God and Country: What it means to be a Christian after George W. Bush

[WilliamPitt]

(...pssst...not all Christians are crazy...broad brushes need not apply...)

God and country

What it means to be a Christian after George W. Bush

By Charles Marsh | July 8, 2007

If God's on our side, He'll stop the next war

-- Bob Dylan

EARLY ONE SUNDAY morning in the spring of 2003, in the quiet hours before services would begin at the evangelical church where I worship in Charlottesville, Virginia, I opened files compiled by my research assistant and read the statements drafted by Christians around the world in opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.

The experience was profoundly moving and shaming: From Pentecostals in Brazil to the Christian Councils of Ghana, from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East to the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, from Pope John Paul II to the The Waldensian Reformed Church of Italy and the Christian Conference of Asia, the voices of our brothers and sisters in the global ecumenical church spoke in unison.

Why did American evangelicals not pause for a moment in the rush to war to consider the near-unanimous disapproval of the global Christian community? The worldwide Christian opposition seems to me the most neglected story related to the religious debate about Iraq: Despite approval for the president's decision to go to war by 87 percent of white evangelicals in April 2003, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts poll, almost every Christian leader in the world (and almost every nonevangelical leader in the United States) voiced opposition to the war.

In their enthusiastic support of the White House's decision to invade Iraq, evangelicals in the United States practiced an ecumenical isolationism that mirrored the prevailing political trend. Rush Limbaugh may have pleased his "dittoheads" in mocking the dissenting pastors, archbishops, bishops, and church leaders who stuck their noses into our nation's foreign policy, but the people in the United States who call themselves Christian must organize their priorities and values on a different standard than partisan loyalty.

These past six years have been transformative in the religious history of the United States. It is arguably the passing of the evangelical moment -- if not the end of evangelicalism's cultural and political relevance, then certainly the loss of its theological credibility. Conservative evangelical elites, in exchange for political access and power, have ransacked the faith and trivialized its convictions. It is as though these Christians consider themselves to be recipients of a special revelation, as if God has whispered eternal secrets in their ears and summoned them to world-historic leadership in the present and future.

More: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/08/god_and_country/?p1=MEWell_Pos1

[MindPilot]

1. God did appoint * to the presidency--twice--and told him to invade Iraq.

Don't need much more "theological credibility" than that.

[William769]

2. What a great read Mr. Pitt K&R!

[PurpleChez]

3. The Xian obsession with this war is bizarre, especially

as you so ably point out, that most other Christians in most other parts of the world vocally opposed it. I've seen bits of video religion shows with that lard-ass Hagey spouting off about how the war fulfills Christian prophecy, but I don't even think most war fetishists think that deeply about it. I suspect that, to them, war means "America on the March" -- which is why war is always a good thing, and why (under a rethug president) no war can be opposed. Add to this their notion that the U.S. has always been especially blessed by god, and you get the idea that god gave us the war to make America strong. I don't know. These people just seem to love war.

[spanone]

4. Bu$hco has deliberately blurred the line between church and state

churches want fed money??? better play politics....and they play.

[Perky]

5. Most xtians are not obsessed with the war.

Mos t do not believe it was God-ordeained. The asserion is a myth. Even if all * has left is Chrisitan support that would mean half the Cristians do not support him or his stupid war..... Cmon lets stop with the ad hominem.

[PurpleChez]

15. Please re-read my post and the OP, both of which

have to do with the fact that AMERICAN FUNDIES just loooooove this war, while almost all other christians, here and elsewhere, oppose it. I'm not a Christian but neither am I a blind Christian-basher, and in fact have been in many heated discussions here at DU because I objected to other's unfair treatment of Christianity. And I don't think you menat "ad hominem."

