Christianity vs. Democracy

[aion]

Since nobody will tell me what the hell is wrong with this, I will continue until I am either banned or someone tells me why. The neocons are inherently anti-democratic because they hold a warped view of christian doctrine. This warped view has proponents both today and yesterday (ie. Rushdoony and Mussolini)

Am I being censored because there are some self-professing democratic Christians who don't like what other self-professing Christians have to say on the issue? I am certainly not endorsing their position, as I think it is nothing but pomp and supremecy. But the fact does remain, whether you remove this post or not...some self-professed (usually Protestant) Christians are, at their core, inherently anti-democratic.

[Joey Liberal]

1. I agree with you

Most Christian fundies are anti freedom.

[aion]

3. Someone doesn't like it

Two of my threads were deleted which dealt with this.

I think it is absolutely foolhardy to forbid the posting of quotes from notorious right-wingers of the past. People deserve to know who they share their beliefs with if they support such nonsense.

[Joey Liberal]

7. There's always a complainer in every crowd

Don't give up. Keep posting. The fundies need to get a life.

[teach1st]

2. So are some cowboys...

...you're painting with too broad a paintbrush.

In my opinion, your remark in the banned post about the civil rights movement desiring power instead of democracy didn't help.

[aion]

4. My remark?

Perhaps you read it as carefully as the person who deleted it? The remark wasn't mine -- I posted quotes from Rushdoony and Mussolini... Posting their quotes doesn't insinuate that I agree with them ONE BIT!

[teach1st]

6. I read it twice..

but quickly, I admit...I don't think you were clear about it.

There are plenty of threads here about the dominionists, the theocratic folks, and they don't get pulled. Try to be clear that we're not talking about all Christians or even many Christians. Heck, I could make a case that the radical right theocrats aren't Christians at all.

I'm not Christian, by the way.

[aion]

8. We are talking about self-professed Christians -- nothing more, no less

These are self-professed Christians. I am making no claim about Christianity myself -- I am making a claim as to what others claim about Christianity...others who we know, or should know, were twisted humans.

I don't think telling them "You aren't really a real Christian" does anything to further the discussion. I am inclined to believe you are correct, as I do know Christians who are not fascistic.

If it is not Christianity which is the problem (as I suspect it is not), then it must be Christianity mixed with something else (ie. white supremecy, aristocracy, plutocracy, nationalism, etc.)

[teach1st]

11. I think it's the use of any religion...

..to further political goals, especially when the religious points are cherry-picked by hypocrites in order to destroy freedoms.

[salinen]

5. As a self professed Atheist

I say that Democracy is the enemy of Christianty. You pick it.

- Women's rights
- Reproductive rights
- Sexual orientation
- Environmentalism
- Human rights
- Freedom of Religion
- Civil rights

[DerekG]

24. Civil rights? Come again?

The abolitionist movement was comprised of Christians--like William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Parker--and transcendentalists. Hell, it was a Christian, Capt. John Brown, who led a multicultural assault on Harper's Ferry, thereby sparking the Civil War--he even quoted the Gospels at his trial.

The civil rights movement was launched by the churches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Rev. Martin Luther King were Christians.

Both movements were predicated on the Judeo-Christian conception of social justice (beginning with the prophetic books and culminating with the synoptic gospels).

[beyurslf]

9. Christianity is anti-democratic at its core.

You have no real choice in the religion except to follow the domatic rulings of the god. The alternative is hell--a fiery, miserable existence in eternal anguish. Hmmmm. Doesn't sound like any "choice" to me.

[aion]

10. I thought that was what set Jesus apart?

Wasn't Jesus a proponent of a personal relationship with the almighty father? Perhaps some Christians aren't Jesusians... (hint hint)

[beyurslf]

13. I don't believe the personal relationship allowed you to ignore the

dictates of the Father. In fact, it binds you to them. Again, no choice in the matter. Either you follow these rules, or well, summer in Las Vegas starts to look like a cool front.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. if people actually

did what Jesus told us to do, we'd be true socialists-
Jesus said you either live by 'the law' which no one can ever do perfectly- (judiac law-mosaic law) or you live by 'faith'- that it isn't a persons 'righteousness' that gives them hope- but that they
already have been 'forgiven'- through His death.

