IIRC, witnesses are selected by a simple majority vote of the subcommittee. It would be interesting to see a list of proposed witnesses if one exists and is online. I saw some of the testimony yesterday on PBS's News Hour, and thought Feingold came across very well.

FYI, here's the URL for the webpage on the hearings that were held yesterday:

"Judicial Activism vs. Democracy: What are the National Implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge Decision and the Judicial Invalidation of Traditional Marriage Laws? "

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1072

See also Anna Quindlen's column from this week (08MAR04) Newsweek:

Recently a man who was enraged by my column sent an e-mail with an exultant sign-off line. He said that in closing he was not only going to mention God, he was going to captialize the G because he knew it made liberals like me crazy.

Five of the seven sacraments (they won't give me holy orders and I'm not ready for last rites), 10 years with the nuns, a chuch wedding, three baptized babies, endless fights as they grew over why they had to go to mass on Sunday and a fair amount of prayer, and it's all wiped out in a single assumption about the nexus between left-leaning politics and atheism. A widespread assumption, too, and one that has come to color, even poision, American political discourse. It was inevitable that the opposite of the religious right would becdome the irreligious left. It just doesn't happen to be accurate.

...

It is, in fact, a item of faith among the rabid Christian right that all liberals are atheists and hate Christianity. You can tell them otherwise, show them otherwise, till you're blue in the face, and they still won't believe it.

This is one of the vilest lies that the cynical right wing has promulgated. The games with the testimony on the FMA is just part of their attack. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee even noticed.

Not even all Witches hate Christianity. It's not for me, but I see it doing good for the people it's good for. (If you like that sort of thing, it's the sort of thing you like.) You know what I mean.

I sing in the choir of an Episcopal church. A really, really LEFTIE Episcopal church; it was the first place where an openly gay man was ordained a priest, and the original parish home of The Oasis, which is the Episcopal Church's outreach to the LGBT community.

Damned good people. Well, not damned...you know what I mean. :-)

What about The Reverend Mr. Gene Robinson, the recently consecrated Episocopalian bishop of New Hampshire? I am not being snarky when I say that Mr. Robinson could bring a unique perspective since he thought of himself as straight, or at least tried to act straight, for many years and has certainly had to think about himself and his God to pass muster and be recommended to the bishopric.

I, myself, am UCC. I am going to call our national office tomorrow and ask where they are in this fight. I don't mean where they stand. We are an open and affirming denomination, but where the witnesses are.

If those senators keep misbehaving, I'm going to have to tell my mom.

I was surprised to find out that Judge Roy Moore opposes a federal marriage amendment.
Funny ol' world, isn't it?

Most of you probably know that I was raised in a pretty whacko-Fundamentalist church. It's not an experience I'd recommend, but it does leave me with personal memories of how it feels to be on the other side of the line. And there is a line, most definitely. Informally, that line is one of the things Fundamentalism is all about.

Fundamentalists...well, let me narrow that. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and a number of other churches theologically close to them, such as the Orthodox Presbyterian, are passionate about their persecution by the secular world. It's a topic that comes up frequently, in sermons and prayer meetings and in casual conversation. I assume that this is true for most Fundamentalist and Evangelical sects, but I have never interacted with them, so I can't speak to what it's like outside my own tiny corner. Southern Baptists were clearly heretics going to hell, mainstream Presbyterians were betrayers of the faith with lax morals and going to hell, and Catholics all worshipped the saints and the Pope and, as idolators, were going to hell.

The claim that members of the RPCNA are under constant persecution comes as a surprise to most of us who live in the real world. It's easy to dismiss them as loony-tunes, or power-grasping, or playing the propaganda machine. While any individual might be one or the other or all three, the actual institution is not. It is a strongly held belief, and one that informs their actions.

The key, as usual, is definitions. What do they really mean by "persecuted"? I don't see lions, do you? No mass crucifixions, no "heretics" burning at the stake, what coud they possibly mean?

They mean that living in the secular world is a persecution. Every time a co-workeer swears, they are being persecuted by having to listen to such language. Every time the corporate picnic starts without grace being said over the food is a persecution. If the company Christmas party serves alcohol, then they cannot attend, and so are persecuted twice.

Television persecutes them. It's not the watching of it that constitutes the persecution, but the fact that television broadcasts things of which they disapprove. They are persecuted in the schools because there is no prayer and because science is taught while the Bible (their particular interpretation) is not taught. They are constantly oppressed everywhere by our cultural belief that it is possible to be a good person without ascribing to their particular dogma regarding sin and salvation. Comparative religion courses are the devil's own tool.

Asked the right questions, and a member of the RPCNA will tell you that what is necessary is a theocracy. My mother, for instance, will not vote for anyone who is not a Christian as she defines it. Generally, that doesn't include Catholics or Episcopals. In addition to claiming a religion that she likes, the candidate has to have "demonstrated his faith" by going to church and doing other such things. I'm guessing that this is a bit farther out than many of the Fundamentalist sects go, but the RPCNA is a direct intellectual decendant of the Scottish Covenenters, and so it's excesses would tend to be in the political areas -- and papacy, but then, papacy was a political issue back in the 1600s.

Ok, you're probably rolling your eyes and wondering what the hell is going on with these people. I'm like so there with you. But there is one more piece of this that I think strongly affects why their world view is so askew from mine. They will argue (with an absolutely straight faith, and with perfect belief) that the type of persecution that Christians face now is worse than what the early Christians hiding in the catacombs faced, because it is more subtle and more pervasive.

How many here are old enough to remember the television show "The Waltons." For those of you who escaped such a fate, "The Waltons" was a fairly long-running show about a family called, originally enough, "The Waltons." The general idea was, I gather, that they were a good, homey farm family who dealt with troubles and joys by being a good, homey farm family. This was in the same era that tv news was experimenting with putting "good" news on the air, instead of just "bad" news. "The Waltons" was an attempt to put a good, wholesome television show on the air instead of another unwholesome messages.

My parents excercised absolute veto power over our television watching. It Was Decreeed that we were not allowed to watch "The Waltons" because it was tooo subversive. It showed images of people being good, god-fearing, church-going people who didn't believe in Christ's sacrifice, the redemption of sin, and the election of the saints, and the existence of eternal torment. (I don't think they objected to the lack of predestination.) On the other hand, I was given permission to watch "M*A*S*H" because there was no chance that I could mistake those characters as Christians.

It's easy to trash this type of belief system, I do it myself as a hobby. However, I think that is also important to understand it. This is what you're up against. You're not arguing about the same thing they are arguing about. Maybe there is no way to discuss this rationally with a Fundie -- gods know I haven't found one, yet. I've been at it for 23 years, on and off, ever since I left the faith -- rather more dramatically than I intended to -- at the age if 18. This is what you're up against, though. You're simple existence constitutes persecution.

