the government

... Which religious organizations have failed to keep their end of the bargain? And the problem of the poor is far greater than the churches can solve on their own. We do have a social welfare system that is taxpayer funded, and which I would like to see expanded exponentially, but the churches fill places that the federal and state social welfare programs miss.

They are both different parts of the same safety net.

[Walt Starr]

128. It goes back to the original argument for tax exemption

during the debate on the Incomne Tax Amendment. Religious organizations were made exempt because it was expected the government would never have to be responsible for helping the poor.

That did not happen. In fact, the government's responsibility with the poor only increased after the exemption.

Tax the churches. It's a koophole ion the tax code and too many people are getting rich off that loophole.

Ask yourself the question, "Would Jesus wear a Rolex on a TV show on Sunday?"

[BigMcLargehuge]

134. I still think you are overgeneralizing

Who are these vast swathes of people profiting from this loophole? The pastor at my mom-in-law's church earns less than 20k a year for his work (and he takes care of three churches, three soup kitchens/food pantries, and balances three sets of books) plus deal with all the problems his parishoners throw at him.

And they are 7th Day Adventists, so think Ned Flanders needy (I know, I work with them every Sunday so it's not an oversimplification of the parishoner's psyche).

We take care of about 80 homeless people in our town between the kitchen I work in, the Baptists, the Catholics, and the Methodists. How is taxing the pastors/priests meager incomes going to solve the homeless problem? They certainly aren't growing fat off the spoils of their parishoners.

I still think you consider everyone who benefits from tax exempt status to be like Pat Robertson, and there are a VAST majority of good people doing good work who COULD NOT otherwise.

Certainly I would favor some sort of government oversight of any religious or non-religious organization who works to alleviate the sufferings of the poor to minimize the potential for abuse. But to take away that tax exempt status will hurt far more innocents than it does now.

The social welfare system and the religious charity system work TOGETHER. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Walt Starr]

136. Tax code must generalize

That's how tax code works.

[BigMcLargehuge]

137. this isn't a discussion about tax code Walt

it's a discussion about who profits most. I can discuss tax code minutia all day long, but the point is, it isn't applied to religious institutions so the discussion is moot.

You said "there are too many people profiting from the loophole" (paraphrased). I asked who?

[Walt Starr]

141. Here's a quick start on a list

Pat Robem$ome
Jerry Falwell
Chuck Colson
Billy Graham

The list goes on...

[BigMcLargehuge]

144. you're talking a handfull of individuals

exploiting a loophole against millions who benefit? And for what it's worth, comparing these assholes with someone like the pastor of the church at which I cook is not only ridiculous but illuminates the broad brush I mentioned when I joined this thread.

Didn't I say that in the beginning? Oh I did...

How about an oversight mechanism to prevent or minimize the exploitation of the loophole? My mom-in-law's 7th Day Adventist churchs keeps staggeringly accurate books. And if Fart Robertson makes 10 million in donations and the other legitamate churches feed 1 million people, clothe half that, and help 50,000 of the sick and needy then I think it's an acceptible, if distatestful, tradeoff.

Like I said earlier, don't lump all religious organizations together, because the vast majority of them AREN'T the guys you mentioned.

Hell, don't you think closing CORPORATE tax loopholes is a better endeavor, that's where the REAL money is.

[Walt Starr]

161. Actually, there are literally thousands of Falwells out there

Falwell and Robem$ome are just more lucrative at it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. I guess that whole thing in the 1st

About Congress making NO LAW doesn't mean anything then?

[Walt Starr]

129. Read the entire amendment

The first amendment is no argument against taxing churches, in fact, a better argument can be made to include them in taxation under the establishment clause.

Religious orgamnizations currently receive preferential treatment meaning that religion is a de facto establishment by the government.

Tax the churches, it;s the only fair thing to do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. Seems like "no law" is pretty darn clear

The idea behind the Constitution was to avoid making any ONE religion paramount like it is in England. It wasn't to abuse or harm religion.

[Walt Starr]

135. The first amendment has no application to tax code

Never has and never will.

Tax exemption is a matter of civil and criminal law, not constitutional law.

Tax exemption for religious organizations is written into the tax code, it is not something covered under the dfirst amendment.