Of course, people cry that if that were 'true' then you could live like a complete jerk and still be loved- and still be 'eligible' for heaven-that cry speaks more about who they are, than who Jesus is-

If you have no 'fear' of being rejected, you don't have to prove to the world, that YOU are ok- and they are going to burn in hell- there in lies the difference.

we all have to be able to 'live with ourselves' or exist in denial-
i want to live life fully engaged- not merely exist- there just isn't any point in taking up space- once again imo- for what that's worth.

[jmcon007]

12. by definition..there is no such thing as a 'Christian Democracy'

At the risk of having to make a tearful apology in a couple of days, let me just say that our country is governed by concensus and Christianity is, in a sense, a dictatorship. That is, it's tenants are dictated by Jesus Christ.
I happen to be a Christian, but the fact that someone next to me happens to be Muslim, atheist, gay, African American, young, old, etc. makes me no difference at all.
This leads me to a conclusion that sounds contradictory, but so be it.
Do I believe that my Christian beliefs are right? Yes.

Do I then believe that anyone not in agreement with me is wrong? No.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. my understanding

of this is what is being 'called' Christianity- is really some off-shoot of biblical rules arbitraraly enforced, or ignored as suits the reader or 'group' of readers.

Jesus 'the Christ'- who by all 'rights' should be the 'leader' or at least the 'role model' of a Christian, had very little to do with politics. And the old testament would have not abided 'democracy'-
because the Jews of the Old Testament NEEDED a "King" to follow- one that was not representitive or 'elected' by the 'people'- i guess, kind of like what we have now in America. the guy with the most money and power-

i am a person who looks to Christ as Lord- but i don't believe it is my 'call' to judge anyone- (as Jesus warned against) to feel superior to anyone (as Jesus demonstrated, and taught) or to hit back in vengence or revenge which is where Jesus really deviated from the OT- as most conventional 'Professing Christians" in the vocal media today seem to forget.-

i truly appreciated the way in which Mr.Kerry and Mr.Dean acknowledged thier personal 'beliefs' in Christ- but did NOT use that as a measuring stick, or a 'vote-magnet' which i believe Bush has clearly done-

Fundies, should NOT salute the flag, take an oath, have credit-cards, home loans, car loans, wear pants if they are female, eat shellfish, - they should not allow their women to be in public when menstruating, should not invest in stocks and bonds, or hoard up any money- They should bar any deformed person from worshiping inside their church, and kill their children if they are rebellious- because Jesus says if you are CHOOSING to 'live by the law' you have to live by it entirely-

and no one does that-

Cultic christians- those who really believe everything their 'church' teaches them, don't seem to be able to think for themselves- and democrats have tended to do that alot more than republicans-

this is my opinion- for what it is worth- Jesus said 'spread the good news'- the gospel of fundementalism is anything but 'good' and it is very old news.

[aion]

15. Well said.

I would go further and claim that the right-wingers are Ra-worshipers in disguise, while the left is more like Osiris. But perhaps that is a bit much for this thread.

[Gregorian]

20. Yes. And what's more, Christians abide by the rule of love.

Love thy neighbor.
Love thy enemy.

And that would have ended 9/11, simply and finally.

What I say next is my opinion- The key is that we are not running the show. And that's where the fundies have it all upside down. It does not exclude having a president. But the president should, I believe, be humble. As long as leaders believe it is they who have the power, we will have trouble. I believe all power and all decisions are a gift. That life is like real magic. Not something we can control. But rather, something can be guided. But only for the good. Unless one wants problems.

On earth, democracy is just people communicating what they want.

Well, now I've gone too far. I've lost whatever message I had. Let me just say this- George Bush is as far from Christian as one can possibly get.

[aion]

27. Christianity can become state-worship, in which case...

Bush would then become the object of the worship. Christ means 'anointed one'.

