This weekend is the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasn’t already.
I submitted my Creationism, evolution, and Nazis. Yes, Nazis. post, and there are many, many more there that will no doubt make your blood boil. Enjoy, and remember:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
When I think of Theocracy, I cannot get the book, “Handmaiden’s Tale”, later made into a movie out of my mind. This is truly frightening, that one small segment of Christianity in America, is so bent on bringing this about. Not all Christians support this, but those that do (John Hagee…) terrify me.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
@Michael Lonergan:
No, but those that don’t still help pave the way for those that do, by making it acceptable to talk about supernatural delusions in polite company in the first place.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
But Matthew Nisbet and his sockpuppet, Chris Mooney are weighing in on their blogs telling Myers and Dawkins to shut up.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Who cares?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Oh well. Just think of it as a great turning point in your country’s history.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Seriously, I hate the idea of our country turning into a theocracy, but I think this whole theocracy weekend thing is not just paranoia, but fear mongering. How about blogging about real theocracies instead?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
That quote always tears me up, even though it’s become a little hackneyed through overuse.
Here’s another, equally good quote, from Eugene Debs, the American Socialist leader, who said this whilst standing trial for his opposition to WWI (he was sentenced to ten years and served two):
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Anyone who thinks the U.S. will become a theocracy has never attended a church business meeting – or noticed there is no dominate denomination in the U.S. It’s also not born out by either current events or history.
The word “theocracy” literally means “God Rule.” Theocracies are states run by priests. Literally. Offhand I can’t remember the existence of a pure theocracy except maybe Israel during the time of the Judges. Iran comes close. So did the Holy Roman Empire at some points. The U.S. never has.
That’s an important point to remember. Is supporting the publishing of bibles a mark of a theocracy? The U.S. Congress has done so twice under the Constitution, by assisting in duty fees incurred by Bible societies. If we go back to the Articles of Confederation, then we have to include a third instance, where Congress supported the U.S publication of a bible. How about holding Christian services in Federal buildings? The U.S. has done so as well. Thomas Jefferson was a regular attendee of services in the U.S. capitol building. At one point the largest Protestant service in the U.S. was in the U.S. Capitol building. State supported churches? We’ve had that, too, by several states and under the Constitution, to boot. Religious instruction in schools? That was common until the mid 20th Century. Yet at no time was the U.S. a theocracy.
What we have in the U.S. is a representative form of government in which the will of the people are expressed by those they choose to represent them in the government. Often that will is shaped by personal convictions. That’s part of living in a republic.
That’s not going to change, not unless the Constitution is radically altered by the amendment process. And while there’s a finite chance that could happen, the amendment process is such that it would require a radically different society to ever happen.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Hi, I’m from the church and I’m here to save you even if it kills you.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
It’s true that there are a small number of Christians in the US who want a Bible-based theocratic America. It’s also true that a larger number of Christians are sympathetic to the idea in theory, but would certainly balk at the notion if it started coming close to reality: no more online poker, no more divorce (except under strict Biblical circumstances), criminalized sexual activity including sex before marriage and any form of homosexuality, no more porn, no more social security or any form of social safety net except for the patchy coverage provided by charity, etc. etc.
Christians who dream of theocratic rule dream of a utopia where almost all government is local and the big bad federal government, as well as the rest of the nasty evil world is banished out of their lives (except to drop a few nukes on those pesky brown people), and all will be pastoral sweetness and light. Think “The Shire” in “The Lord of the Rings” (before Saruman got his grubby little hands on it).
None of this is remotely likely to happen (unless some nightmare scenario a la CBS’s series “Jericho” comes about). What is true, however, is that American society is much more influenced by theocratic forces than any other (nominal) Christian-majority western democracy. The US is much more conservative, both socially and fiscally, and much more religious these days. So, while the idea that America will become a theocratic state any time soon is a nonsense, the scare word “theocracy” has become a useful rallying cry for secularists who are opposed to the agenda of the religious right.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists [...]
And then they came for the trade unionists [...]
And then they came for the Jews, [...]
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
What a peculiar demographic, if other than the poet, it had no one but communists, unionists, jews, and the bad guys. The venn diagram alone boggles the mind.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
BTW, the opposite of a theocracy is not rule by atheists. It’s secular rule in which everybody’s right to their own belief system is guaranteed.
I am an atheist, but even if I were Mormon, or Jewish, or anything except the narrow band of Christianity to which Bush and his cronies belong to, it would still be in my best interests (and those of my fellow religionists) to use my vote in order to elect a secularist to office.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“If it hasn’t already”? Have you lost your mind?
Tell you what, Phil, Stand on the street in Boulder and start saying how Jesus was just a guy, Mohammed was a pedophile, and the FSM rules the universe. Then do the same thing in Riyadh. If you should survive, come back and tell us which is the theocracy.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Ed, spot on.
Melodrama FTW, BA. Seriously. Your persepective, it does nothing!
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
A theocracy??? That is absurd. If anyone cared to study American history, this country was founded with christians values on the forefront. If anything this country has abandonded, year after year, those values and is almost Godless! I imagine these arguments are futile attempts by the left to finish religion once and for all… I guess this whole discussion shows the ignorance of whoever started it… nite
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Some of the critics here don’t get it. To use an analogy, there are theocratic apples and oranges in the world – there are different forms of theocracy. Sure, there are fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East who oppress women and are totally intolerant of any descent. Some of them are friends of Dick Cheney.