Thank you for a very informative post. I have a question. How come these folks don't follow their faith in the same way as say the Amish? Do they really want all the benefits of "modernity" and none of the responsiblities?

"Your simple existence constitutes persecution".

This truth needs to be repeated. Over, and over, and over.

The Quindlen column James quoted really spoke for me in a lot of ways. I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that the Christians who aren't like the fundies Lydy's talking about are not comfortable Jesusizing our public lives. I told an acquaintance recently, "We're the quiet, lovey, almost-hippie-Jesus kind of Christians." After a startled pause, she said, "I didn't know there were that kind." It's the quiet part that really does us in. We're stuck either praying on street corners as we're explicitly told not to do and shoving religion in other people's faces (also not encouraged by that Jesus guy), or ceding the label to those who do.

I know of a normal suburban church here in the Midwest with two pastors, one whose son is part of a multi-adult family group and the other whose lesbian daughter used to be her hetero son. Both PKs and their families are loved and welcomed at that church. But part of the reason we're so comfortable there is that the pastors don't do a big dance about how accepting they are. They just give hugs and move on with the singing. I think it would weaken things if they had a whole routine about how accepting they are. I've seen a lot of churches do that with race/ethnicity and scare visitors away. I don't see how it'd work any better with sexuality issues.

Maybe we need bumper stickers analogous to the "I'm pro-life and I vote" ones: "I'm Christian, and I shut my mouth." I'd like to have seen a pastor or two going before that committee to talk about how much they wanted to be able to legally marry the homosexual couples in their congregation who were already married in the eyes of God. But beyond that, I'd much rather see secular justifications for secular policies, from religious and areligious folks alike.

"Your simple existence constitutes persecution".

If we who are outside their faith are virtuous, it would remove another argument for their faith. Of course they are going to interpret that as persecution. Their backs are up against the line they have drawn in the sand.

I'd much rather see secular justifications for secular policies, from religious and areligious folks alike.

Amen. If they think they're persecuted in a secular democracy, wait until they get a theocracy, and realize it's not theirs.

Thank you for a very informative post. I have a question. How come these folks don't follow their faith in the same way as say the Amish? Do they really want all the benefits of "modernity" and none of the responsiblities?

Fundamentalism is one part of the picture, but the other is Evangelicalism. (Is that a word?) Evangelical faiths, such as the one I grew up in, believe that it is their duty to bring the gospel to the masses, and to witness to the sinful, and convert the wicked. Withdrawal from the modern world after the fashion of the Amish is very much against their belief. As long as the world is not as they want it to be, it is their sacred duty to fight to change it. Of course, once you and I are converted, we'll understand the wisdom and kindness of their views.

If we who are outside their faith are virtuous, it would remove another argument for their faith. Of course they are going to interpret that as persecution. Their backs are up against the line they have drawn in the sand.

Well, I grew up with Calvinists, so it is by definition impossible to be virtuous without having been redeemed by our Savior. Original sin and all that lot. Images of virtue that do not include sin, damnation, and redemption are especially sinful, since they paper over the evil that is in everyone, leading people away from the faith and allowing them to believe the lie that they can be saved by good works.

By definition, there is no virtue without first that person takes Christ into their life --

And dammit, I've come down with a bad case of the cant. That's the problem with being a PK. I've heard too many sermons, and fall into that style if I'm not careful.

Fundamentalism is one part of the picture, but the other is Evangelicalism. (Is that a word?) Evangelical faiths...believe that it is their duty to bring the gospel to the masses, and to witness to the sinful, and convert the wicked...As long as the world is not as they want it to be, it is their sacred duty to fight to change it. Of course, once you and I are converted, we'll understand the wisdom and kindness of their views.

In other words, resistance is futile, and we will be assimilated. Evangelism is intrinsically intolerant, because trying to convert people (unless they come to you) is an intolerant act, and required by the evangelical worldview.

And the idea that only Christians (with a pretty narrow definition of that term) can be virtuous goes by the name "religious bigotry" in the best circles (yes, word trickled down). It's no better than the idea that only white people have virtue - contained in such phrases as 'white of you' to mean 'you behaved properly'.

So they think Moses, and Elijah, and Mary and Joseph and Elizabeth and John the Baptist were entirely without virtue? Oh, never mind...it's too easy to demolish such beliefs with logic or common sense, but it only works if their ears are unstopp'd, and theirs clearly aren't.

Lydia, my sympathies for having grown up among such lunatics. I feel as if they are my perfect enemies, i.e. that they oppose everything I'm in favor of and vice versa. This is probably not actually true (I bet we agree that people shouldn't randomly murder each other, for example), but interesting.

Jesus was the biggest liberal ever. If He were here today, or should He decide to return, the religious right would be shocked to find themselves aligned with the hypocritical pharisees. I found a great site - liberalslikechrist.org - that debunks the theocon's arguments, and it's very comprehensive. The religious left is quiet by nature, but we really, really need to challenge these people this year. Now. They are perilously close to locking in power and dismantling our country. The right just cherry picks the bible while ignoring the messages of love, tolerance, humility, charity, etc. etc. It's time to throw the book at them, so to speak.

I'm all for the religious left throwing the book at the folks in this story who deserve it:

Doug Grow: 'Saving' the sexually naive - (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

One woman who opposes abortion has "saved" a handful of St. Paul boys and their fathers from participating in a program designed to promote healthy discussion of sexuality.

In fact, the voice of Darla Meyers, an abortion foe from Hudson, Wis., has echoed so loudly that the YMCA of Greater St. Paul and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota have agreed to cancel four similar parent-child events that had been scheduled in future months at the YMCA camp just south of Hudson.

"We have to be concerned with the safety of children at the camp," said Bette Fenton, a spokeswoman for the St. Paul Area YMCA in explaining why the lease to hold the four events at the Y camp was canceled.

She said the YMCA, which takes no position on abortion and has no relationship with Planned Parenthood, was committed to offering its facilities for the Saturday program. But she also said the organization had been receiving e-mails so strident in tone that it was impossible to ignore safety concerns at future events.

Saturday's program was to have been a collaboration of the St. Paul Urban League and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota. Seven fathers and their adolescent sons were to have participated in the program, designed to improve communications between parents and children when the subject is sex.

Efforts to reach Urban League officials to find out why they decided to withdraw from a program they initially helped sponsor were unsuccessful. But apparently those officials were concerned that the fathers and sons would be disturbed by the sight of protesters outside the YMCA camp.

What was there to protest?

Tough question for most of us to answer.

But Meyers doesn't tussle with it.

"Planned Parenthood speaks devil-speak," she said.

And that's why she led a crusade to close Saturday's program. ...