[EVDebs]

17. The origins of the Left Behind eschatology is behind this

Christian zionism, mostly seen in Bush's Base of Left Behind secret pre-tribulation rapture-believers, is a useful tool in the hands of those who would politically abuse it.

Historically, futurism (as it is know in theological end-times eschatological terms) is an outgrowth of the counter-reformation. See "The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism" at

www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

Bush supporters are overwhelmingly futurist Protestant believers. There are also overwhelmingly Catholic Bush supporters, but this is due to the abortion stance he has taken.

This is a strange bit of Protestant and Catholic 'melding' but please hear me out. The rationale for some of this, viewing US history, may be more readily apparent. Consider the strange incident of the Theft of the Pope's Stone with the Washington Monument

www.nps.gov/wamo/history/chap3.htm

At that time in US history, people were aware that the real power brokers of the Revolutionary War, such as George Washington, were Freemasons. Little known now, unless you've read the works of John J. Robinsons (Born In Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry; Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades, etc.) is that the Knights Templar 'morphed' over time into the Freemasons of modern times. But during the late 14th Century, the Catholic Church had given the Knights Templar property and treasures over to the Knights Hospitaller, a fiercely loyal Catholic military order. The Hospitallers are known today as the Knights of Malta This enmity between the Knights Templar..now Freemasons...exhibited itself in the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, which took a heavy toll on the Knights Hospitallers. See

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/Born_in_Blood_Book_Review.htm

It is also seen in the obvious Freemasonic support for the Reformation itself all over Europe in revolt over the Catholic Church's practices, and hence the anti-masonic Papal Bulls

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/papal_encyclicals.html

mainly since 1738, with excommunication - just as with the Knights Templar in 1307 and Jacques DeMolay- as punishment for disobedience. You can see the position of the Knights Templar then, since they were created out of Papal authority, only to have the Pope Clement V and King Philip IV kill them off.

George Washington and most of our Founding Fathers, as shown in the fictional movie National Treasure, were Freemasons. During the 18th through early 20th centuries most revolutionary movements were of masonic origin: Washington, Bolivar, Diaz, Garibaldi, Kerensky, etc.

With the Reformation, and returning to the main argument of the Catholic origins of futurism, the Papacy was seen as the 'anti-christ' in Protestant's reading of scriptures then, this is called the Historicist view. Now Protestant churches seem to have done a complete usurpation of the CATHOLIC futurist view.

Why is this ? As the Pope's Stone incident referred to above shows, the historicist view was prominent at least until the end of World War II. With the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 a distinction in the turnabout seems to have been completed, due to the reliance of the futurist view upon a Third Temple in Jerusalem. You also have a preponderance of Knights of Malta within our Central Intelligence Agency: Donovan, Angleton, McCone, Casey, Dulles, you get the picture.

With a reliance upon a THIRD TEMPLE in Jerusalem, which requires a destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock upon the Temple Mount, some Israelis who wish to accomplish this have joined forces with these Christian evangelicals who support this also

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week319/cover.html

Despite this being a scripturally unsound theology, this has become the predominently held view among Bush's evangelical 'base' and his neocon policy makers, especially at Project for a New American Century. As in theocracies, note the Vatican and the state of Israel, not a lot of dissent is allowed. I hope I got this bit of intel out to the masses in time. The US is quickly becoming a theocracy too. Ruled by fear and compliance with the powers that be. The Founding Fathers would want none of that !

May God help us all.

BTW, a similar article http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2004/1031

[aion]

18. Is it a rule that temples must be built upon other temples?

What is it with these people? Why would this third generation Temple be best-suited ON TOP of an already-existing revered structure? If it was just about building a temple, they could build it somewhere else. This sounds more about destroying the faith-objects of others.

[EVDebs]

25. According to Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth

page 56, "There is only place that this temple can be built, according to the Law of Moses. This is upon Mount Moriah" a.k.a. the Temple Mount....Prophesy demands it."

So, they want to make sure that the Dome of the Rock is removed. This isn't what the 'historicist' eschatological view, that has been held since the Reformation would say, however, and it is curious but most Catholics would prefer the 'preterist' view nowadays (this is another of the Catholic counter-reformation eschatologies, as mentioned in my prior posting weblink
www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm ).