In the USA, there are conservatives who seek a different type of theocracy and have co-opted a segment of religious voters and vilify critical thinking while also framing and vilifying harmless social outlooks such a liberalism, open inquiry and scientific facts as well as diverse groups of people that tend to be liberal, such as working class people, unionists or gay people who want to get married. Fellow citizens are condemned and vilified by ID believers and far-right conservatives. They are vilified daily of right wing radio, and this happens for right-wing political gain within their own definition of religion. There are conservative pseudo-religious organizations that co-opt religiousness and want to slip it into science and the classroom in order to remove the spirit of questioning and establish an ultimate authority. This is the agenda of young Earth creationists; not to immediately take over the whole country, but to establish an undermining mindset, under the guise of “fairness” and “balance”. They want to co-opt God and apply it for political gain.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Joel, you are grossly re-writing history. Many of are founding fathers were highly disapproving of Christianity. It is true that many colonies were founded around the Christian religion…but the federal government was not. Emphatically not, if you bother to read their own words.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The treaty of Tripoli, signed by George Washington
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
LOL, Joel. Claiming that America is “almost Godless” is as wildly off the mark as those who claim that America is almost a theocracy. The truth is that the USA is still amongst one of the *most* religious (Christian) nations on the planet. The number of non-believers is less about 12-15% compare with many European nations where the number is well over 50%. Even assuming that you are a “Bible-believing” Christian, the number of fellow believers is between 40% and 50% of the population, at least ten times the number of fundamentalists in places like the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc, etc.
Your hysteria is typical of the religious right who regularly make claims like arguing that a mere half-dozen books by a few atheists is a mortal threat to your religious beliefs while conveniently ignoring the *hundreds* of Christian titles published within the same time frame, including two or two dozen directly attacking the atheists who dared to publish critiques of religion.
Get a grip on reality and thank your lucky stars (or God, if you wish) that you live in America, where not only can you practice your religion freely, but where you can easily find healthy and thriving Christian communities anywhere you choose to live. If you lived anywhere else in the developed world, you would have much, much tougher time of it.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Chip, the term “theocracy” is well defined, and does not mean “a nation with a large minority who use religion for their own political ends.” So I don’t believe there is any confusion. America is not a theocracy by any normal definition of the word. As I said in my first comment on this thread, the term is being used as shorthand for criticizing the political ambitions of the religious right (who are still a powerful force in American politics) but that doesn’t mean they are linguistically correct in using it.
I oppose the religious right, but I don’t see any benefit in using scare words like “theocracy” where they are not accurate. That would be stooping to their level, and we can do better.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
@joelp: If anyone cared to study American history, this country was founded with christians values on the forefront.
Really? I never knew.. please point out to me where, in the founding documents of The United States of America, the values of Christians are elevated to the forefront. (So sorry, all you other religions!)
@kc: That’s an important point to remember. Is supporting the publishing of bibles a mark of a theocracy? The U.S. Congress has done so twice under the Constitution, by assisting in duty fees incurred by Bible societies. If we go back to the Articles of Confederation, then we have to include a third instance, where Congress supported the U.S publication of a bible.
Really? Again, please point out where in the text of the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation these Bible-specific pieces of legislation are. Thanks much.
-pc
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
/me smacks my forehead. Apologies, both of the paragraphs after @ are direct quotes from the posters in question. I promise I’ll remember the quotes next time.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I’d be willing to bet that at least 99% of the people who’d be for a theocracy have never actually lived under one.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Well America isn’t a theocracy. Not that we should be complacent. Eternal vigalence is the price the people must pay in order to preserve their liberties.
As for those calling Phil a fearmonger, well maybe, but if no one rings a bell at some point, no one will notice until it’s too late. Better safe (and free) than sorry.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:06 am
I personally think that the fears about establishing a theocracy / religious dictatorship / etc are overblown, but we need to remain vigilant. However, see Tom Wolfe’s stuff from the mid-1960’s and notice that some segments of society seem to delight in noting how oppressed we are or are becoming. And, of course, the notion that the US was founded on Christianity is ludicrous and easily refuted.
But what I really want to comment on is Michael Lonergan’s first post and his mention of the book “The Handmaid’s Tale”, written by Margaret Atwood, and published in 1985. While I thought that the book was fairly good, and the movie less so (despite the leading presence of the spectacular Natasha Richardson), I am compelled to point out that many of the book’s key points were made, much better IMHO, in Robert Heinlein’s classic novella “If This Goes On-” from . . . 1940 (revised somewhat and expanded in 1953, still 32 years ahead of Atwood). Heinlein shows how it could happen, and more importantly, how not to let it happen again: “You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
March 24th, 2008 at 12:13 am
KMR, hadn’t read that one…. must do that.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Michael Lonerganon: “When I think of Theocracy, I cannot get the book, “Handmaiden’s Tale”, later made into a movie out of my mind.”
Wow. They made that movie out of your mind? Did it hurt?
I saw that movie, and all I can remember is Natasha Richardson and the very unholy lust I felt.
http://www.geocities.com/natasharichardson2/pictures/031.jpg
I might support a theocracy if they brought back temple prostitutes.
I kid, of course.
Mostly.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Desperation:
“Michael Lonerganon: “When I think of Theocracy, I cannot get the book, “Handmaiden’s Tale”, later made into a movie out of my mind.”
Wow. They made that movie out of your mind? Did it hurt?”
ROFLMAO!!!
What the…. did I write that? Oh wait, I know what I meant to say!
That movie comes to mind when I think about Theocracy! Poor sentence construction. Me Engrish teech would kill me!
BTW, I’ll run for office in a Theocracy and my election promise will be to bring those Temple Prostitutes back! Come to my church sometime, I am senior Minister and the First Church of Love and Debauchery… We have many ministries that may please you.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 am
So because the creationists invoked Godwin’s Law in a stupid movie, you have to do it yourself in the last paragraph?