(http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/4645818.html)

Lydia wrote:

"Fundamentalism is one part of the picture, but the other is Evangelicalism. (Is that a word?) Evangelical faiths...believe that it is their duty to bring the gospel to the masses, and to witness to the sinful, and convert the wicked...As long as the world is not as they want it to be, it is their sacred duty to fight to change it. Of course, once you and I are converted, we'll understand the wisdom and kindness of their views."

And Christopher responded:

"In other words, resistance is futile, and we will be assimilated. Evangelism is intrinsically intolerant, because trying to convert people (unless they come to you) is an intolerant act, and required by the evangelical worldview."

Oh, horseshit. Read this guy's weblog and tell me the author is "intrinsically intolerant."

Not all "evangelicals" are fundamentalists, and not all manifestations of the evangelical impulse are intolerant or coercive. Sometimes evangelicism amounts to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, defending the vulnerable, and setting a good example. There's more than one way to bear witness in a sinful world.

Incidentally, Lydy's statement that "as long as the world is not as they want it to be, it is their sacred duty to fight to change it" is a perfectly accurate description of the religious and political views of, for instance, Martin Luther King.

There isn't anything I'd call persecution of Christians in the modern US, but there is a good bit of teasing. I didn't realize how much it faded into the background until I noticed how hostile a lot of the bumperstickers I sell are.

We're talking about "[Christian fish (no letters)] Remember when this wasn't a warning symbol?" "He's YOUR God. They're YOUR rules. YOU burn in Hell!"

The tone snuck up on me because I get most of my stickers from a supplier.

Since then, I've added some softer stuff like "God is who. Evolution is how."

In any case, I can sympathise with people who don't like getting repeatedly told that their religion is a pain, even if that religion or at least their version of it is problematic or worse for a great many people. Or do the Christians who complain of persecution always talk about the stress of having to live with those who don't agree with them rather than actual teasing?

I can see that it's a problem for the non-noisy sort of Christian to get the word out without being self-contradictory. Would "Non-proselytising
Christian" bumperstickers be over-doing it?

Maybe we could get the Christians who think they're being persecuted and the atheists who think they're being persecuted to just hang out together and stop annoying the rest of us?

Oh, about that story I noted earlier about the sex-ed camp being shut down? The same exact thing just occured in Waco when the Girl Scout troop there dropped it's involvment with a similar program for mothers and daughters when threatened by a boycott on the sales of GS cookies by local anti-abortion types.

I'd like to see the religious left come to the Girl Scouts' defense here. However, it may be that most of them are afraid to be associated with groups like Planned Parenthood. Oh well.

I empathize with Slacktivist's struggle to reclaim "evangelical" as a non-dirty word. I really had no idea there was a distiction between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist"; they were always the same thing in the small town I grew up in, so my instinctive reaction to the word is a case of the wiggins. One more term that's been perverted by its worst examples - kudos to Fred Clark for everything he's doing to publicly clean up evangelicalism's image.

Some off-the-cuff ideas for liberal Christian bumper-sticker phrases:

Jesus Loves All Marriages
Real Christians Support Diversity
Liberal Like Jesus
Christ Is In My Heart, Not My Fundament

Patrick has it right about Evangelism. I should have made more distinctions. If you combine Evangelism with Fundamentalism, you can get something rather different.

Xopher, you need to check up on the Calvinist view of salvation, it's way more convoluted than that. People born before the death of Christ, most especially Moses and Abraham and that lot, get into heaven under the old rules, the old covenant, it's usually called. After Christ dies, a new covenant is made between god and man, and then you have to play by the new rules. However, that's not good enough. In fact, it doesn't help at all. All men are born damned because of original sin, and none is good enough to get into heaven on their own tick. God decided before the world was made who was going to be let in and who was going to burn forever, and there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it, amen. That's called Election.

One of the major disputes between the Catholics and the Protestants in the time of Luther was whether good works could get you into heaven, or if it was faith alone. Calvin does Luther one better, insisting that even faith isn't enough. If you didn't win the celestial lottery, it doesn't matter how well you behave, how hard you pray, or how completely you believe.

Marlena: nobody really knows what Jesus was like. We have books written by people 50 to 80 years after his death, some of them by people who had never met him, for the purposes of advancing a particular cause. They were written in several languages, interpreted, misinterpreted, reinterpreted, and that's the ones we commonly think of as the gospels. There are other documents from the same time period which, for various reasons, are not canonical, which tell slightly different or even wildly variant versions. The argument about what Jesus was really like is no-win argument. There are no solid facts with which to base your claims. Even if both sides agree to stick to the same edition of the four gospels, the number of contradictions and variant readings is demonstrably infinite. Asserting that Jesus was like this or that is pointless. People with faith will insist that you believe the wrong thing, and people who view him as an historical figure will point out that you have no data.

Not all "evangelicals" are fundamentalists, and not all manifestations of the evangelical impulse are intolerant or coercive. Sometimes evangelicism amounts to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, defending the vulnerable, and setting a good example. There's more than one way to bear witness in a sinful world.

Patrick, you didn't read my comment carefully enough. Evangelicism is one thing; evangelism another. Evangelism is the process of trying to get other people to convert. I maintain that this is intolerant, no matter how politely it is done, because it requires the assumption that the evangelist's religion is better than the one held by the prospective convert.

Not all the methods are equally bad, to be sure. But even "leading by example" can be intolerant if it has that assumption at its core. The "resistance is futile" was specifically about Lydia's nutbar early surroundings. I probably should have made that distinction clearer.

And the fact that evangelicals do good things, which I do not deny and never have, does not change the fact that trying to get other people to change their religion is intolerant. Hello, nobody's all good or all bad, and intolerance frequently mixes with benevolent impulses; after all, if they didn't care about other people they wouldn't want to save them from Hell, now would they?

I'm coming from a place of believing that every person has different spiritual needs, and that finding a religion to fill those needs is a decision only the individual can make. Yes, if they walk into a church they're looking for it. But converting someone who's naturally suited for another religion can do that person great spiritual harm. I frequently tell people that I don't think Wicca is for them, and I've sent disaffected Christians back to church...once they admitted that it was their particular church that wasn't working for them, and not Christianity in general.

So don't give me "oh, horseshit" and send me off to look at someone who's a good guy. I'm sure some "Ex-gays" are fine people in everyday life, or even in every way, and it's with the best intentions in the world that they tell me I can stop being homosexual if I want. But they're being intolerant, just as people are when they do evangelism.

[posting from the library in my new city of Portland, Oregon]

"Maybe we need bumper stickers analogous to the 'I'm pro-life and I vote' ones: 'I'm Christian, and I shut my mouth.'

They should say Matthew 6:5 :-)

The problem with Dems rolling over is, I believe, partly attributable to exactly what our radicals say it is: a desire not to offend wealthy campaign contributors.

I hate feeling like a Naderite.

Bark! Bark!