[jpgray]

6. Good citizens check for duplicates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1274350&mesg_id=1274350

:patriot:

[PurpleChez]

24. self delete

I'm a doofus

[Lilith Velkor]

7. They gave an apocalypse, and Jeezus stood 'em up

Poor dears. :cry:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. The churches have been hijacked and everyone high fived them for it

I receive from a friend of mine, excerpts from a hugely large Christian blog for females. All the women in that blog are Christian. However, unless the intelligent women in that blog are silent for fear they'll be attacked if they say something that doesn't agree with the right wing extremist Christian propaganda, it appears that the females on that blog are incredibly stupid and uneducated. They cite only factoids, repeat slogans, and try to shut up anyone that might disagree with *. It is the perfect microcosm of what Nazi Germany must've been. American Christianity has lost all credibility. As far as I'm concerned, even the "good ones" wherever they are (I can't hear any of them) are part of what happened to Christianity, because they remained and remain silent. It's quite sad and pathetic.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. I don't think the

"good ones" remained and remain silent.....we just don't get the media attention that the falwell's and robertson's of the world get. I personally challenged other Christians about the support for war and some of them changed their mind.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Thank you for saying that.

It's good to hear that some Christians have been out there speaking out.

[formercia]

9. Ideology driving Methodology

Frank Shakespeare is also a Knight of Malta and CNP member.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1998-11-12/introduction.html

INTRODUCTION

THE WORLD IN 2050

by Hon. Frank Shakespeare

Hon. Frank Shakespeare is the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. This address was delivered at the 1996 Wanderer Forum in Washington, D.C.

--snip--

Second, in the year 2050, what is Islam? I had the privilege of living in Russia, in the Mediterranean, in Portugal, and in Italy for 5 years as your ambassador there. Those who have traveled know that Europeans think very, very differently at the visceral level about Islam than we do in Amer ica. To most Americans, Islam is vaguely a group of guys riding around on camels in the desert. That’s oversimplified , but we have no up close sense of Islam at all. For the Europeans, it is very, very different. Europeans know in their stomach, if they don’t know it in their immediate intellectual consciousness, that it was in historical terms just yesterday, just some centuries ago, that Islam was created in the wilderness of the Arabian peninsula, and went across the whole of northern Africa, that is to say, the southern Mediterranean, and then attempted in two prongs to take Chris tendom. One prong went up through the Balkans, and was stopped at the gates of Vienna by King John Sobieski of Poland in one of the pivotal battles of all history. And if that battle had been lost, it is probable that most of us in this room would be Muslim. And then at another point they went up through the other peninsula sticking down from Europe. The Balkan peninsula is on one side. On the other side is Iberia. And they went up through Iberia and they went into France and they were stopped only at Tours by Charles Martel, in another of the great, epical, momentous battles of history, and if that battle had been lost, it is probable that most of us in this room today would be Muslim. It took eight hundred years for them to be driven out of Iberia and down across the Mediterranean— 400 years to get them out of what is now Portugal and 800 years to get them out of Spain. And then there was the third critical battle, the naval Battle of LePonto, for which we have the Feast of the Rosary in the month of October. Europeans are very, very conscious in their viscera, that just across the Mediterranean from them is an enormous, forceful idea. Islam is not Russia, Islam is an idea. It is not a nation, it is an idea. And it came within a hair, on several occasions, of conquering Christendom, which would have changed the course of humanity.

If you draw a line beginning at the westernmost point of China in the middle of Asia and you draw that line just north of the "Stan" countries, which were the republics in the belly of the Soviet Union (Tazikhastan, Khazaktan, and such things, all of those countries are Muslim), and right on the border of the Russian nation and then you come down and go through the Black Sea north of Turkey and north of Iran, and then you swoop down and go north of the Mideast, of Iraq and of Syria, and then you go down the Mediterranean and you pass on one side Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, and you come to the Atlantic, you have drawn a line all the way from China to the Atlantic Ocean. Everything south of that line is Islam. Every thing north of that line is Christendom. I will come back a little later to some aspects of that. I’m not a sociologist, I’m not an historian, I’m a businessman, so I defer to those who are far more trained in these matters than I am. What I am groping for here is the forces that may be in play in the 21st century ahead of us, and ultimately what will be our role as Catholics and as citizens of the greatest temporal power on earth. We talked about Russia, now Islam.