(Just winding you up, the saying works just as well without “Germany” in it).
I think that the situation in the US is ironic given its history. Here, we have a state religion, and most people seem to be glad about their casual atheism/indifference. Over there, so many people seem to be coerced to having to defend their own religion…
March 24th, 2008 at 6:05 am
QD writes:
[[I might support a theocracy if they brought back temple prostitutes.
I kid, of course.
Mostly.]]
I hope so. You do know the temple prostitutes were slaves, don’t you? That they didn’t have a choice about being there? People who blithely joke about worshipping at the temple of Venus, contrasting free-and-easy paganism with awful repressive Christianity, don’t know much about real paganism. Ancient Greece or Rome was nice if you were a full citizen; not so nice if you were a slave.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[BTW, I’ll run for office in a Theocracy and my election promise will be to bring those Temple Prostitutes back! Come to my church sometime, I am senior Minister and the First Church of Love and Debauchery… We have many ministries that may please you.]]
See my above post to QD. And consider this, Mike — how many women want to bring back temple prostitution?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:34 am
America gained it’s power largely because it was an immigrant state, where people with a desire to work could come and start any business they pleased. As a result of this, we have many of the finest educational institutions in the world.
Unfortunately, a combination of xenophobia, intolerance and idiocy (often fueld by religion) combine to create immigration rules that effectively say to the smartest and hardest working people on the planet “Come, get an education, but then leave.”
America will lose it’s status in the world because of this mistake. And the sort of people who watch Expelled for the educational value are the exact sorts of people who are responsible for the errors.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I’m honestly becoming more fearful of rule by atheists than a theocracy. I’m nominally Lutheran, attend church sporadically at best, and try to live my life in a quiet, good way. I could care less what my neighbors worship, or if they do.
But I’m beginning to think that the more radial atheists that I see would want to ban religion for the good of the people. Something that would be no better than a President making his/her religion the one true religion of the land. I’ll admit that, as much as I love to read Randi, I’ve been often turned off by his rabid atheism, something I’ve found just as annoying as the Mormon that cornered me on the Boston T 10 years ago, or the Scientologist that tried to convert me as a teenager. The general depiction of church goers as drooling morons with no ability to think beyond the pages of the Bible is offensive.
I’m no Bible-thumper, I have a degree in biology and have debated for evolution from high school. But I tend to think that most skeptics shoot themselves in the foot, repeatedly, with their condescending attitude. It seems that whenever skeptics get onto the subject of religion, they lose their minds in a completely unhelpful way. Trying to convince believers that they are being taken by a scam, or being fed a line like Creationism, by attacking the underpinnings of all religion makes people go into bunker mode. I see this with Randi, with Phil, while listening to Skeptics Guide… Otherwise incredibly intelligent people that would seem to hold someone like me in great contempt simply because I choose to believe that there is a higher order to the universe that maybe we can’t fully define.
Even more hilarious to me is that the clock is ticking on the current administration. Bush won’t be there at the end of January, and since Cheney isn’t running, neither will he. Even if McCain wins, it’s unlikely that any higher level staffers will stay, and he’s less religious than his likely competitor, Obama (who, incidentally, turned away from atheism to join his church.) I suspect both men will retire and fade into the woodwork, like most former Presidents do.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:17 am
You people clearly do not live in the south.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:45 am
tacitus:
Some of the things you named (such as criminalization of premarital sex) has been illegal at some point in the U.S. That did not make the U.S. a theocracy. Nor did the Blue Laws.
Why? Because those laws came about as a result of citizens voting their convictions. At that time the majority of U.S. voters considered it a strong enough issue that they voted for representatives that supported it. That these convictions were the result of religious belief matters not one whit: It was *personal* convictions that influenced *personal* vote. That’s no different than any other personal conviction.
BA is a good example. BA feels strongly about the Theory of Evolution. Based on what BA has written, It’s difficult to imagine BA supporting a political candidate who is also a Young Earth Creationist. This is BA’s conviction, one he feels strongly about, and he has the right to vote based on that conviction. If enough people share the same conviction, then our hypothetical Young Earth Creationist will not be elected to office.
In the same way, a Fundamentalist Christian who feels strongly about an issue has the right to vote based on that conviction. That’s representative government. If enough people share the same conviction, that candidate is elected to office. That’s representative government.
It’s also why things like the Blue Laws have mostly gone away. Most voters no longer feel strongly about them, and most who do oppose them. That’s representative government in action.
Whether or not we agree with what our elected officials support is part of the marketplace of ideas. And here’s the beauty of our representative government: If you don’t like what’s going on, you have the right to try and convince others to change it at the polls. You have that right. BA has that right. Fundamentalist Christians have that right. *Everyone* has that right.
That, I think, is something that everyone should keep in mind. The religious and secularists alike.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am
BPL, did someone deprive you of a sense of humor?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
BPL wrote:
“People who blithely joke about worshipping at the temple of Venus, contrasting free-and-easy paganism with awful repressive Christianity, don’t know much about real paganism. Ancient Greece or Rome was nice if you were a full citizen; not so nice if you were a slave.”
I guess that’s why St. Paul supported slavery then. “Slaves obey your masters…”
Yes, as one who has studied the influence of Greco-Roman society on early Christianity, I am all too familiar with it. Just because someone makes a joke about something, don’t assume they are less intelligent than you are. It may just be that we refuse to allow a certain, nameless body part get all puckered up about things unlike some people.