The nation can, if it so chooses, levy taxes against religious organizations so long as all incorporated religious organizations are treated equally and no differently from other non-profit incorporated organizations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. Where does the Constitution say that?

Suddenly our rights don't apply?

[Walt Starr]

164. Tax code has absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights

Look at the tax code. Exemptions for religious organizations must be SPECIFICALLY written into the tax code or they must pay taxes just like any other organization.

It took an amendment to the constitution to allow the taxing of income. Any amendment to the constitution supercedes all previous amendments, ergo, specific exemptions for religious organizations had to be incorporated into the tax code in order for religious organizations to get away with paying no income tax.

[BigMcLargehuge]

111. I'm a benign guy :)

when I think of beating them to the punch, or at their own game... etc, I tend to think of strategy rather than reaction.

it's the kind of guy I am.

I still think this is the core of what mopaul meant.

As for religious broadcasters on TV? Well, I have about 10 cable channels devoted to religion that never watch. I'd love to see a TV channel that runs 24/7 to discuss progressive values and strategies, and to rally the voting public the same way that Pat Robertson does with his clutch of TV stations, but it won't happen anytime soon I'm afraid.

[LeahMira]

114. You insist...

... that when a proposal for new legislation is made, the reason supporting it is not just because G-d says so.

I'm sure that fundamentalist Christians come up with some decent ideas from time to time. I just want to see those ideas presented and defended in rational, logical ways, and not on the grounds of religious beliefs.

[LifeDuringWartime]

118. make religious institutions pay taxes

that would keep their political influence down some, wouldn't it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. Yeah who cares about the Constitution anyhow

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Hmmm, "NO LAW" mean anything to you?

[Walt Starr]

132. By not taxing them, religion is officially established as a preferential

organization.

The first amendment does not apply to the collecting of taxes from organizations. Tax exemption is a matter of civil and criminal law, not constitutional law.

[Solomon]

32. Come on Mopaul Don't you know that "persecution" is a big component

of christianity? They have to be "persecuted" even when they aren't.
Also, christians have the habit of assuming that if you don't agree with them, then you are atheistic and trying to destroy religion.

[mopaul]

42. yes, the 'christianity is under attack' syndrome on the 700 club

pat harps about it all the time, scaring the hypnotized into feeling that they are persecuted and in danger of being rounded up and executed by atheists. when that's exactly what would happen to non believers if falwell and robertson had their ways.

[Kagemusha]

9. Personally, I think they've already overreached.

Yes, they've been powerful, but they've chosen stupid fights that they can't win (Howard Stern, gay marriage now that homosexuality is no longer legally a disease). They're expending their advantage by playing their strong hand badly. That's not the way to fundamentally alter a country set up to resist religious domination.

[loftycity]

24. I agree the Fundies have overplayed their hand...one thing

the Fundie's never it figure out, they are out of touch with their own circle of Fundies . The Fundies don't know when to stop, they have no critcal discrimination about the present.
So I say just let them go. I think I would like to be Left Behind, it would be nirvana not to listen to this backward burn in hell bible beating. They will sink their own ship and start fighting with their own kind. Because, they can't agree and are never swayed into listening to others. Take Mel with them.

[Cocoa]

10. GOP and media are trying to make 2004 about religion

I think they will fail. Judging by my own total lack of interest in all this nonsense, despite having it shoved down my throat, I think most people will vote about real issues.

[seabeyond]

11. the religion has been hi jacked

and seeing the perfect time to let them know it isnt going to fly and shame on them supporting

told ed last nite, that no republican isnt standing up saying it is wrong to call all non christian or unpatriot or terrorist if they dont vote bush is shame on all republicans. and they are going to hear that from me

he had the gall to say i am sounding extremist last nite. lol lol lol. was funny. totally non confrontational he is. lol lol

[Romulus]

16. Hardly

Sure, there are crackpots itching for "their time at the helm," but too many people are against their extremist agenda. These same people would consider themselves "religious," but draw a distinction between their version of "religious" and the fundamentalist version of "religious."

[Solomon]

17. Yes MoPaul because Jesus's Time Is Up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=19470

We will see more and more unrest over christianity as it continues to be hijacked.

[reprobate]

138. You are wise, Solomon. All religions are temporary.

A religion is nothing more than a set of myths (I use the word 'myths' in it's technical sense) meant to relate our inner fears and doubts about the great mysteries of the universe in a way that will explain them to us in terms of the society at the time.