A thought about Islam: Something tragic is happening in Western Europe, which was traditionally Christendom. It is almost never spoken about, it’s only very rarely referred to, but it seems to me to be of staggering importance. And when I say it you will say, "Well, that’s too dramatic a phrase." It’s not meant to be dramatic. It’s meant to be an exact description of the truth. And it’s this. Europe is committing suicide. What do I mean by that? Europe has a birth rate which is simply suicidal. For example, it takes 2.1 babies per woman in a nation, in a society, to keep the population even, if you exclude immigration and emigration. The birthrate in Spain is the lowest in the entire world. It is 1.2. The birthrate in Italy is the second lowest in the entire world. It is 1.3. We tend to think of a big fat Italian mama with ten bambinos, because that’s the way it used to be 50 years ago. Well it isn’t. Italy is dying. Spain is dying. Two of the most Catholic countries in the world. Why? That’s for people much wiser than I am to grope with. France is 1.4. Germany is 1.3. If you take the 15 countries that constitute the Euro pean Union, that constitute Chris tendom in the historical sense, the birthrate is 1.5. Right across the Mediterranean, directly across the Mediterranean, in the Muslim countries and in black Africa and in India, the birth rate is 3.7 to over 4. That is a staggering situation. What does it mean? What it means is very clear. In the lives of our grandchildren, or maybe our great-grandchildren, but in just a moment in history, you’ll look at a map and see a big structure that looks like a boot and it will stick down into the Mediterranean and it will say on it "Italy." But it won’t have Italians in it! It will have people who come from Libya, be cause Italy has a special relationship with Libya in the past, and people who will come from Turkey because they need work. 28 years ago there wasn’t one single mosque in Rome. When I left there 4 years ago there were over 200. In Rome! Now many of those are storefronts. But one of them is one of the biggest, most modern mos ques in all the world. In Italy! And what are the Italians doing? They have the second lowest birthrate in all the world. I do not know Islam. I haven’t studied it. But Islam has been re-animated in our time. After its enormous vitality three to four centuries ago, when these great battles took place, it sort of went to sleep. And in our lifetime, in the last 40 to 50 years, it has been re-animated. In many ways it’s been re-animated as an idea. Islamic fundamentalism is the governing mode in such countries as Iraq, and in Syria, and in Sudan, and in Algeria, and Iran. It has just taken over Afghanistan. An Islamic leader has just been elected the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Who is to know where Islam is going? It would be a man wiser and more educated than myself. But it is an enormous question. Clearly there have been two elements which have played some role in it. There has been an insertion of two new things into that world in our lifetimes. One is oil, and the other is Israel. In any event, in all of that mix, you have a resurgent Islam, you have the huge money of oil, you have the fervor of belief, and of course you have something far more than just the Arab world. Islam runs down through Pakistan, and South east Asia and India. Muslims are 80% of the population in Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world. And the struggle in our time for the soul of Africa is the struggle between Islam and Christianity. So in the year 2050, what is Islam?

[tblue37]

10. I have recently noticed that the execrable Cal Thomas,

a RW columnist who is usually as bad as Rush Limbaugh, has been calling for Christians to pull back from involvement in the world and in politics--and also calling for real bipartisanship and compromise, without the constant labeling of principled dissenters as unpatriotic.

Do I think he has had a real change of heart? No, of course not. But when the prominent RW mouthpieces start talking about the importance of fairness, compromise, and reconciliation with principled dissenters, it sounds as though they expect to be in the less powerful position fairly soon.

[formercia]

12. Do you think they would have made nice with us

if all their goals had been met?

[Emit]

13. Will, if you haven't already, I invite you to read Altemeyer's book, "The Authoritarians"

It has a wealth of information and provides insight into authoritarianism and dogmatic, religious fundamentalism, and the correlation between the two.