Really, Barton, lighten up…
Oh, and before you launch into the usual Christian diatribe responding about slavery being a cultural norm for the time, the fact is, if these slaves were treated despicably, that great moral treatise, the Holy Bible, should have addressed it in a more condemning manner should it not? Funny how the “Holy” Bible fails to address many such issues…
March 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Here’s something interesting for you Christian moral crusaders: when the U.S. was founded abortion was legal and was, in fact, the favored method of birth control (until what they used to call “quickening,” some time in the second trimester). When it became generally illegal about 100 years later, it was under pressure from the medical industry, who felt the procedure was not safe. God was oddly silent on the subject until the 20th century.
I bring this up as one more bit of evidence against the absurd notion that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
BPL, I assume you haven’t made it BA’s next post, “Cheeses of Nazareth…?
Dang it, does anyone have that red and blue pie chart depicting Christian persecution…
March 24th, 2008 at 8:53 am
@KC: “That’s no different to any other personal conviction”.
If they hold that conviction because it’s what their religion teaches (according to their religious leader….) and because everybody they know does, then it very probably *is* different.
The problem is not God. The problem is *coherence*, in the sense of laser light. If you have a large bunch of people who delegate their social/political thinking to someone else (who was not elected for a fixed term), and vote accordingly, this is an instrument capable of wrecking the nominal system government.
I’ll freely concede two points:
1) They’re not the only such forces able to do this: See the Ulster Worker’s Council in Ireland, or Solidarity in Poland for examples.
2) Most religious people are *not* obedient sheep who march as they’re told to.
But in the US (I admittedly speak as a Yurpean), don’t Bible-thumping YECers seem to be far more coherent than, say, the Democratic Party at the moment? And isn’t “One Nation Under God”, their aim?
Regards,
Lurker #753
March 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Lurker, they are coherent, but only to their own kind.
“Most religious people are *not* obedient sheep who march as they’re told to.”
That depends on which element of Christianity one is talking about. If one were to read the strict doctrinal statements of some of the more Conservative elements of Evangelical Christianity here in North America, then, those sheep are required to walk in obedience, and march as they are told to. With some of these groups, dissension if very much frowned upon.
To be fair, the majority of the church is of a more Mainline persuasion, and generally tolerates a more liberal perspective. Many of the Christians I hung out with seemed to display a knowledge of Scripture, until one would ask them to explain the passage they were using to justify something, such as wifely submission, in it’s actual context. Using that criteria, they displayed an amazing lack of Biblical literacy.
When I applied for credentials in the denomination I was a part of for a few years, and ministered in, I had a 5 page document, asking my thoughts about such things from homosexuality, all the way to dancing and attending movie theaters. Believe me, if I had done anything within those 5 pages, I would have been turfed.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:40 am
BPL -
“Most of the people in this blog use any mention of creationism to attack all religious people and all religion, period. Any thread on such a subject invariably has all the evangelical atheists come in and hijack it, so that reasonable discussion of the subject gets drowned out. Iâ??d be posting a lot more against creationism here if I didnâ??t have to spend most of my time here defending my faith from bigots^H^H^H^H^H^H people like Richard Drumm and Woodguard.”
Pure, unmitigated, generalistic crap, BPL. You are really in rare moody form today.
Generally I don’t have much of a problem with what you post as far as your Christian views… I’ve called you cranky before, but merely being playful.
However with that statement you go way overboard. I would measure the ratio of extreme “evangelical atheists” to “zealous Christians” that make appearances on this site as at least 50 / 50. And frankly, I’ve seen no-one here more tempestuously defensive of his belief system than you. Which is fine. It is your right, and apparently you feel your responsibility to set all us non-believing idiots straight. And I can live with that, because you generally present your arguments with some level of material to back them up, which can then at least be argued over.
But giving examples of a couple or even several people and their views and generalizing this site in that way is a complete mis-representation. And I think you know it. You want me to throw out the names of other regulars to this board who are WAY worse on the other side of that spectrum than anyone you mentioned? (Ahem, Mike J.). Shame on you, BPL.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:42 am
BPL -
“Most of the people in this blog use any mention of creationism to attack all religious people and all religion, period. Any thread on such a subject invariably has all the evangelical atheists come in and hijack it, so that reasonable discussion of the subject gets drowned out. Iâ??d be posting a lot more against creationism here if I didnâ??t have to spend most of my time here defending my faith from bigots^H^H^H^H^H^H people like Richard Drumm and Woodguard.”
Pure, unmitigated, generalistic bull, BPL. You are really in rare moody form today.
Generally I don’t have much of a problem with what you post as far as your Christian views… I’ve called you cranky before, but merely being playful.
However with that statement you go way overboard. I would measure the ratio of extreme “evangelical atheists” to “zealous Christians” that make appearances on this site as at least 50 / 50. And frankly, I’ve seen no-one here more tempestuously defensive of his belief system than you. Which is fine. It is your right, and apparently you feel your responsibility to set all us non-believing dolts straight. And I can live with that, because you generally present your arguments with some level of material to back them up, which can then at least be argued over.
But giving examples of a couple or even several people and their views and generalizing this site in that way is a complete mis-representation. And I think you know it. You want me to throw out the names of other regulars to this board who are far worse on the other side of that spectrum than anyone you mentioned? (Ahem, Mike J.). Shame on you, BPL.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
BPL -
“Most of the people in this blog use any mention of creationism to attack all religious people and all religion, period. Any thread on such a subject invariably has all the evangelical atheists come in and hijack it, so that reasonable discussion of the subject gets drowned out. Iâ??d be posting a lot more against creationism here if I didnâ??t have to spend most of my time here defending my faith from bigots people like Richard Drumm and Woodguard.”