Also, it must be said, too, that Iran is a theocracy.

My point is that this Third Temple movement is being played politically but it doesn't have to be that way.

BTW, Hal Lindsey apparently is a CIA consultant. For what, I must ask ?

Please look into Grace Halsell's book Forcing God's Hand and also Steven Wohlberg's End Time Delusions. Furthermore, Gary Burge's article at

www.hcef.org/hcef/index.cfm/ID/159

is helpful in showing that this futurist eschatology is dangerous. A writer named Chris Hedges has apparently written about Christian fascism recently and been interviewed on NOW on PBS.

[aspberger]

19. Knights of Karl rove Kristianity verses God based Christianity

Knights of Karl rove Kristianity is based on Machiavelli's book the prince. God based Christianity is based on the the bible and the lives of the saints throughout history. Kristianity as practiced by millions through the teachings of Karl rove and based on the book the prince has what got right-wing foaming at the mouth.

[aion]

21. They worship unbridled power

The real question is whether that unbridled power is identical with the God in the so-called 'scriptures'.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. interpretation.... that is key-

great words here- not mine- but true so so true:
(and take note of when this was written... prophetic ???)
"
Well Jesus was a homeless lad
With an unwed mother and an absent dad
And I really don't think he would have gotten that far . . .
If Newt, Pat and Jesse had followed that star

So let's all sing out praises to
That long-haired radical socialist Jew!

When Jesus taught the people he
Would never charge a tuition fee
He just took some fishes and some bread
And made up free school lunches instead

So let's all sing out praises to...
That long-haired, radical, socialist Jew!

He healed the blind and made them see
He brought the lame folks to their feet
Rich and poor, any time, anywhere
Just pioneering that free health care

So let's all sing out praises to...
That long-haired, radical, socialist Jew!

Jesus hung with a low-life crowd
But those working stiffs sure did him proud
Some were murderers, thieves and whores
But at least they didn't do it as legislators

So let's all sing out praises to...
That long-haired, radical, socialist Jew!

Jesus lived in troubled times
the religious right was on the rise
Oh what could have saved him from his terrible fate?

Separation of church and state!

So let's all sing out praises to...
That long-haired, radical, socialist Jew!

Sometimes I fall into deep despair
When I hear those hypocrites on the air
But every Sunday gives me hope
When pastor, deacon, priest, and pope . . .

Are all singing out their praises to
Some long-haired radical socialist Jew!

They're singing out their praises to..oooo..oooo..
Some long-haired radical socialist Jew.

Hugh Blumfeld, 1996"

[Eloriel]

22. You are wrong about the neocons

Perhaps you're confused as to WHO are included in the Neo-Con category? Perhaps you're confused about their ideology? I don't know, but this statement is incorrect:

The neocons are inherently anti-democratic because they hold a warped view of christian doctrine.

They are themselves basically a-religious, and any interest they have in any form of Christianity (to the extent they have any interest at all) is really for "the little people," not themselves.

Here are some links for your information about the Neo-Cons:

One more time: LEO STRAUSS AND THE NEO-CONS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7200&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes
WAKE UP! - Strauss / Neocons and Terror PLUS dire warnings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1780890#1781801

Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie: The Neo-Cons at War
http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

Straussian.net -- Leo Strauss and the History of Political Thought
(with Discussion Forums! Book Reviews and a News Blog)
http://www2.bc.edu/~wilsonop/strauss.html

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
linked to from this thread: Has Straussian ideology permeated the GOP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2121269#2122935

Eurolegal Services - Neoconservatives
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm


This is just a small start. Here's a good link on all things PNAC:
PNAC Links Archive (Redux)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80

[aion]

26. You're begging the question, nothing more

Christians are ones who believe in a christ. That christ may or may not have yet arrived. Christ is a fancy word for 'anointed one'...nothing more, and nothing less. You read more into the word, and you come to funky conclusions.

Like it or not, Presidents are anointed.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

29. Locking

You may contact the administrators here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html