Just look at the current religious fundies of all persuations as a temporary phenomenon. As society advances and changes, current religions lose their meaning and must either change to reflect the society, of die like the religions of rome and those that came before it.

Remember, everything is temporary.

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, the mistake western religions make is to take these myths as concrete reality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. By that definition, so is the solar system

But Christianity has held out 2,000 years and is going strong.

[Solomon]

150. Ahhh! Another wise person!

Muddle says christianity has lasted two thousand years. Actually it's much much older than that. It's "Jesus" as the christ that has lasted two thousand years and his time is just about up.

The height of arrogance to assume he's greater than the "gods" he flowed out from. Each one has a turn and must reflect the times or die and become it's own anti-christ.

[Muddleoftheroad]

152. Actually, it's not

Christianity (quick, look at the word root there -- Christ) has lasted 2,000 years.

Like most religions, it has things in common with other major belief systems. In this case, since it sprang from Judaism, it has much in common there. Still, it's beginning point is pretty clear cut despite your New Age explanation.

Tomorrow's debate -- how many hours in a standard earth day.

[Solomon]

155. I don't have a "New Age" explanation. If you actually study where

christianity comes from you will discover it did not start with Jesus THE Christ, not Jesus Christ as you all are so fond of saying. Sorry to inform you Muddle, but "christ" is not his last name. It is a title. I guess you think they invented the title just for Jesus.

I'll bet you think his middle initial is H.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. It does seem likely that this is all going to come to a head

Between those who zealously believe in the End Times and are trying to force them into coming, to those who use the Religious Right to gain power and money, we will have to be vigilant about keeping this nation from becoming a theocracy.

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[tom_paine]

59. The bottom line is that we are headed for CIVIL WAR

And yes, religion will be one of the many dividing lines.

American-Taliban-style Fundamentalists will of course follow their Warrior (phony, cause he's a gutless coward) Priest (also phony) Bunnypants* no matter what, as Nazis followed Hitler (with luck he won't command them to murder the rest of us straight up, because then it will be on... do not pass go do not collect $200!).

Many will be confused. Free Americans who are informed will of course fight for Liberty.

I take hope, mopaul, that even now the American People are sluggishly stirring awake.

To be honest I no longer hold hope that the spiral to Empire can be stopped, only slowed. But call me selfish, that is what I am going to try and help happen.

I hope you are well, sir. Love your stuff.

[Walt Starr]

79. Yep, that's what I see

and it's coming down on religious lines.

It'll be those who want the American Taliban to prevail opposing all freedom loving Americans. Never has there been a more clearly defined evil (Pat Robem$ome and his ilk) vs. good (Freedom loving Americans).

[reprobate]

140. Tom, I agree but for one thing.

The road to empire is self cancelling. Already the cost of our military-congressional-industrial complex has reached unsustainability. Even good republicans are beginning to talk of reigning in the military budget.

And I believe that the very popular current talk of 'empire' has brought it to public attention, and people don't like the idea that america has taken on the mantle of empire.

I think we are about to see a real pull back and reassessment of the goals and intention of this country.

[Solomon]

153. We better pull back or will revisit the fall of Rome all over again.

Personally, I think we are already over the crest of the hill and it's all downhill from now on. Once we took the step of publicly justifying "pre-emptive" war, we by definition, became empire.

I see '04 as a last chance to maybe pull back before it's too too late. I don't know if we'll make it though.

[tom_paine]

163. From your lips to God's Ears

I hope you're right.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

64. peace.....

http://stratocaster.hp.infoseek.co.jp/image/guitar/'57%20REAL%20VINT.jpg

through rock n roll

[YNGW]

67. Found this line interesting

>non believers would eventually be interred and isolated and executed, nazi style.

Because on the flip side, they're saying if they don't exert themselves, believers would eventually be interred and isolated and fed to the lions, Roman style.

[Mari333]

73. Margaret Atwood warned us

wish Hollywood would REMAKE this movie, and fast.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038549081X/002-2636632-3956809?v=glance

[YNGW]

83. Maybe.

I think it's just as likely that conservatives will jail and kill all liberals should they gain ultimate power as it is that liberals will jail and kill all conservatives should they gain ultimate power. Both sides are capable of extreme hate.