Pure, unmitigated, generalistic bull, BPL. You are really in rare moody form today.
Generally I don’t have much of a problem with what you post as far as your Christian views… I’ve called you cranky before, but merely being playful.
However with that statement you go way overboard. I would measure the ratio of extreme “evangelical atheists” to “zealous Christians” that make appearances on this site as at least 50 / 50. And frankly, I’ve seen no-one here more tempestuously defensive of his belief system than you. Which is fine. It is your right, and apparently you feel your responsibility to set all us non-believing dolts straight. And I can live with that, because you generally present your arguments with some level of material to back them up, which can then at least be argued over.
But giving examples of a couple or even several people and their views and generalizing this site in that way is a complete mis-representation. And I think you know it. You want me to throw out the names of other regulars to this board who are far worse on the other side of that spectrum than anyone you mentioned? (Ahem, Mike J.). Shame on you, BPL.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
ack!
Sorry for the multiple posts. Darn spam filter. I know better than that! Apologies.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Celtic Evolution said, (3 Times, no less!):
“Pure, unmitigated, generalistic crap, BPL. You are really in rare moody form today.”
Now that I’ve picked myself up off the floor from the laugh attack – AMEN! Bro, Celtic! Preach it! ROFL
March 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Celtic:
Do you think, maybe Jesus didn’t show up yesterday? That could have something to do with said moodiness? I mean, I know Jesus has been fairly consistent every year, showing up on Easter Sunday, but it makes me wonder…?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Also, that post belonged in the “PZ and Dawkins video” post… what the heck did I do?? BPL’s original post isn’t even in this thread… Ugh, for THAT, I am sorry, Barton… no need to have that posted so many times. Sheesh.
Man, you’d think as a network manager I’d have a better grasp of this technology whizbangy stuff.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Now, now Michael… I don’t want to pile on Barton, and I don’t want to necessarily deride his beliefs… for the purposes of that post I just wanted to call him out for what I felt was a totally flawed characterization.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Neither do I, but I find it interesting when one points the finger, and makes comments as he did, yet strangely reacts in a very negative way when that finger is turned around.
I actually appreciate BPL’s comments. He does provide substantial support backing them up. But I have often sat in Easter Passion plays in very large churches that go all out with great lighting effects for the “Jesus emerging from the tomb” scene, and often chuckled thinking about what would happen if the actor portraying Jesus decided to prank the audience and not show up!
March 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Interesting side story along those lines, Michael… I grew up an alter boy in a Roman Catholic church in Boston, and can remember just such a passion play where they had devised an elaborate set for the scene, including a mechanism that would automatically retract the stone from in front of the tomb of Jesus. Only when the time came, the stone (it was merely plywood and papier-mache on a roller-track) came off the track and wouldn’t roll. Jesus was trapped! Took like 20 minutes to get the poor savior out. The congregation was naturally light hearted and amused by the situation, but it was only years later that the irony of that scene really hit me.
Right out of Monty Python… lol.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
@KC: I don’t think I disagree with anything you say. All I’m saying, really, was that there are a good number of right-wing Christians who have warm and fuzzy sympathies towards the idea of a “Bible-based” government but would reject its imposition (i.e. vote against it) once they fully understood the ramifications of such a system. Such they wouldn’t care much about making homosexuality illegal, but many would kick up a stick at the thought of all those old blue laws making a comeback.
They think it’s fine to teach that things like pre-martial sex and adultery are immoral, but as soon as you make them illegal, punishable by fines or imprisonment, then most people realize that they themselves could be the ones in legal jeopardy.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Once again, I’ll through the hyperbole flag, though in this case Phil’s found some other hyperbolic friends.
KC and tacitus have done a pretty good job at moderating the tone, however. Thanks to them.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Celtic, did you ever see Simon Birch, a cute movie about a young disabled boy? There is a scene in it where he plays the baby Jesus. He suffers from a type of dwarfism, I believe, and, even though he has just hit puberty, is drafted to play the Baby Jesus. When Mary, another young teen, about 13, leans over the crib, all poor Simon sees are “Boobies”, the ensuing madness is totally hilarious!
March 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Celtic_Evolution’s story above (reminiscent of Monty Python) reminded me of a live lecture I came across several years ago via local cable television. A preacher was describing the evils of so-called “liberal churches” vs. so-called “good conservative Christian churches” and he had large paper models standing behind him.
The “liberal church” model was made from dark gray cardboard and the “Christian church” was made of white and gold cardboard.
As he spoke on the weakness of “Liberal churches”, the “Christian church” collapsed.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Tacitus:
Like supporting Blue Laws until they find they can’t go shopping at Wally Mart after church?
Yes, I can see that. And I say that as a Christian and a church-goer.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Doesn’t the state already involve itself in an important religious event? Isn’t marriage a religious concept, by and large? Should the government be authenticating by law what does and doesn’t constitute a legal marriage? What I’m asking is why the state gets involved in who should be married and why it should allow itself to determine what constitutes a marriage between two consenting adults. Apart from protecting its citizens from activities like bigamy, incest, wedding underage children – including arranged marriages, and inter-species marriage, why should the state get involved in what is primarily a religious convention? It seems that the state can tax married couples without a problem and can require a license before couples can marry (presumably to prevent diseases and incest) ; why is it a problem if the couple happens to be of the same sex? If the state were to treat all couples the same, whether married in a church ceremony or a civil one, wouldn’t the various religions still be able to decide who should or shouldn’t be anointed by a marriage rite?