Xopher's idea that "even 'leading by example' can be intolerant if it has that assumption at its core" is grotesque. (Leaving aside the fact that, Xopher's quotation marks notwithstanding, I never said anything about "leading by example.")

I'm sorry, I've had it up to here with this particular brand of nonsense.

Xopher,

If you'd discovered a particularly good book, or flavor of soda pop, or new way to do pasta, you'd want to share it with your friends, ne? Some of them don't like soda, so you probably wouldn't push the soda on them, but you might not know that one of them was bit by a plate of pasta when they were a child, and attempt to recommend the pasta recipe.

Evangelism is kind of like that. Here you have this beautiful thing that you'd like to share, that you hope that your friends and loved ones will value as much as you do. It doesn't become evil just because it's religion. Did you never stay up until 4:00 in the morning and argue about the meaning of life with friends? What's the difference between that and arguing that polytheism has its merits?

It's been pointed out to me that some might think I was implying that Slacktivist had something to do with the Ex-Gays. I by no means think so, and apologize to anyone who thought I was saying so. The Ex-Gays were intended as an example of people who are obviously intolerant in one way, but who might be good people in every other.

The point was that the best people do bad things on occasion. I think trying to get people to change their religion is one of those bad things.

I'm prepared to admit that my comment about "leading by example" (or, as Patrick said, "setting a good example" - not the same thing, but this applies to both) might have been over the top. I think my religion is the best one for me, and that people who want me to change my religion are wanting something that will do me harm, pure though their hearts may be of a harmful impulse toward me. A good example is still a good example, though.

The problem with a bumper sticker reading "Matthew 6:5" is that most people who see it will roll their eyes and see another Christian preaching at them, rather than looking it up and reading it and going, "Oh, they're on my team, in a way!" Christians are pretty bad at bumper stickers. I saw one that said, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." I know that was meant to combat a sense that Christians were arrogant in their own goodness, and yet the friends I was riding with (an atheist, two agnostics, and a Jew) agreed that it sounded smug to them, as if Christians claimed to be more forgiven than anyone else. I still have a juvenile attachment to, "Jesus Loves You, But the Rest of Us Think You're a Jerk." But that isn't really what we're going for here.

I agree with you, Lydy: we don't know what Jesus was really like in detail, and it's a bad idea to try to claim that we do. There are people who try to live his message (as best they know it) in various political directions, leaving aside those who don't really care how best to lead a life of loving their neighbors. I don't really feel comfortable telling someone that Jesus for-sure said something was or was not the province of Caesar -- if He dodged that particular question so neatly, I probably shouldn't attribute my own views to Him.

Nobody made me the grand arbiter of what is and is not "really" Christian. (Some days I have to repeat this many, many times as I read about various intolerant yahoos. But it's still true then.) If I go around pointing my finger at the "fake" Christians, I'm no better than the ones who think they know God's plan for everybody in intimate detail and are more than willing to share it.

Unfortunately, "We don't really know" is a position that seems to be hard to get across to people as a valid philosophical stance -- it's not a good soundbite. It's very vulnerable to people who claim they do know but who actually are on shaky ground at best. Another case of a virtue being a political weakness. Sigh.

Lydia, I don't see anything wrong with arguing that polytheism has its merits. When I do that, and I have, I'm not trying to get you to become a polytheist, just to help you understand why I'm one. It may seem like a fine distinction to you, but for me it's vital: in my religion, we're forbidden to proselytize. This is in the context of a religion that doesn't believe it has the one, true, and only way, mind you; see my comments (which came up after you posted) about the harm in converting people away from their best-fit religion.

And I know the impulse of which you speak. I've had to reign myself in firmly about the Atkins diet, for example. I do tell people how great I feel, but I keep putting in the words 'for me' and suchlike. "It's working great for me" is one thing; "You should try it" is quite another; "I bet you could do it if you wanted to" is kind of borderline.

By that same token, I've had terrific conversations with people who said lots of "from a Christian perspective," and "we believe," or best yet "I believe that..." I don't feel proselytized or evangelized by those conversations, and I respond in kind.

Many moons ago I was in line for a film, of a Friday night, and, this being a summer blockbuster kind of evening, there were a few fundie-type people trying to save us.

I heard them, was a trifle annoyed by them, mostly because they were being obnoxious in their preaching (that I thought them wrong ran a close second).

After the better part of half-an-hour of this I broke down and pointed out that they might benefit from reading Matt 6:5.

A bit of back and forth, him informing me I needed to read John 3:10, me pointing out I had, and he might benefit from Matt 6:5.

His sidekick went to a streetlamp, and (having a bible ready to hand) read the passage, came back, tugged on the loudmouth's sleeve and took him to the light.

Whereupon I was treated to the sight of a man, flushed with choler, come up to me, in appoplectic rage and declaim, as loudly as he could manage, that, "I'm not a hypocrite, I'm trying to save your God-damned soul."

After which they left.

Terry K

(who happens to find the sentiment in "not perfect, just forgiven" to be arrogant, and perhaps bordering on pride... but as one reared Catholic, I happen to think works and grace are needed, when I ponder redemption. I recall being told I was probably going to hell because I was unwilling to think I was already saved)

I think "not perfect, just forgiven" depends a lot on context. The problem with bumper stickers is that you can't control the context.

Terry, maybe you should have suggested Matthew 6:6 instead. Matthew 7:1 is also good, and if he complains that you're not getting his point, you can always shrug and say "Matthew 7:6".

We're all working from the same bible, more or less. In the light of our political challenge and the enormous influence that dominionists have on the bushco strategy for reelection - my point is this: the democratic/liberal/progressive agenda has just as much claim to christian legitimacy as the religious right. In my opinion we have a much stronger claim. If the religious right insists on playing politics on this particular field, we can respond. The values of humility, charity, forgiveness and tolerance belong to liberals. That's what makes us "bleeding hearts" and worthy of scorn to them. Buy these values were taught by Jesus over and over again. We can parse the fine points till next Tuesday, but I'm just saying let's not cede God to the right.

Xopher, you and I are just destined to disagree in Patrick's blog as often as we agree in Teresa's. You write:

Evangelism is the process of trying to get other people to convert. I maintain that this is intolerant, no matter how politely it is done, because it requires the assumption that the evangelist's religion is better than the one held by the prospective convert.

Evangelism has nothing to do with trying to get other people to convert. It has to do with educating people about what you believe in. It is true that it's generally done in the hopes that people will convert, or at least reconsider their religious path, but it's not inherently about conversion.

The word you are searching for (and, in fact, use later) is proselytization, a process you and several other people here should be extremely familiar with, in re: another thread.

They are not the same thing.

On top of which, the attitude you describe is not inherently intolerant. If someone truly, deeply believes in their heart that someone who doesn't follow their religion is going to suffer for all eternity -- and most (but not all) evangelist Christians are going to believe this -- then it's not intolerance that gets them wanting people to convert, but love and fear for one's fellow man. Yes, to you, the idea that only one religion can be right may seem repugnant, but some people do truly, deeply believe that Christianity is the only possible path to salvation. It totally bypasses concepts like 'intolerance' and goes straight to the gut.