I posted it earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1269324&mesg_id=1269324

I think it should be required reading for all of us -- kind of a "know thy enemy" approach.

From Chapter 1

High RWAs trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did
during the Watergate crisis.11 Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of
criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them.12 (Similarly the Allies found
many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in
history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running
the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by
subordinates without his knowing it.”) To pick a more current example, authoritarian
followers believed, more than most people did, President George W. Bush’s false
claims that Saddam Hussein had extensive links to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. And they supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas less
authoritarian Americans tended to doubt the wisdom of that war from the start.13

Caution No. 1. On the other hand, right-wing authoritarians did not support
President Clinton during his impeachment and trial over the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. So as I said, the support is not automatic and reflexive, but can be trumped
by other concerns. In Clinton’s case his administration not only had advocated for
groups anathema to authoritarians, such as homosexuals and feminists, his sexual
misdeeds in the White House deeply offended many high RWAs.

~snip~

Authoritarians get a lot of their ideas about how people ought to act from
their religion, and as we’ll see in chapter 4 they tend to belong to fundamentalist
religions that make it crystal clear what they consider correct and what they consider
wrong. For example these churches strongly advocate a traditional family structure of
father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the husband’s
begotten, and kids as subservient, period. The authoritarian followers who fill a lot of
the pews in these churches strongly agree. And they want everybody’s family to be
like that.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter1.pdf


Chapter Four
Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism

~snip~

The Plan for This Chapter
So here’s the trip map for another seven-stop chapter. First we’ll square up the
terms “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals.” Then we’ll bring the discussion into the
context of this book, authoritarianism. We’ll analyze the ethnocentrism you often find
in fundamentalists. We’ll see how some of the mental missteps we covered in the last
chapter appear in them. We’ll appreciate the positive things people get from being
fundamentalists. Then we’ll come up against the intriguing fact that, despite these
benefits, so many people raised in Christian fundamentalist homes leave the religion.
We’ll close our discussion with some data on shortfalls in fundamentalists’ behavior,
including a surprising fact or two about their practices and beliefs. By the time we
have ended, we’ll have learned many disturbing things about these people who
believe, to the contrary, that they are the very best among us.

~snip~

I have found nothing in my research that disagrees with this assessment. Indeed
almost all of the findings in the last chapter about the authoritarian follower’s
penchants for illogical thinking, compartmentalized minds, double standards,
hypocrisy and dogmatism apply to religious fundamentalists as well. For example,
David Winter at the University of Michigan recently found that fundamentalist
students, when evaluating the war in Iraq, rejected a series of statements that were
based on the Sermon on the Mount--which is arguably the core of Jesus’ teachings.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter4.pdf

[MikeNearMcChord]

14. Some fundies realize that they have been used

by the Bush/Rove/GOP machine and are finding out that they will be discarded. A lesson here, those who seek power will use whatever ideology or machination to achieve it, and once that horse is ridden enough and ceases to be effective like a dirty rag thrown in the trash, 2012, no one on the right is going to give a dilly ding dong what Dobson, Robertson or any other evangelical fundie thinks. On a side note, I think that is why a good number of GOPers are going to Ron Paul, he is not James Dobson's punk.

[pingzing58]

16. George W. believes as he has been told by his evangelical council that he has been chosen by God

and it is his destiny to fight for Fundamenalist Christian principles (as misguided as they are; i.e. creationsism) and the restoration of Zion to bring about the return of Jesus Christ and the end. But what has happened is that we have all seen through their misguided beliefs and ideals. Even Roman Catholics and their bishops got caught up in their ignorant belief systems. That belief system is being shown for what it is - snake oil and crystal ball deceptions. Devine Providence is otherwise. If George W. Bush's fundamentalist council would have told him to evaluate his policies, decisions and actions based on the fruits of the Holy Spirit he would have learned that they are: Galatians 5:22-23, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Tisk, Tisk, let's go back to basic bible school.