March 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
So Godwinned.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
…where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy.
Honestly man, your so intelligent and talk about skepticism and then do some fear-mongering nonsense like this. Honestly, we are in a theocracy? Do you know the definition of a theocracy? In a theocracy do you honestly think there be freedom of speech or religion, do you think this blog would exist, let alone exist without any realistic or rational fear of government censor? Or any of the numerous secular, skeptic, atheist societies, clubs, conventions, organizations could openly exist and operate as they do freely in this nation without fear of government shutdown? Or art that mocks religion? Or the fact you and I can freely speak or write out against religions?
No one is forced to worship any particular god by the state, or made by government law to attend a house of worship, or to pray, or to tithe, or even to respect religion, so excuse me while I dismiss outright your idea we live in a theocracy. I do not see the evidence. This is no different then those religious conservatives who cry up and down that they will be oppressed and their religious freedom is about to be wiped out by the secular government of this nation.
No different.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I am sorry, but the US is NO WHERE near being a theocracy. If anything, we are further away from being a theocracy than at any point in our history. Just because many of those in the current administration happen to be evangelical Christians does not a theocracy make. But elsewhere, religious attendance is far below what they were during most times in our history (though not nearly at the depths seen in Europe). The percentage of Americans who do not ascribe themselves to a particular faith is higher than at most points in our history.
I don’t know. I am a Catholic and yes, I am a Republican (please put the tar and feathers down, I saw the first episode of the John Adams miniseries last week, tar and feathering looks rather painful…). I don’t want a theocracy in this country. I much prefer a secular society and government because it guarantees that I have the right to worship how I want (yes, I am a scientist and I pray at church, what heresy!) And, shock, I want evolution taught in schools, and not creationism or what ever they are calling it these days. The latter can be discussed in church, where it belongs. But it really irks me when people assume that just because there are a few nutty Christians, that the whole group is. I believe there is a word for such ideas….
March 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
” . . . .how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasn’t already.”
And I hereby assert that Phil is turning into a three-headed tree sloth from Venus . . . if he hasn’t already.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Jason Perry, would you rather we Waterboard you instead?
March 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Will, as much as marriage is seen as a religious ceremony by today’s culture, I’m not really sure that marriage has its original roots in religion.
The point of marriage, from a social standpoint, even dating back to ancient times, is to place a set of rules around certain societal elements, such as the handling of property, protection and succession of bloodlines, and as a way to certify a man’s “rights” or “ownership” of his mate. Marriage in early cultures was seen as a contract to solidify these principals, IIRC, and this surved a purpose in ensuring the survival and perpetuation of the society, even pre-dating Egyptian and later Greek and Roman concepts of marriage.
The concept of marriage as not just a contract but as a holy sacrament I think is attributed to St. Paul, and comes much later in human history than the simple “contractual marriage” that existed before that.
So I guess what I’m saying is that from a societal standpoint, laws and rules regarding legal unions of people has had an important place for the survival of the species. I would however state that I don’t think it’s always been regulated properly from a legal standpoint, this country (US) especially included. I think the institution of marriage from a civil standpoint, needs to be treated in a more secular way than it is… just like other aspects of government and law should be, IMHO.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
@ BMcP
“Honestly man, your so intelligent and talk about skepticism and then do some fear-mongering nonsense like this. Honestly, we are in a theocracy? Do you know the definition of a theocracy?”
First… take a breath. Second, do you understand the difference between the statement “We ARE in a theocracy” and the phrase “this country is turning INTO a theocracy”? You even quoted the line yourself! One implies that we are there already (what YOU said). The other argues that we are headed that way (what was actually said). Now, you can argue that point, and i think it’s rational to do so… I’m not entorely sure I agree with BA on that point myself. Although I respect his reasoning for proposing the thought and am more than willing to enter into a dialog on the issue. But you went off on the post without actually understanding the tense of the statement. Poor job on your part.
@ Jason Perry
I guess I can’t argue with your post in general, although I would point out that church attendance figures are not necessarily a relevant statistic in determining a culture’s slide into theocracy. You don’t need a majority of the populace attending church to support the claim, you just need enough people in power to have the affect of a theocracy. And maybe I’m wrong, but my guess is that BA’s meaning isn’t that we are going to become an “actual” theocracy, but that the people we keep putting in power might have the inclination to operate the governament from a theocratic point of view.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Iran under the Ayatollah’s would more closely resemble a Theocracy IMHO. I would not want to live there. Honestly, I really do not think it could happen here. Don’t forget, in the US, you hold elections every 4 years, and here in Canada, every, at most 5.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I would tend to agree, Michael. And as I said, I’m not sure I agree that we are really on the brink of theocracy.
However, important to that point is the persistent vigilance of those who would bring things to light to make sure that a theocracy is not put in place under our noses without us as a society even realizing it. And that’s the danger of allowing laws to be passed that begin to chip away at the principles of a secular government… it doesn’t take long to do the damage… but it could take generations to undo it.
That’s why at the very least the discussion has merit, and the topic deserves attention.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Dear Celtic_Evolution,
The quote of belief on his part was:
This weekend is the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasnâ??t already. — Emphasis mine.
It is this last part that I find most troubling of them all. He is suggesting that this nation is on some road to rule by religious leaders in the name of a god, if we have not reached this point already.
Well I must admit I am not an absolute expert on U.S. government, but last time I checked we have no religious leaders who rule over us as part of the government. This nation cannot even claim a state religion let alone all the trapping of theocracy. So I argue the idea of America heading towards or may be a theocracy isentirely without merit.