[tom_paine]

81. No indication of "Christian Persecution" anywhere in the Empire

That is another "quarter-truth" (secular society is on the upswing) that the Busheviks have wrapped their lies around to make them easier to swallow.

Show me an example of something that would even begin to indicate that Christians are in trouble that way.

I, however, can point to numerous Nazi-like examples (particularly in the use of speech and propaganda to fully demonize and dehumanize foes) of the Busheviks

PATRIOT Act to "Enabling Acts"
Indefinite detentions of American Citizens without habeus corpus or access to lawyers
Growing Soviet-style surveillance
Use of law enforcement to pursue political gains (most notably, during the Texas State Senators' flight to OK)
Selective prosecution/investigation common to Totalitarianism (Condit vs. Scarborough; Bush/Harken vs. Clinton/Whitewater or Stewart/ImClone; the "effective" (for whom?) investigations of the Right-Wing Anthrax Assassin and the Plame Leaker (79 days is a lot of time to shred evidence and intimidate witnesses) vs. investigation of late-term abortion & spying on peace groups

Now, you're turn. Indications that Christians are going to be fed to the lions or Gulagged?

[YNGW]

86. OK

>Now, you're turn. Indications that Christians are going to be fed to the lions or Gulagged?

History repeats itself. Are you aware there have been countries in the past and that exist now where admitting you're a Christian will get you killed? The pendulum in history has swung both ways. And I'm not necessarily talking about the immediate future. Just because it may not appear to be imminent doesn't mean that Christians are any less concerned about it eventually happening.

This extends beyond religious views into the political. Just like there are people on the right who would like the left dead, so there are those on the left who would like the right dead. I'm not going to pretend there aren't people out there like that, nor that it's not possible. It's happened before, it can happen again.

[tom_paine]

94. But no actual concrete indications?

I have presented you with several.

Where are yours?

In the realm of debating, concerete assertions, even unproven (as if stuff like that can be 100% "proved" like Boyle's Law) require more to refute than semantics.

Yes, of course in theory the pendulum could swing the other way, with Hardcore Socialists roundup up Christians.

But what are the concrete indications that make you think this is more than an extremely remote possibility in the near future?

You can do it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Take a look at China

Where religious folks are jailed or killed. China is about one fifth of the world population.

[Walt Starr]

100. China is not the U.S.

Try again.

[Az]

101. China is a dogmatic authoratative system

Whenever two such systems collide one attempts to dominate and destroy the other. If one has the power of the state they will often outlaw the other.

[Walt Starr]

102. Precisely

The Taliban is an example of the reverse of the Chinese system doing precisely that.

[tom_paine]

105. Ok, but that's still rhetoric. What about Amerika?

That's the question.

Any indication the Christians are going to be Gulagged by the Godless Ones?

Not China, not Cuba, not Timbuktu.

Here.

[YNGW]

108. TP

What they're doing is pre-emptive. It's not a matter of "if" to these people, it's a matter of "when". The signs of it immediately coming to pass may not be for another 20, 50, 100 years. But if you're in their shoes, you don't wait until then to do something about it, you try and take action now to either head it off or delay it.

Now if you were to ask them the signs of it coming, they'll tell you that the USA being more secularist *is* the evidence. Whether you accept that as evidence or not is immaterial to them. They aren't going to act based upon your good word that it'll never take place. The fact is the "Godless Ones" (as you call them) have in the past killed and persecuted Christians. They didn't foresee the Romans killing them for their religious beliefs until it was already too late, either. The way they look at it, better to be ahead of the curve.

[tom_paine]

112. You know, for a group that has been the oppressor about 10 times

the amount they've been the victim, they're pretty paranoid.

I shall list my CONCRETE EXAMPLES:

Both Jewish Blood Libels (Christ & Passover)
Nazi Germany (their dark secret is that Germany was a VERY Christian nation and Hitler took it over with full use of Cristian Imagery--people like to point to that wacky Valhalla-typoe religion but Hitler came up with that at they very end -- Tha Nazis were Christian, with the exception of the leadership)
Russian Pogroms of the 18th and 19th Centuries
The witch trials and Inquistions of the 14th-17th centuries (many MANY millions of people killed)

So these Bushevik "Christians" (who don't follow the teachings of Hippie Christ but Bushevik Paul) share something else with the Nazis:

An oppressor group claiming victimhood in order to excuse victimizing others.