Patrick, you didn't read my comment carefully enough. Evangelicism is one thing; evangelism another. Evangelism is the process of trying to get other people to convert. I maintain that this is intolerant, no matter how politely it is done, because it requires the assumption that the evangelist's religion is better than the one held by the prospective convert.

That's the perspective of Muslims in Iraq who aren't exactly thrilled with the thought of Christian missionaries evangelizing in their country. That's perfectly understandable, given that everyone knows Islam is the One True Religion.

It's at times like this that I'm glad to be an atheist, because I believe the way to bet is that all accounts of Ghod are a fiction. At least until Ghod comes down and says otherwise.

Tina, what would you say about people who want me to lead a heterosexual life? They could be doing this out of love and/or fear for me, if they think I would be happier, or if they think it's the only way to keep me out of hell.

I think they're intolerant, and I avoid them whenever possible. If they're sincere in their love/fear motivation, this makes it hard to wholeheartedly hate them, but avoiding them is generally sufficient.

It is my contention that ones spiritual modes are as intrinsic as ones orientation, and that such efforts are harmful, futile, and (yes) intolerant. Not to mention rude.

David: That's the perspective of Muslims in Iraq who aren't exactly thrilled with the thought of Christian missionaries evangelizing in their country.

I think they're perfectly right about this, though of course I don't think Islam is the OneTrueOnly any more than Christianity is - or Wicca, for that matter.

Evangelism is the process of trying to get other people to convert. I maintain that this is intolerant, no matter how politely it is done, because it requires the assumption that the evangelist's religion is better than the one held by the prospective convert.

I'm reminded of the guy who a few years ago called me a Fascist for calling some politician a Fascist. Humpty-Dumpty notwithstanding, words do have agreed-upon meanings, and this isn't what "intolerance" means.

intolerance . . . 2. The quality of being intolerant; refusal to allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect.

Intolerance isn't when you “assume” your belief is better than Belief X. Intolerance isn't even when you tell believers in Belief X how you feel. Intolerance is when you don't let believers in Belief X tell their side of the story. Intolerance is when you noisily protest Belief X's services. Intolerance is when you vandalize Belief X's places of worship and run believers in Belief X out of town on a rail.

It's a useful word; don't weaken it.

Xopher, I could argue that you are being intolerant, because you're as much saying their religion is wrong as you claim they are saying yours is. (I don't think that's exactly what they're saying, either, but it's a fine line, so I'll leave it alone.)

But to answer your specific question: I have no problem with people who have a genuine belief homosexuality is wrong and want to explain that to people. Where the line is crossed for me is between expressing an opinion and hoping that someone might come to agree, vs. trying to force someone to agree. Someone who says, "I believe x and I want everyone to know that I believe it and why" is not really doing any harm. It's not until they get to "And I want them all to believe it and if they don't I want to try to make it so they have no choice but to believe it or at least pretend they do" that we have problems.

On the other hand, certainly, you're free to decide to avoid evangelists. Where I stepped in is where I disagreed with the way you characterized them, that's all.

I think a good rule of thumb is if the evangelizer in question turns to the rule of law rather than persuasion and genteel conversion. --I don't mind someone trying to hand me a Jack Chick comic on the street corner; I can always say "No thank you." I do mind people who want to write their favorite scripture into civil code. It's foolish; it's not playing the game according to Hoyle, darn it--bringing truncheons to a debate society; and it bespeaks a certain sneaking lack of faith--not only in their own social skills and rhetoric, but in the very Good News we're all supposed to be bettered by.

Xopher said: By that same token, I've had terrific conversations with people who said lots of "from a Christian perspective," and "we believe," or best yet "I believe that..." I don't feel proselytized or evangelized by those conversations, and I respond in kind.

But Xopher, you were being witnessed to. That was evangelism. Chapter and verse. You may not feel as if you were being proselytized, whatever that means, but you were most certainly experiencing the receiving end of evangelism. If it was a natural, normal, and healthy expression of someone's life experience, well, that's really what it's supposed to be. The Bible (as people have been pointing out) specifically enjoin Christians from praying on street corners and other forms of public religious show.

You don't like the pushy bastards that are sure they know what's good for you better than you do, yourself. I'm there, brother. However, Xianity is awfully broad and deep, and there is almost no piece of it that is entirely meritless, just as there is no piece of it that is utterly uncorrupted. It is, after all, built by people.

Marlena: We're all working from the same bible, more or less.

Well, no, you're not. Even the ones all working from the KJV aren't really working from the same bible, when you get right down to it. Never mind the Living Word, the RSV, the NIV, the Jerusalem Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the endless other translations. _Each_ of them with critical details different from each other. You are making a completely damning assumption. For entirely too many people, religion isn't an approximation, is not a "more or less." It is a precise, defined thing with clear limits and borders. Your attempt to find common ground with people who think like that actually gives you less common ground, not more.

my point is this: the democratic/liberal/progressive agenda has just as much claim to christian legitimacy as the religious right.

Yes, and? Who defines legitimacy? This is roughly the same question as, "Who defines Jesus?" There isn't a satisfactory answer. There are only factional answers and faith. Why should you get to choose your view of Christ over Mel Gibson's or Pat Robertson's, or my mother's? What is it about your view that makes it more right? What standard can you use that would convince my mother, the most reasonable of the lot listed?

If the religious right insists on playing politics on this particular field, we can respond. The values of humility, charity, forgiveness and tolerance belong to liberals. That's what makes us "bleeding hearts" and worthy of scorn to them. Buy these values were taught by Jesus over and over again. We can parse the fine points till next Tuesday, but I'm just saying let's not cede God to the right.

Marlena, I'm sorry, but you don't understand the game. This is not a fight about who is and isn't compassionate, charitable, tolerant, and humble. It's an argument about black and white vs. color; right and wrong vs. situational ethics; monocultural vs. multicultural. Was Jesus a multiculturallist? One could argue yes, based on, for instance, the story of the Good Samaritan. One could also argue no, based on, for instance, the statement "No man comes to the Father but through me."

Absolutes vs. relatives. The absolutes almost always win, and one of the reasons is that the people who believe in relativity are embarrassed by it. They are trying to play on the absolutist's chess board, but the game they're playing is in 3D. Multi-culturalism doesn't offer simple answers, and situational ethics means constantly tailoring the answers to what's actually happening, rather than trying to force everything to fit into your world view. Relativism is the world outside of the soundbite, which is why you see the absolutists in the news so much more often.

Religion is experiential, not objective. It is not transitive. What you experienced is as real as what my mother experiences. The fact that you both call it God is hardly anybody's fault, but it is useful to remember that you are probably talking about two entirely different things.