[DutchLiberal]

17. I'm ashamed to say...

"almost every Christian leader in the world (and almost every nonevangelical leader in the United States) voiced opposition to the war."

... that our prime-minister, the leader of the Christian Democratic Party, from day 1 fully supported Bush's war in Iraq. Not only that, but to this very day, after Blair and even Bush said 'the intelligence was wrong and it was a mistake' (not acknowledging they cooked up the intelligence themselves, of course), he still claims that the invasion of Iraq was "necessary". And he WON his third election in a row. To this day, there still hasn't been an investigation about the reasons why the government gave political and possible military support (although the government promised not to do that, there are signs that small operations were done in Iraq in secret), because such an investigation has to be done by a parliamentary commission, and parliament is blocking it. Among the parties that enable the blocking? ALL Christian parties. ALL of them supported the invasion and ALL of them refuse to allow an investigation.

I don't know why *these* Christians and those in the US that supported Bush are so pro-war. Is it because we were 'only' killing Iraqi's? They're muslims, so they are worth nothing? Is that the philosophy? Or is it because they believe the Biblical story of the Apocalypse, the Rapture (whatever you will call it). I don't know everything about it, but it has something to do with occupying that whole region in the Middle East and then Jesus will return and everybody who doesn't believe in him will be destroyed? Is that a good summary? Bush once was asked about in at a press conference. He didn't say whether he believed it or not.

[liberal N proud]

18. Since the right wing hijacked religion, I sure do look at it differently

I am much more critical of the church and religious leaders and specially those who brag about being devout christian.
I take nothing anyone says when using "faith" without first completely re-examining it myself, even those things that were standard faith subjects prior to this abuse of theology.

Great post, Thanks

[Elspeth]

21. Hijacking is the right word for it

It's frustrating

[L0oniX]

19. It's called " IDOLATRY "

They worship a country and its flag. I won't call myself a christian anymore because it links me to these idol worshipers. I am very well studied of the bible and have an active belief in God and Yeshua although I will not attend any american church anymore because of the money, power, control and idolatry. I am no better than they are but that doesn't mean I have to hang out with them which would mean that I agree with them politically or otherwise.

[Elspeth]

20. As a liberal Christian, and a voice who doesn't get air time on Fox or CNN, let me explain

I grew up a liberal Christian. I now attend a liberal Lutheran church. I grew up in a family and a church opposed to the Vietnam war, in support of civil and women's rights, and, more recently, tolerant of sexual orientation. The church I now attend makes it clear that it does not discriminate based on race, gender or perceived sexual orientation. (exact words.) We believe that God's love is for everyone, not just for a select group of "believers". We take seriously our commitment to make society a better place and to be good stewards of our environment. We are aware of global warming, the horrible situation in Darfur, and the waste of human life that is the Iraq war. We have people who attend church, bible studies, and have Air America bumper stickers on their cars. And many of us are older (40-75), not young "wet behind the ears" kids. We are responsible citizens and some of us have money and nice houses. Others of us rent and have jobs that don't pay as much. But we all support each other and the church. We support the homeless in our local neighborhoods and we support charities on other continents and in poorer parts of the Americas.

And we want this immoral war to end.

You don't hear about us on TV. In the same way you don't hear about the mainstream religious leaders who were overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq war. I often wonder why this is. Perhaps we are not "foaming at the mouth" and, therefore, not interesting enough. Perhaps people don't think of us as Christians at all. I don't know.

What I do know is that Christianity--as a term and as a religious idea--has been co-opted. Over the past 30 years, Christianity in the media has become a radical right wing force, a rabid pro-war, anti female (and covertly racist, if you read between the lines), and anti-intellectual entity. The fundamentalist Christians don't read scholarly tracts (which exist in many older traditions) but they read the "Left Behind" series, which doesn't even have the benefit of any historical research behind it. (And I'm being kind there.) There are many of us thinking Christians who are appalled by the lockstep in which the fundamentalists move.