This country may be a religious one culturally and socially, and religious institutions and denominations have influence on government because of the number of members and supporters they have, but that has nothing to do with theocracy, but how in democracy, those with the most supporters tend to have the most influence. We do not have a supreme religious leader or authority and our laws are not based on any holy texts or writ. We may have religious men and women in office, but the offices themselves are entirely secular and there has been no move within the government to make them otherwise. So yes, I do scoff at his statement because the bathwater has no baby in it.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
@ Celtic_Evolution
The quote of belief on his part was:
This weekend is the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasnâ??t already. — Emphasis mine.
It is this last part that I find most troubling of them all. He is suggesting that this nation is on some road to rule by religious leaders in the name of a god, if we have not reached this point already.
Well I must admit I am not an absolute expert on U.S. government, but last time I checked we have no religious leaders who rule over us as part of the government. This nation cannot even claim a state religion let alone all the trapping of theocracy. So I argue the idea of America heading towards or may be a theocracy isentirely without merit.
This country may be a religious one culturally and socially, and religious institutions and denominations have influence on government because of the number of members and supporters they have, but that has nothing to do with theocracy, but how in democracy, those with the most supporters tend to have the most influence. We do not have a supreme religious leader or authority and our laws are not based on any holy texts or writ. We may have religious men and women in office, but the offices themselves are entirely secular and there has been no move within the government to make them otherwise. So yes, I do scoff at his statement because the bathwater has no baby in it.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
@ BMcP
Ok, understood… however, you didn’t include that part of BA’s quote in your initial post, and you still make your argument as if the statement were presented as fact. The very inclusion of the inquisitive “if” should confer to you that there is a question… He didn’t choose to follow it up by sayin “I believe that it has already happened”. He posed the question… IF. Perhaps you infer from that that he is insinuating it is fact. I choose to let the comment stand on its own.
As I said, my response to his inquiry to “if” would be no… I don’t think we are at that point, and don’t believe we are on the precipice… at least not yet. But that doesn’t mean I can’t see where the argument comes from, or that I don’t agree with the need for vigilance, lest we do end up in that position.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Celtic: How very true. I don’t think we are that far along here in Canada, although we do have a Conservative government that does have some elements similar to the Republican Party in the States, we use the British Parliamentary system. We voted them in, but have given them a VERY short leash in the form of a Minority Government. In order to get anything done, they have to work with one or more of the Opposition parties. This does have it’s advantages, and has worked surprisingly well with this Conservative Government. I’m more moderate in my politics, and at this point, there really are no other alternatives here in Canada.
The PM is an Evangelical Christian, but tends not to wear it on his sleeve, at least at this point. Now, if the Conservatives ever got a Majority, that MAY change.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[I guess that’s why St. Paul supported slavery then. “Slaves obey your masters…”]]
You haven’t read the letter to Philemon, have you?
St. Paul never questioned slavery as an institution. The idea that you might have a society without slavery never occurred to him. That doesn’t mean he “supported slavery.” He was giving practical advice to people when he told slaves to obey their masters. What was he going to say — “Disobery your masters! Be like Spartacus!” (And maybe share Spartacus’s fate.)
When the time came for him to put his money where his mouth was — Onesimus and Philemon — he arranged for the slave to be freed. What have you done about slavery, Michael?
I can give you the contact information for Antislavery International again, if you’ve lost it.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
What have I done about slavery?
Probably as much as or more than you have through the church I had attended at one time. I have donated thousands to anti-poverty campaigns helping entrepreneurs in Third World countries be able to expand their small businesses and create jobs. I also have been involved in the Fair Trade Movement, supporting businesses and buying Fair Trade products. While the things I involve myself in, such as providing micro loans for those entrepreneurs may not be part of the organization that you mention, it certainly helps to alleviate slave labor, child labor and the curse of extreme poverty.
I can give you info on Fair Trade, ONE campaign, KIVA, DATA and other organizations I have supported?
(Don’t assume that you are the only one that “puts” his money where his mouth is. While I may not attend a church anymore, I try to make sure a certain percentage of my income goes to worthwhile projects.)
Oh, and before I forget, most every Saturday I, along with another friend could be found walking the seediest street in Edmonton, (118th Ave.) passing out sandwiches and buying coffee for the homeless in -25 Celsius temperatures, when I lived there. Now, you were saying?
(Sorry folks, that was not meant to be a rant about all the good I have done, as I am sure many of us have done more, but I get tired of BPL making unfounded accusations and assumptions, and the fact that he fails to actually READ previous entries.)
Again, you have failed to actually read all of my previous posts, because if you had done, you would have seen that I already addressed the biblical slavery issue in either this thread or a previous one. You are correct in stating that Paul did not address the issue of slavery because it was a part of his society, as was the denigration of women. I was responding to your statement concerning a life of slavery being no picnic in his day, and making the point that the Bible seemingly gives it a seal of approval.
You also fail to have read my post where I stated very clearly that it was the Evangelical Christian church that was a part of the Anti-slavery movement. How nice that one can pick and choose what one wants and present it as a twisting of what another individual has said.
Well, that comes as no surprise, really. A good many Christians (and atheists) are good at taking important statements (like Scripture verses), and twisting them to say what they want them to.
BPL, if you are not going to bother to actually read what myself, and other individuals write, do us all a favor, and keep your narrow opinions to yourself. I for one get tired of having to re-state what I have already written.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Gee, Barton, maybe read this again:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Maybe if Paul had spent as much time speaking against the injustices of slavery in his day, as he did against homosexuality in Romans and Corinthians, the slave trade could have been stopped far sooner, sparing the lives of untold millions of men, women and children.