The only reason to try to agree on a definition of Jesus is to build common ground. Arguing about who's right will not do that, it will create a greater good. As a friend of mine once told me, "It is hard to know the mind of God, but it is easy to know his work." Find the people you already have a common cause with.

Marlena,

Um, somebody pointed out to me that I'm being a shit. I'm sorry. Too many years of arguing with my relatives has left me arguing with them, instead of actually listening.

You're right. The left shouldn't let the right claim Christ's mantle. It's a sham and a shame of the worst sort. You certainly have absolutely as good a claim as the assholes on the right. On top of that, you aren't trying to argue with my mother, or Oral Roberts. You're trying to put a little spine into the moderate Christians who've been intimidated and brow-beaten by the ever-certain right into believing that there is only one, narrow, and cruel interpretation of the story of Christ on earth. I'm not your target audience.

I do think it helps if you know that you can't actually win the argument with the ones sufficiently off the map that they can't see the Christian values encapsulated in compassion and tolerance. What I forget is that they are aren't actually anything like a majority. They're my experience, but thank all the gods, my experience isn't anything like common.

Well, to be completely accurate, I told them they ought to read Matt 6:5-7.

We didn't even get to things like Peter's vision on the rooftops vs. Jesus saying the law shan't pass, not one jot, nor tittle.

Not that I was all that surprised.

Terry

There's a difference between active and aggressive evangelism.

In my experience, the Jehovah's Witnesses are on the boundary. The do the door-to-door stuff, they are pushing their version of faith, they can start to seem intrusive, but you say no, and they go away. You can communicate with them.

The problems are the drill-sergeants of evangelism, screaming in your face at the slightest mistake they perceive on your part.

Dave Bell: Regarding the door-to-door religion salesmen, we have a printed sign on our front
door that clearly and politely states they should not bother us because we are not interested. This hasn't stopped the occasional such person ringing our bell. My first response is always: "Can't you read?". They inevitably seem affronted that the sign could possibly apply to them. It's a matter of deep comfort and pride to me that I live in a country which, despite having a state religion, is one of the most secular on the planet, with one of the world's lowest levels of religious observance, but I suppose one inevitable consequence of this is going to be an increase of 'missionaries' trying to convert us. Now, if only they'd learn to read.

Lydia,
I don't think you're being a shit. You're right that the right wing is certain, certain I tell you, that they are correct. How many of them do we have in this country, 35 million? Something like that? Out of what, 245 million people? There are other viewpoints to consider. Check out liberalslikechrist.org. Ray Dubuque lays out a comprehensive argument.

I am completely sick and tired of self righteous right wingers. I don't require or want their approval. I think they are wrong about everything. I want to hear people challenge their views and push back on them in the public discourse. Let them be on the defensive for a change. Let them reconcile their exclusive view to Christ's teachings. They've been framing Jesus Christ for a long time now in this country, and I think there are many, many people of good will in the USA who would be thrilled to see people take them on in an effective way. AARGH, they are maddening people.

Lydia,
One other thing before I go for the day...
I think most people who are christians (any variety) understand that the Lord's main message was uncomplicated - love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. It's not always easy to do, especially that neighbor part. That's the rub. But in any case the main message is still very, very simple and clear. And I believe that's the way He intended it, so that ANYONE could understand it.

David Moles: Intolerance isn't when you “assume” your belief is better than Belief X. Intolerance isn't even when you tell believers in Belief X how you feel. Intolerance is when you don't let believers in Belief X tell their side of the story. Intolerance is when you noisily protest Belief X's services. Intolerance is when you vandalize Belief X's places of worship and run believers in Belief X out of town on a rail.

It's a useful word; don't weaken it.

Lydia: But Xopher, you were being witnessed to. That was evangelism. Chapter and verse. You may not feel as if you were being proselytized, whatever that means, but you were most certainly experiencing the receiving end of evangelism. If it was a natural, normal, and healthy expression of someone's life experience, well, that's really what it's supposed to be. The Bible (as people have been pointing out) specifically enjoin Christians from praying on street corners and other forms of public religious show.

All right. I give. I was wrong to use the word 'intolerant', and wrong to use the word 'evangelism' as I did. (I'm not going to say that I'm sorry, because it provoked some interesting discussion that I learned from, as witness this paragraph; but I do apologize to anyone I offended.)

One thing, Lydia: There are the people who are just discussing, and they listen to what I have to say too; then there are others who tell me what they believe, then cut me off when I start to tell them what I believe. The first of these is fine (in fact enjoyable) the second is deeply offensive (as it always is when people act as if your opinion doesn't matter).

Lydia again: You don't like the pushy bastards that are sure they know what's good for you better than you do, yourself. I'm there, brother. However, Xianity is awfully broad and deep, and there is almost no piece of it that is entirely meritless, just as there is no piece of it that is utterly uncorrupted. It is, after all, built by people.

I know this, though I've met Christians who would deny your final sentence there. I don't think I've said at any point that any part of Christianity is without merit. Even if people are being intolerant, by a better definition than I was using before, that doesn't mean their religion is without merit. That doesn't even mean they are without merit.

The worst people (and the Christian Right aren't the worst people, not by a long shot) have virtues. And the best people have flaws. One of mine is saying intemperate things and having to retract and/or apologize. <sigh>

This is one of the vilest lies that the cynical right wing has promulgated.

Actually, I recently came across an even viler (and weirder) one: Orson Scott Card claiming that no one who's for same-sex marriage will want to defend their country. (You need to scroll down about halfway: it's the section that begins "It is the most morally conservative portion of society that is most successful in raising children who believe in loyalty and oath-keeping and self-control and self-sacrifice.")

Well, there goes any chance of my attending Boskone next year. Not when it has a bigot as GoH.

Sigh.

The motif of certainty sounding above resonated with a couple of memories. Here are two related treatments of it, edited from old posts.
Sorry for the length, but I'm hoping to have this extract of Bronowski in so many places around the net that many people may see it, and some think about it.

The Sydney Morning Herald runs some opinion columns by columnists that deliberately set out to bait their mostly "liberal" readership. One of them is called Miranda Devine (great name, like Athena Starwoman, Slim Pickens, Rip Torn &c.). In a recent column ( War-wary will not weary them, SMH 2/12/2003) she praised statesmen of great "moral purity". The type that really frighten me. Here is one strong and clear explanation of some reasons I feel that way:

Extract of "Knowledge or Certainty", episode 11 from the 1973 BBC series "The Ascent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski (shown on PBS in the USA), as transcribed by Evan Hunt:

www.ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html

"The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science -- or outside of it -- we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense -- science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge -- all information between human beings -- can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in any form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance -- and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality -- this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

Other sites with parts of this extract: skepdic.com/science.html; www.eighty.btinternet.co.uk/page30.htm; www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/bronowski.html
The BBC will only sell the series in the UK to educational bodies, but it can be bought on VHS or DVD in the USA. The book is also available second-hand.