In other words, Nazis were eversomuchmore "effiecient" in their violence if they had victim-style anger. It was always "The Jews are doing THIS to us Germans!" (*PUNCH* *KICK*) "The Jews are talking over Germany in order to make us kill each other (*PUNCH* *KICK* "Get on the Buchenwald train, Jew Swine, and be quick about it!")

Thus far all you've done is bolster my arguments and set up my points for me (thanks).

I'll ask you ONE LAST TIME (then I'm giving up because you don't have any reply, it's clear) for CONCRETE EXAMPLES.

Now you have 2 "missions":

1) CONCRETE EXAMPLES of indications that Christians are about to be Gulagged.

2) CONCRETE EXAMPLES of times in the past where Christians were the victims of religious persecution instead of the oppressors (and it has to be a religious issue and NOT Christian vs. Christian, which doesn't count because they were victimizing each other), not like the Nazi Germans persecuted the French Christians...they didn't, they persecuted the French politically, not religiously)

Thus far all you've done is throw rhetoric at me.

Sure they think they see it coming. Why? And no, secularization of society is NOT reason enough. They are still perfectly free to worship as they see fit with no fear, so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others.

So, c'mon now. You can do better than this. I know you can.

Please. Just one itsy bitsy concretee example to back up you're position? Because it's just a bunch of rhetoric without it.

Going once.
Going twice...

[YNGW]

130. Reply

I'll PM you.

I've found that these subjects can often lead to flame wars, of which I am not interested in participating. Also, they end up with several people getting involved and asking questions, of which I don't have time to respond.

[tom_paine]

142. PM received and returned. Good point.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

145. very admirable

I know I am not included in this sub-thread, but wanted to give kudos to you for acknowledging back here in the thread that a point was made and received...wish I could have been privvy, but understand the need to take it out of GD!

Thanks!
theProdigal

[thebigidea]

143. you're not interested in flame wars...

yet liberals will somehow slaughter Christians. Ok, sure. That's not inflammatory at ALL on a lefty site.

[YNGW]

154. That's right, I'm not.

I'm talking about the subject from the point of view of Christians who believe they will eventually be persecuted and why they believe they must take pre-emptive action. It's because of those who misunderstand and therefore will misrepresent what I and others say is the reason I went to tom_paine privately. I can tell you that he and I disagree on some things, but that's OK. We both were able to discuss some misunderstandings in a way that allowed for them to be more directly addressed. If more people took potential flames off the main board and discussed them privately, the mods would have a much easier job to perform.

[seabeyond]

147. just popping in

Sure they think they see it coming. Why? And no, secularization of society is NOT reason enough. They are still perfectly free to worship as they see fit with no fear, so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others.


the christian would say that not being able to say prayer in school, at a football game, not have ten commandments in court house, no nativity scene in certain places, allowing all religion and none religion to be explored in schools except christianity, moneys being funded to art orginizations the degrade christ, not being able to say god bless you when handing a flag to family of fallen vet at funeral and others are all examples.

part of this is illusion. one cannot be victim unless they create themselves as such to go to battle

[BigMcLargehuge]

123. may I inject a little history for all the combatants here about China?

you may or may not know that Western religions are derided in China because they provided the gateway to colonial exploitation starting in about 1800. If you look at the modern history of China from the Boxer Rebellion to the People's Revolution you can see a constant struggle of the nationalists/communists to redefine the Chinese nation and return to their roots of power with a modern infrastructure (nationalists) and restore power to the peasantry (Maoists). Until the revolution China maintained a 15th century economic model of smaller semi-autonomous regions aligned under a ruling family, the last were the Manchu, in a system that mirrored European feudalism and serfdom.

The missionary work done in China had many benefits such as increasing the percentage of Chinese with a functional education and the broadening of the silk trade. But it also have several caveats, such as the educational bent towards Eurpean (at that Imperialist) thinking and economics and a significant reliance on the opium trade. Britain sold Opium widely in China as a means of control.

The Chinese remember the colonial governments of Britain, Portugal, Russia, Germany, and France and the western missionaries as the different organs of the same animal. When Sun Yat Sen brought China into the modern age following the overthrow of the Manchu family at the turn of the century in the wake of the Boxer Rebellion he saught to expell all western influence from the country, be it political, commericial, or religious specifically to allow the Chinese people to reorganize and regroup before entering the world stage as a modern nation.