I am also aware that this co-opting has been helped along (or perhaps has been originated) by political forces. Why should politicians want to co-opt religion, as opposed to just pandering to it? I have come up with a couple of possible reasons.

The first is the economic fall of the United States. As unions are crushed, wages are held down, as the average person is less and less able to afford necessities, magical thinking, in the form of radical right wing religion, is a way to keep the masses from rebelling. The RW tells its followers that Jesus will get them that new car; Jesus will find away for them to get health care (so who needs to fix the healthcare system); Jesus will provide for them and their children (so don't bother with the union.)

The Jesus the right wing religion provides is more like Santa Claus or a genie in a bottle. It is not the Jesus that said "Leave all things you have and come and follow me," an anti-materialist message if there ever was one, a message which historical figures like St. Francis of Assisi took literally.

So, my first thought is that Christianity has been co-opted to put the responsibility for economic misfortune on the victims of that misfortune. (Or, better, to put the responsibility for the avarice of the "haves" onto the shoulders of the "have-nots". ) This must mean that the economic problems we are having are irreversible, or will at least last a long time. The "downsizing" (layoff) trend and the "offshoring" (domestic job loss) trend both point to a long term period of economic hardship for the average person. But the "magic Jesus" will take care of all that.

This is not to say that God does not take care of our needs. Sometimes God can give you just the thing you need most when you least expect it, but it's not always what you think you need. In general, God is more concerned with our spiritual needs than our material desires. And, the God I worship wants you to use your brain to figure things out, not rely on magic. God also wants the community to help each other out. Acts of the Apostles was all about the community of believers (and some of their early problems.) But what was clear is that these believers supported each other, "each according to his need." (Some see early socialism here. I see it less politically, but with the net effect being that people work together to survive.)


My second thought about the co-opting of Christianity is more overtly political than economic, and I think it concerns Europe more than the US (or even Israel). Someone earlier upthread posted a piece by a Knight of Malta (?) concerning the growing Muslim population, both in and outside Europe. Not too long ago, a book called "While Europe Slept" also elaborated on this theme. The general idea was that within a generation, Europe would become Muslim, and the book blamed "liberal" European governments for their inability to assimilate these Muslim populations and make them European. Not only would Europe become ethnically African/Eurasian/Muslim but it would become culturally Islamic, with sharia being applied on the European continent, even on non-Muslims. The book was alarmist in tone, and its fear of the destruction of Europe (and its Christian base), mimics the feel of the "end times" fear that I hear in the right wing fundamentalist discourse.

What leads me to believe that the powers that be are truly afraid of a Muslim takeover of Europe is the fact that we in the US and others in Europe are being encouraged to become "Christian" in a way that seems closer to sharia than modern or even traditional Christianity. It makes me think back to the Cold War: in order to defeat communism, the US had to take on certain socialist ideas (like the idea that the government had a role in caring for the people) and institutions (like Social Security and other such programs.) In short, the New Deal. The Russian revolution in 1917 sent shockwaves through the monied and industrial baron classes. The US (and Europe) had to adopt the ways of "the enemy" as a way to prevent its citizens from joining "the enemy". Even institutions like the Catholic church had to update and become more "people friendly" to keep people from leaving and joining communist causes, especially in Europe. In the end, a Pope from Eastern Europe (John Paul II) was chosen as the West finally defeated its ideological enemy.

Now, the US seems to be adopting/co-opting a new set of traits from a new kind of enemy. If "the powers that be" really see Islam itself as a threat, their goal in co-opting Christianity might be to create a harsher and more virilent form of Christianity to keep its citizens from becoming John Walker Lind. Even more important, the US is exporting this radical, sharia-like Christianity to Europe. (There was a recent case in England where an activist was using his daughter's religious jewelry as a rallying point for a lawsuit. The group he represented had started in the US and had been transplanted to Britain. It was on DU and I'll try to get the link if I can.)