The Danger of Knowing for Sure
www.ratbags.com/skepticism">
A special joint edition of The Millenium Project and Quintessence of the Loon
September 12, 2001 by Peter Bowditch

... Bronowski was making a distinction between science and non-science - between knowing something with confidence and knowing something with certainty. The Nazis knew with certainty that they were right. Science, and its handmaiden skepticism, is based on the principle that knowledge is testable and that ideas and beliefs can be rejected and replaced if they can be demonstrated to be wrong or outdated. It is a process of continuous learning. Yes, science can have bad outcomes, but those bad things can be challenged and changed if necessary. When ideas cannot be challenged then learning, improvement and the correction of mistakes are impossible. There is no way back ...

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Another aspect of the 'Knowlege & Certainty' point. In late January 2003, a piece by billionaire financier George Soros, was published, first in the New Statesman. [You may be able to find other sources.] He wrote that the Nazis and Russian communists had one thing in common: "a belief that they were in the possession of the ultimate truth" - and that America too now shared this fatal flaw.

But of course this is also true of the Taliban, the Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis and its other incarnations, as well as current fundamentalist Christian groups, other fundamentalist religious groups (e.g. Hindus and Sikhs as well as Muslims have been massacring each other in the Indian subcontinent for some decades, with politicians whipping up religious groups as cynically for their own benefit as in any 'christian' society), the aforementioned political movements, and even the economic hardliners who are willing to "break a few eggs to make an omelette".

To me probably the most important religious principle - of which 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is a version - is "Do as you would be done by". This has to apply to the non-human world as well.

Theres' a quote something like "We are both atheists about most of humanity's gods. I am just atheist about one more god than you." But more elegant :)

As a fairly openminded person who was taught by fairly "liberal" Christians, I hover in agnosticism, remembering many good aspects of it in history, unlike friends brought up in a "strong" faith, who have violently rejected either that faith, or all religion, or all faiths.

[I'm fairly sick, so this may come out jumbled. Oh, well.]

Terry, regarding the cranky fundie, oh dear.

Generally, a Matthew 6:5 bumper sticker would be aimed at the fundies. As such, it is likely to offend. Perhaps it would open a few minds--provided one does not get one's windows smashed.

"Who defines legitimacy?"

The Church, of course. The Church says what is true, and truth is what the Church says, and death to the unbeliever--the word "heretic" means "one who chooses." So it has been since Constantine. A fine closed loop of logic with no beginning and no end, and therefore no truth in it--an ideal tool of power.

One has to remember that the groups we can hope to persuade though rational argument are the decent people who are uncertain; people for whom fundamentalist christianity is a matter of deep conviction will only be swayed by much more powerful things: unexpected intimacy which conflicts with their convictions, "religious experience", and so on. So what Marlena says is reasonable, and will persuade some, but will not reach the deeply convinced.

It is scared people who grasp for simple moral absolutes; sets of rules like those of the Old Testament and Paul, rather than precepts like those of Jesus. Hence outbursts of religiousity in times of great travail like ours.

"The absolutes almost always win, and one of the reasons is that the people who believe in relativity are embarrassed by it."

"The best lack all conviction/While the worst are full of passionate intensity."

"Jesus was the biggest liberal ever."

Ah, but the character of Jesus, and--literally--the nature of his body is more important in fundamentalist teaching than what Jesus actually said. And there lies the problem that Lydia points out: if one focuses on the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which contain the canonical teachings of Jesus, one gets one religion; if one focuses on John and Paul's letters, which are about Jesus and practice, one gets another. This tension is ancient and not to be easily resolved.

Meantime, returning to the political issues at hand, I myself do not understand why moderate and leftist christians are not more politically prominent; bringing them to the fore would be an enormous boost to the Democrats.

The BBC will only sell the series in the UK to educational bodies, but it can be bought on VHS or DVD in the USA.

Ummmm... where? I've been looking for The Ascent of Man to be released on DVD for as long as there have been DVDs, and have yet to run across any evidence that it exists.

....Aha! My search-fu is unstoppable! Ambrose Video has it for only $395, and Documentary Video has it for $150. Ooooh, and they also have Connections! Same price.

I have this sinking suspicion, however, that these are straight transcodings from master tapes, with low quality mastering. They're certainly not being marketed for the home market, like Cosmos was.

BTW: The eagle-eyed emerging editorial types amongst you may query the spelling of "The Millenium Project" in the post above. Part of the explanation from the site (go thou & check the rest):

"We all know that 'millennium' comes from the Latin words 'mille' and 'annus' and means a thousand years. The word 'millenium' ... means something else."

... speaking of which, I must find some links which tell the story of how (quite publicly) a short few years back the Catholic church & high levels of Islam got together at a major conference on women's health to scupper plans for more international projects promoting women's health because they might just possibly mention contraception and abortion.

Ray: Yes. They are high-priced (~$US80 per DVD*) and pretty low quality - it looks like direct video transfer from old masters, distressingly without subtitles (many BBC DVDs are quite sloppy). But like you, I've been searching for a tape or DVD literally for years.
Despite being in very parlous financial straits at the time (better now) when they were on sale for $US149 last year I organized many odd things to acquire them. The internet has been good for us out here under "the tyranny of distance", eg Lessons of Darkness, Carlos Saura's films, other material for friends.
(*For Oz, that's not an overly high price for a special disc. Small market, far away.)

Well, there goes any chance of my attending Boskone next year. Not when it has a bigot as GoH.

Jon, for heaven's sake! Go, go, and tell OSC to his face that he's a bigot! Get Boskone to organise a panel on same-sex marriage with people who can quote OSC's earlier writings back to him verbatim! Get Boskone to organise a debate between OSC defending and some articulate person attacking his thesis on same-sex marriage and society!

It's what I'd do, at least, if I could afford to go to a con which OSC was attending.

Randolph Fritz: ; people for whom fundamentalist christianity is a matter of deep conviction will only be swayed by much more powerful things: unexpected intimacy which conflicts with their convictions, "religious experience", and so on.

The core argument of Tepper's The Gate to Women's Country is that there are people who can think rationally when confronted with symbols (in this case, martial display) and those who can't, and that the former can be bred for.

I don' think this is an absolute; other threads in these two blogs have discussed the need for ]awe[ in every life. I'm an agnostic -- a militant agnostic when I'm grumpy -- who still gets shivers-up-and-down-my-spine from singing Mahler's "Resurrection" Symphony. (Other Bostonians on this list may have heard the latest performance, on WGBH last Sunday.) I can rationalize it as a message of hope, ignoring the words that say explicitly "not in \this/ life", but that's cheating; the music itself (and my involvement in it as music) is what gets to me.
But I like to \think/ I don't let symbols rule my life, or even my approach to other people. (A good thing, too -- my wife isn't nearly as fond of later classical music as I am....)