Unfortunately the Japanese invasion following the Russo-Japanese war increased tension in country and the inability for Sun Yat Sen and his disciple Chaing Kai Shek to create a cohesive social foundation fueled the split between the peasantry organizing under Mao and the aristocracy under the nationalists who were trying to expand their holdings in the areas experiencing a power vacuum as the western nations were expelled or treatied out of China proper.

The Maoists saw the missionary programs as tentacles of Imperial opression, a vanguard, if you will, of imperial power to come. When the Communists expelled the nationalists and took power this understanding travelled with them through the cold war and into modern China.

What the Chinese government doesn't see is that the Imperial nature of politics as practiced at the turn of the century, is vastly different now. In time, as China continues to participate in the world markets, this perception will change. It also helps that the old guard who served with Mao in the 40's and 50's are all very old and their successors appear much more open to both democracy and visitation.

Hope this helps.

What I was getting at was that the US never suffered under the sort of conditions that led to the People's Revolution, of which the missionary system played a part. So the idea that the US could begin treating religious people like China does is extremely remote if not circumstantially impossible.

[blindpig]

76. oreally has been hammering on this for at least 2 weeks

passion & gay marriage, gay marriage & passion. It's gotten so boring that my blood pressure is coming down! Seems like this manufactured culture war is intended to be one of the main components of the election. It will keep the clueless oblivious to the fuckin' they are taking from bu$h.
I don't think they are really as powerful as they pretend to be, that a lot of their strength is hollow: people automatically equate church/religion with good, lacking the perspective of European history. If they start acting really crazy some of that support will melt(I hope!)It is well past time for moderate & liberal christians to take up the gauntlet and defend what I understand to be the teachings of their Christ.

[stopthegop]

77. I don't think a 'showdown'...but a split

into two seperate cultures...traditional Christian on one side, and all other viewpoints on the other...I don't expect violence between the sides, but there may be conflict..if one side attempts to impose values on the other...ie: mandate prayer in a certain publice setting..or mandate kids go to public schools to be taught a certain viewpoint...
I expect overall the two sides will have less and less contact as time goes on..

[Marius]

89. A religious showdown...like Christians vs. Atheists/Muslims/Hindus?

There will be no religious showdown...just splitting of the Christian religion. I'm a non-fundie Christian and I don't think a "war" will happen in this country because of religion.

The only problem with religion in this country are those who are in power trying to exploit their religion for personal gain. Those are the people who need to be stopped...not the people who are Christians.

[sybylla]

96. Funny you should ask

The cops had to break up a local repug meeting on Sunday because the fundies and the moderates couldn't get along.

http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhlocal/279998121014326.shtml
***NEILLSVILLE - Despite strong membership growth, the Clark County Republican Party faltered Sunday night with an ideological rift sparking the resignation of several party leaders.***

Looks like the showdown has begun.

[Lars39]

107. Coordinated takeover at every single place they can.

Even if they have to use force to do it. I have a feeling we are going to see more of this and also in places that will surprise us.

[ewagner]

120. HOLY COW!!!!!!

That was in my own backyard!

Thanks for posting that sybylla.........

I know we've got a lot of rw fundies in the neighborhood but I didn't know to what extent!

[sybylla]

133. My pleasure.

I've been sitting here with a grin on my face all day trying to decide if I should throw a little salt into the wound or not cast stones. It's not like dems are really all that unified either.

Regardless, it is a very interesting development.

[Disturbed]

149. Mel Gibson's Church

He built his own church I wonder if the profits from "The Passion" are tax exempt?

"I submit that religious organizations are incorporated and as such,. should be taxed like any other corporation. There is but one reason they are not currently taxed, that being the argument that they would take the burden of caring for the poor away from the government, a task at which religious organizations have failed miserably."

What is the deviding line between a Cult and a tax exempt religious org?

The Catholic Church has probably paid out more money due to Child Abuse cases than they have to help the poor. The Mormons have the same problem but it has not been publicized.