I guess since Paul wasn’t a slave, but a very privileged Roman citizen, he didn’t really feel the need to speak out against it. Funny, how he had no problem telling women to shut their mouths in church? How they should obey and be submitted to their husbands? I know there is another part to that, I did teach this at one time, but conveniently, most “God fearing” *cough**choke* men tend to forget about that part. If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?
Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”.
I find it interesting that many who post here have studied the Bible, and come to the same conclusions about it that I have. Maybe you actually need to hear what those people are saying, but not only WHAT, but WHY they are saying it.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[I was responding to your statement concerning a life of slavery being no picnic in his day, and making the point that the Bible seemingly gives it a seal of approval.]]
I know. And I was pointing out that the Bible actually does no such thing, and that those who think it does are reading it superficially.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?]]
“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.
[[Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”. ]]
I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian. My mother, of course, is Beverly Levenson Darwin, who founded Squirrel Hill NOW in Pittsburgh (you know, the one Ellie Smeal joined) and Metrolina NOW in Charlotte. Betty Friedan stayed at our house when she came to Charlotte to debate Phyllis Schlaffly. I myself was a lobbyist for NOW and pushed the ERA extension (unsuccessfully) to congressmen and senators from North Carolina. (We skipped Jesse Helms’s office.)
Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.
Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.
Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am
@ BPL
“Iâ??m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because Iâ??m a Christian.”
Where does Michael accuse YOU of being anti-woman? I must’ve missed that part. But thanks for stating it as fact and then espousing upon it.
Right or wrong, (and I’m not saying I support his claim or not), Michael’s point is that the idea of the “submissive woman” seems to be a common theme within Christianity. Wasn’t that the reason the story of Lilith, who preceded Eve in original biblical texts, was thrown out? Because she was created from the same earth as Adam, and not created from Adam and therefor an equal? Lilith refused to be seen as less than ean equal, uttered the true name of God and ascended to the heavens. God sent arch-angels to retrieve her, she refused, and thus God created Eve from Adam’s rib… making her a creation from man and therefor subservient. Or do I not have this story correct?
Either way, Barton, your work with NOW is really good to hear and is to be commended. I applaud that… But please don’t accuse Michael of accusing you of being anti-woman, when his statement was clearly meant as a generalization, IMHO.
As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.
Barton gives an excellent example of this when he quotes Paul:
“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
OK… well, to ME, this is in NO way a condemnation of slavery or bigotry. I could easily interpret that as “yes, you may be a slave… and yes, you may be a woman, but we all are children of the Lord”. Now how is that in any way a statement against slavery? It isn’t. And I think Michaels point is that a person of Paul’s influence could have easily come out with far stronger positions against slavery and proper treatment of women. Regardless of the era, wrong is wrong, and if it’s wrong in the eyes of the Lord today, as I’m sure you would state slavery and abuse are, then was it not wrong in the eyes of the Lord then? So why not speak out against it, and in no uncertain terms? Not vaguely to be left to interpretation. Maybe I’m speaking incorrectly for Michael here, but I think that was his point… it wasn’t to label you as “anti-woman”, and claiming that he did so I think is unnecessarily inflammatory.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:52 am
BPL said:
“I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian.”
I’m always amused when Christians assume I must be anti-Christian because I no longer follow…
Pot calling kettle black?
“Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.”
Correct, and my point exactly. Paul does state that there is neither Greek, nor Jew, now male nor female. In fact, one could argue that Paul ELEVATED the status of women. BUT, it is the individuals that have taken Paul’s words and twisted them. My point about Paul taking a stand merely means if he had come out and clearly condemned slavery, clearly condemned the abuse of women, there would have been no gray areas that would leave his teachings open to abuse.
When I ministered in the church, I spent a great deal of time covering Paul’s teachings on women in the church, and how one needs to interpret the Bible, not only based on what is being said, but also through the cultural lens of the writer.
BPL said
“Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.”
That is a very sad story, and you did exactly what I would have done. Sadly, in the ultra conservative denomination I was part of, many pastors would have told that woman to “buck it up” and stand by her man. Thankfully, as younger leaders are taking over, that attitude is passing away. I’ve never sat across from someone that has responded in that way, but I have counseled battered wives with children. I think you gave her some wise words. In that situation one has to throw themselves at the mercy of the legal system.
“Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.”
Not true. I have studied Paul’s life extensively, and, I do understand that his teachings have been misinterpreted by both sides. Even if one does not agree with his message, one has to admire the fact that he, almost single-handedly spread Christianity throughout much of the Roman world, against incredible hardships.
As far as me misunderstanding you, BPL, that goes both ways.
Hopefully this response will clear up some of that.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Celtic states:
“As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.”
That is the problem when dealing with such an emotional issue, and Paul’s teaching tend to be a lightning rod for people on both sides.
You are correct in stating that I was not labeling BPL as anti-woman.
I think an example of this kind of interpreting scriptures in different ways is perfectly illustrated by the number of denominations present within Christianity. It’s not just a matter of Catholic/Protestant, but each division breaks down even further. For example, there are dozens of Baptist denominations, that may all believe basically the same thing, but have a different view on one passage that causes them to split from other Baptists.
(Apologies to BA – this was not meant to be a scriptural debate.)
May 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Interesting information for anyone wanting to learn more about the REAL Michael Lonergan (from above), who he is and what he’s about…
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/Home/JudgmentsfromAllCourts/tabid/72/ctl/searchJudgmentsResult/mid/662/Default.aspx
very consistent with his current blog… http://starbirdcanada.wordpress.com
He certainly is a model citizen for protection of women and children!!!