It’s no secret many XGW readers feel religion is disproportionately wielded politically by the right. Jerry Falwell’s column at the WorldNetDaily takes aim at a new group called the Christian Alliance for Progress. Based on their webpage, primary goals focus on:
economic justice
responsible environmental stewardship
LGBT equality
“effective prevention” vs. criminalizing abortion
seeking peace
universal health care
Falwell responds by labeling this group un-Christian, (even in the headline of his column) and accuses them of falsely portraying Jesus as a “hippie do-gooder.” (Yes, he used that exact phrase; I don’t just make this stuff up.)
I’m sorry, but I grew up in a community where one is free to disagree on religion and politics but there is NOTHING more singularly offensive and elitist than labeling someone un-Christian or anti-American as the conservative media does regularly without hesitation. You can yell, you can scream, you can even use some choice 4-letter words, but the way I was raised, under no circumstances do you ever call someone who believes they are working to improve their religion of country “un-American” or “un-Christian” no matter how much you disagree.
Fox News isn’t above this either. For your viewing pleasure here’s a FoxNews Channel report discussing how “pro-American/patriotic” movies do better at the box office. One host is perfectly open about his categorization of “Homosexual themed” films as un-American. This example I also find exceptionally offensive and morally elitist.
Is that a “W doll” I spy on the top right?
(Video put together by OverSpun.com, one of my favorite blogs)
No doubt Falwell believes Jesus of Nazareth was a pinstriped suit-wearing Pharisee battling the wicked hippie do-gooders that ruled Judaism and the Roman Empire.
Reminds me of this letter:
I wouldn’t put much stock in Faux News, if I were you. What sealed it for me was an incident during the spring of 2001. The Chinese had forced down a US surveillance plane. Faux News was “covering” it 24/7. Early one morning, one of their commentators (I hesitate to call them reporters) said that they would continue to talk about it even though they didn’t have the slightest idea what was going on.
I literally rolled on the floor, laughing.
BTW, Mike, it’s WorldNutDaily. Falwell has a column over at WorldNutDaily? Looks like he’s trying to drum up some business. This televangelist stuff requires some serious cash.
And, yes, I’m lampooning both Falwell and WorldNutDaily.
Just to remind you, on a serious note, WorldNutDaily is an artifact of Joseph Farah, a creature from the Reagan Administration. I am not unfamiliar with these people. Farah figured out how to get a “gig,” as did Brent “Bozo” (L. Brent Bozell) of the Media Research Center. It isn’t rocket science. It’s about money.
Oh, Mike, btw, I get most of my news from European sources. The BBC is a good one. Euronews.net. Der Spiegel, and the Sueddeutscher (you have to be able to read German–which I can). DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur), another German language source.
American sources are too beholden to the US government to have any degree of reliability. And the fact that the UPI is owned by the Moonies is only another problem.
I don’t do French–yet. I hope to be able to parse the AFP someday.
It’s fascinating to read Falwell’s column, because of what he clearly misses. The very same criticism, in general not specifics, can and has been made about his “religion.” I remember very clearly being taught in my Catholic high school that “religions” that had not linkage to the Apostles were not “Christian” and were considered heretical. This includes Baptists, Mormons, and all the nondemoninational evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant churches, with which Falwell and their ilk are associated. Their “bibles” are considered blasphemy.
Does Falwell REALLY want that kind of religious war going on in this country? Because I think he may find that many of his so-called allies in the “family values” movement would turn on him in a heartbeat if we really got into a theological debate.
Actually, everything but the first sentence of my previous post was quoted from the letter I linked to. I originally put them in italics to show they were quotes, but those italics seem to have been stripped out of my post somehow. Please rest assured, I harbor no such misconceptions.
Actually, the author, one ‘Billie Miller’, seems to express the views of what appears to be over 90% of all US Christians in her essay. This looks to be, to my eye at least, an expression of the majority sentiment of Christians in the US. And yes I know that there is a small contigent that would disagree with her.
Skemono —
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have read the letter!
I don’t know what happened to your italics, but in any case, I’ve amended your original comment to include blockquoting. Let me know if you object.
Dale —
What sources justify your statistical assertion?
The Baptist Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, the Mennonites, Pax Christi, the Quakers, Sojourners, Bread for the World, and Wikipedia indicate to me that Christians are not uniformly the warrior-cultists that you seem to believe.