It's almost as if "the powers that be" are growing this "Christian" religious extremism here and transplanting it (like an innoculation, or a weed) into Europe to "save" Europe from the Muslim "takeover." The Catholic Church seems to be doing its part by going back to pre-Vatican II ideas and services (like the Latin Mass.) And the new Pope is from Europe. This might indicate the new theater of operations.

I don't agree with any part of this paranoid fear of Islam. I do believe that certain elements in our own government believe it and that this is why taxpayer dollars are going to "religious" organizations and causes. (In particular, many dollars are going to Pat Robertson and his ilk, businessmen who are selling this rabidly retro religion, possibly at the behest of the US government.)

Those are the two explanations I can think of.

But I want DUers to know, that those of us who believe that God is about love, mercy and tolerance still exist and are active in our communities.

Elspeth



EDITED TO ADD:

I don't know if I stated strongly enough (probably not) but of the two alternatives above, I believe that the first one is far closer to the truth. A "magic Jesus" is being created to assuage the victims of globalist policies.

The second alternative, the idea that there are people in power who really believe that Islam is a threat to Europe and are using the US as an ideological breeding ground as as fodder for its Middle East wars, is possible, but I believe the Middle East crisis is more about oil than anything else.

I hope I didn't offend anyone.

[PurpleChez]

25. I grew up Lutheran

I couldn't say that it was a particularly liberal congregation. But, as I recall, I was never taught to hate anybody or that I was better than anybody else or that God would destroy my enemies. We learned about stewardship, about caring for other people, for the Creation, etc. I remember a gay man joining the congregation, sometimes attending services with his SO, and I don't think anyone much cared. I no longer consider myself a Christian (I'm more of an amateur Buddhist), but I have nothing but fond memories of my "church family" and nothing but respect for the upbringing I received in that environment. I was back home for my grandmother's funeral last spring and took a stroll through the church (building) with my brother. It had probably been ten years or more since I'd been there. The congregation is dying and the building is run down and shabby. But I had nothing but good memories as I walked through. I often catch myself railing against "Christians," when I really mean "fundies" -- I could never really be a Christian-basher, because my upbringing in the church is always going to be a positive part of my life.

[Elspeth]

28. Isn't it terrible that "Christian" as a term brings to mind self-styled opportunists like Robertson?

I think that is what most upsets me. The word Christian is now associated with people of no conscience and of fascist tendencies.

[PurpleChez]

30. Yes. I hated it when I first caught myself thinking that way

saying "damn Christians" or whatever.

[pingzing58]

26. Thanks for the reflection. It took thousands of years of the mixing of people for

the French to look like French and the Britons like Britons and the Italians like Italians, etc. These people are fearing the fact that they must include the migration of people from the middle and far east who are muslim. But as always it takes a couple of generations for the young to integrate and even assimilate into western society. And, a new muslim face will emerge (perhaps one without the ideals of a Caliphate and Sharia law now being preached by today's generation of muslim leaders). In the meanwhile the greatest threat of sharia law to our western society is the role of women in society. We must to do everything we can to protect the rights of women and their safety in our western societies. And young muslim men must be taught (not by their imams and mulahs) to respect the rights of women and others - that is their greatest cultural and societal challenge in the near future.

[Elspeth]

27. Good points and thank you!

:kick:

[More Than A Feeling]

23. This:

It is as though these Christians consider themselves to be recipients of a special revelation, as if God has whispered eternal secrets in their ears and summoned them to world-historic leadership in the present and future.

How do you know they haven't? Maybe you think it goes against the Bible, but couldn't god change its mind, if that's the case?

[KoKo]

29. Bushies, RW EVANGELICALS and CRIMES have had us ALL Questioning our FAITH!

When our "Mainstream Leaders of our Churches" didn't STAND UP (with a few exceptions) many of us couldn't go back and sit in a pew. If they lose their congregations to the RW P.T. BARNUMS of the 21st Century...then it was the FAULT OF THEM...and NOT their CONGREGATIONS!

FAITH.....it's been tested so HARD....and found SO LACKING in the last couple of Decades. :-(