Any sort of Religious Fascism needs to be addressed and opposed by those who are not in favor of being oppressed by other people's dogma.
The proposed Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage Rights is the most dangerous first step in the process of taking away rights of the American people. The Repubs say that they are being forced into taking that step. That is blatant lie and the subtrafuge of their agenda should seem obvious.

[DuctapeFatwa]

156. After reading this thread, I'd say the showdown is well underway

[Solomon]

158. LOL! I was just thinking the same

thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Isn't that a song?

Headed for a Showdown...

Some '70s/'80s band I think.

[californiahippie]

157. I can't possibly read all the replies so...

forgive me if I am just repeating things. Although I was not a Clark supporter in the primaries, I though Clark did a wonderful job of confronting the hypocracies with regard to President Bush's campaign and his religion. He really spoke eloquently about the true values of Christ which included taking care of the poor and underprivaleged. Should Christianity be an issue in the upcoming elections? Technically not. Technically the very topic as any kind of central issue threatens our constitutional rights, doesn't it? It shouldn't be about who's vision of christianity is correct according to the scriptures or who is christian or who isn't. Is this an issue? Absolutely! How would a muslim or hindu presidental candidate fare in a presidental election? Not well.
I respect many individual Christians, I respect the teachings of Christ, I respect the commandments. I do see a huge Christian bully movement happening in America these days thought that really doesn't care much about the consitituion or our liberties, or America, except as a place to push a conservative Christian agenda on people. Ironically, these are pften the same people who are shouting the loudest catch phrases like "God Bless America" "Proud American here", when really they don't agree with the fundamental principles America was built on. They do not want freedom of religion, they do not want seperation of church and state, and on and on.

[sweetheart]

159. Yes, Buddhism will take over america by 2040

Christianity has become primitive and is dying quickly as a world religion. This is to be contrasted for the massive explosion of people who want to be free and attain enlightenment "themselves" and
not to study some book about some dude who attained said wisdom
1000's of years ago.

Then those wiser folks will find out those enlightened ones and ask
them. Within a short time, a great awakening will come to the entire
earth, and the collapse and the horrible decline of a millions year death for mankind averted towards a great utopian future.

[Blue_Tires]

165. recent buddhist convert!

[truth2power]

160. I agree, Mopaul.

I read most of this thread. Seems like it's getting off topic, but I agree with you that the zealots are out in force and, as you stated, "they want it all."

I was saying it 10 years ago, but few were listening. All I heard back then was "Let's not demonize them." Well...ok, but here we are, years later, and the zealotry has increased exponentially.

There's a difference between being tolerant and colluding in your own destruction.

[mumon]

167. Check this out:

http://sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eimb%2Eorg%2FCompassionNet%2Ftabs%2FBuddhist+PrayerGuide%2Etab&key=Buddhist&title=Buddhist+PrayerGuide%2Etab&ndx=SBC%2C+IMB%2C+NAMB%2C+ANNUITY%2C+LIFEWAY%2C+WMU%2C+ERLC%2C+SEMINARIES>Slightly off topic, but remember: Buddhism is either the first or 2nd fastest growing religion in the United States.

(You've got to cut & paste into Word or equivalent to read it easily).

Here's some racist nuggets courtesy of the SBC:

1. Oh God, call the men of Japan to Yourself, that "company men" may become "Christ's men.".... Most of them practice their Buddhism in tandem with fear and worship of spirits, idolatry and polytheism....

Buddhists in western lands
Europeans and Americans became interested in Buddhism through colonial rule of Asia, Asian immigration to the West, writers and philosophers like Hermann Hesse, Buddhist missions beginning in the 1900s and organizations like the Theosophical Society. Many Westerners were attracted to a religion of self-help-with no god or priests but with deep meditative experiences; a religion built, like science, on experience; a religion that believes the universe is ruled by law. Western Buddhism is eclectic, choosing practices from a smorgasbord of Zen, Tibetan and Theravada traditions, mixed with Judaism and Christianity. It is more democratic and less concerned with distinctions between monks and laity.
Facts:
Buddhists number an estimated 2.5 million in the United States and 1 million in Europe.
Prayer Starters:
1. Oh God, may those meditating in the West find reality and fullness in You, rather than in the emptiness of nirvana.
2. Father, continue to call thousands to Yourself and Your church from among Asians in America and Europe.


As a Buddhist, I'm not happy about their untruths they promulgate about Buddhism.