I never said that Christians were uniformly warrior cultists. I did say that the majority were. This is based on my reading of the evangelical and general conservative Christian press. As far as I can tell, the groups you mention have very little presence in the world of conservative Christians. In the US, that is. Canadian and European Christian presentations do tend to show them and their ideas. But my reading shows me, at least, that the groups you mention have very little influence among their fellow believers.
Looking at the information sources that emanate from conservative Christianity: Agape, Christianity Today, WND; I do not see the groups you mention as being very influential. Nor as having much of a following. The views these groups put forth are ones I tend to agree with. I respect and admire most of them while understanding that on glbt issues many leave much to be desired. But I also realize that these groups are rather small compared to most c/eC outfits. And that they do not have much media presense or influence among the regular e/c Church. Bruce Bawer’s book title comes to my mind: Stealing Jesus.
My frame of mind is that while the groups you mention have been busy doing what they see as their work and focus, e/c Christians not in tune with them have snarfed off the religion. Leaving a remnent to point to when showing a balance or range of views is needed.
My other thought is that if the groups you mentioned spent as much time, and were as effective, in fighting the religious right as they are in demanding people take them seriously, we would not be in our present circumstances. IMHO, the groups you mention are not taking the situation seriously.
Dalea,
“I never said that Christians were uniformly warrior cultists. I did say that the majority were.”
Careful here. It isn’t intellectually honest to suggest that the media outlets of the fringe right of evangelical Christians is representative of Christians in general (or the majority thereof). It would be a bit like me deducing the beliefs of the majority of Wiccans from reading Harry Potter. 😉
I did a quick and simple count of the numbers associated with conservative vs. liberal denominations (with respect to gay issues) in the US. This was a very rough estimate and assumed broad things such as all Catholics are negative and all Episcopalians are supportive (neither of which is true). Anyway, based on this loose calculation, between one quarter and one third of church goers attend a place of worship that at least takes the position that gay people are welcome members of the congregation and should not be denied civil rights or be reoriented.
And (based on my personal observation) a significant portion of any conservative church body are much less hostile than the official stance. Even more are apathetic.
Additionally, the numbers are skewed against us in that the “against us” number counts all nominal Catholics – the average attendance per Catholic church is 2,380 (certainly an inflated number). All other denominations average in the lower half of the hundreds.
It would be kind of hard to support the claim that “the majority of Christians” are warrior cultist. Anyone wanting to play with the numbers can look at
https://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
It isn’t intellectually honest to suggest that the media outlets of the fringe right of evangelical Christians is representative of Christians in general (or the majority thereof)
As long as I have been looking at this issue the ‘fringe’ has been consistently expanding. When I began, WND was regarded as fringe. Agape was ‘conservative’. And, over and over again it was emphasized the Christianity Today was ‘moderate’, if not ‘liberal’. As far as I can tell, CT is a less flamboyant version of WND. And Agape has gone over into total wing nut territory. Increasingly, CT appears to be a total right wing publication.
Where are the moderates?
I feel it would help matters if instead of dumping on people who point out the takeover of the Christian faith by the right wing, concerned persons concentrated their energy on battling the right wing with right wing weapons. Like screaming , yelling and throwing things. Like making as big a fuss as the wing nuts are willing to do. I have probably said enough at this point. Best stop before I get myself into trouble.
Where are the moderates?
It’s like asking “Where are the moderate Americans?” It’s the same thing, and the answer is the same.
Moderate Americans are tired of conservative Americans claiming that conservative Americans are the only true Americans, but they don’t speak up and complain.
Moderate Americans are simply not energized with the passions of conservative Americans for a whole host of reasons, probably the principle one being that zealotry and moderation as generally exclusive qualities.
Moderate Americans are bombarded by media owned by conservative Americans. They grumble and complain about it, but don’t do anything beyond that. Meanwhile moderate American voices are drowned out by the well-organized Conservative American cacophany.
Moderate Americans are very nice and reasonable people, and disdain getting down in the mud with conservative Americans. In the opinion of some moderate Americans, moderates are probably a little too nice for their own good.
Okay now.
Replace “American” with “Christian” in all of those statesments and you’ll understand where the moderate Christians are.
So yes, WND is fringe, and Agape is conservative. Those statements are still as true as the American Spectator and the Washington Times.
Just to let you know, it’s WorldNutDaily.
And Agape Press, run by AFA’s Wildman, is even more fringe than WorldNutDaily