It would be nice to think there's a way to teach people to attach sensawonda to something that doesn't require them to block out other viewpoints. Perhaps it would require first teaching them to cope with the fact that life is uncertain and that's OK. (And how do you get them to hold still for such teaching, when one of the teachings of certainty is that you mustn't listen to anyone who doesn't share your certainty?)

This may be particularly difficult now. The nearest thrill rides are two hours away; if I want to really scare myself I think about the current economic uncertainty (jobless recovery my ass -- it isn't a recovery if money is going up but jobs aren't) and the analysis that says that tyrants have risen \because/ of the desperation of people looking for a firm answer.

Randolph: Generally, a Matthew 6:5 bumper sticker would be aimed at the fundies.

But this is part of the problem: with something like a bumper sticker, you can't have it say, "Matthew 6:5 but never mind if you're not a Christian because I'm really not trying to convert you." Public discourse (inasmuch as a bumper sticker can be discourse) is public. If you tell a thumper personally to go read Matt6, that's a different matter than putting the suggestion on your house or car.

Near us there is a house whose owner puts up huge signs reading, "U can't B both Christian and pro-choice" and similar things. (Apparently he will steal your letters if you try it.) It's one of the very few signs I've seen that successfully made it clear who its audience was, because if you're not claiming to be Christian in the first place, it's totally irrelevant. It's also pretty offensive to me, because it crosses over from, "I believe" to "you must believe" pretty firmly.

I almost have an easier time talking religion with a non-Christian or even a Baptist or a Catholic than I do with other Haugeans like myself. It's much easier to click the mental switch over to, "he/she is describing his beliefs and possibly why he holds them" instead of "he/she is telling me what I should believe."

Randolph again: I myself do not understand why moderate and leftist christians are not more politically prominent; bringing them to the fore would be an enormous boost to the Democrats.

How much more politically prominent do we get than Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake? How many people have managed to miss the title "Reverend" in front of Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's names? I think the problem is not that we don't have prominent moderate/leftist Christians, but that 1) they don't always represent the whole spectrum of moderate/leftist Christian beliefs (as pertains to gay marriage, for example) and 2) they don't rant as much about Jesus per unit political rant as right-wingers do. Also sometimes 3) they aren't taken seriously. For as much good as former-Pres. Carter does, I think he's classified as kind of a nice old guy rather than a major social-political force in most people's minds. Unjustly, I think.

When we keep saying things like "we need more prominent Christian moderate/leftists," we encourage politicians to continue to run as Christians even if they're not particularly committed to it personally. I think that's bad. Lieberman was the only prominent Democratic presidential candidate who did not state for the record that he was a Christian. Everybody else was already claiming it. They already do that song and dance. I don't see what we'd gain from more of it.

Randolph Fritz: It is scared people who grasp for simple moral absolutes; sets of rules like those of the Old Testament and Paul, rather than precepts like those of Jesus.

Hey, Randolph?

Fuck you.

Mris quotes Randolph Fritz:

"I myself do not understand why moderate and leftist christians are not more politically prominent; bringing them to the fore would be an enormous boost to the Democrats."

and answers:

"How much more politically prominent do we get than Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake?"

Or, as I remarked earlier, Martin Luther King.

Indeed, large parts of this discussion seem to me to be taking place in an alternate world in which all liberals, progressives, lefty radicals and reformers are irreligious secularists. What color is the sky on that planet, I wonder.

In a different post, Alter Reiss also quotes Randolph:

"It is scared people who grasp for simple moral absolutes; sets of rules like those of the Old Testament and Paul, rather than precepts like those of Jesus."

and responds:

"Hey, Randolph?

"Fuck you."

I'd say Randolph had that coming, all things considered.

I'm not going to disemvowel it. Also, I'm sorry, Randolph, but the teachings of Jesus are not more complex than those of Saint Paul or the Old Testament. In fact, they're simpler. What's difficult is assimilating and acting on them.

I am inclined to give Randolph a break. "Do as we tell you" is simpler than "do what is right," even if the list of rules is long. I don't agree with him that fear is the only reason for seeking moral absolutes, but the question is still there: Why do people keep trying to impose their false righteousness upon us?

You're missing the point, which is that the habit of characterizing the religion of the Old Testament as Randolph did is a large piece of the edifice which is antisemitism.

Yes, rabbinical Judaism, with its millions of words of complex and nuanced commentary over often minute moral issues, is just a bunch of "scared people" who are "grasping for simple moral absolutes."

I don't think Randolph meant it that way, but in a world in which Mel Gibson is being lionized for promulgating this and other vicious notions about what Jews think and do, I don't remotely blame Alter for running out of patience.

Okay, point taken. It is wrong to lump Paul in with the Old Testament. I also agree that we need to be extra careful to avoid association with things like Gibson's Passion, which I consider to be vile imperialist Roman propaganda. Lionized. Yeah, right. And I've already said I don't think people seek absolutism only because they are scared. I am beginning to see that there isn't a simple answer to the question of why so many people want simple answers.

I can understand how Alter could feel frustrated with Randolph, but it doesn't make me feel okay about how he expressed it. In my birth clan, bad language, along with stone throwing and general monkey behavior, is reserved only for chasing off marauding bears. I would hope that Alter will provide us with something more enlightening.

To go back to the original question, it's obvious that the American right's use of religion is wrong and misrepresents the spirit of Christianity. But what is that spirit? I tend to go along with my mom, who turned me on to John Dominic Crossan, but I can hardly expect everyone to agree that Crossan's historical Jesus is the true faith, nor should it be necessary. So what is the minimum that we must agree on if we are to effectively counter the right's power grab? How can we represent that?

So what is the minimum that we must agree on if we are to effectively counter the right's power grab? How can we represent that?

Do we need to agree? I don't like Christianity, much. I was bit by a bible when small. It took me many years to learn to be tolerant, and more years after that to be friendly on the topic. I don't agree that Christ was like anything. From my perspective, he's an image that is invested with the worshippers' beliefs. But I'm happy to make common cause with the liberal Christian organizations that fight for equal rights, who preach love and tolerance, who comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted. The fact that they are doing it because of their faith and I am doing it because of my lack of faith doesn't strike me as any sort of barrier.

A friend once said a very wise thing to me. He said, "It is not easy to know the mind of God, but it is not difficult to know the works of God."

It's unlikely that I will ever become religious, again, but it's also unlikely that I'm suddenly going to decide that because I am a militant agnostic that I think it's ok for the poor to go hungry, or the powerful to oppress the weak. Mostly, church groups don't mind if I fight that fight, even if i do fail to lower my head and close my eyes during prayer, and mostly I don't mind if they want to stop and pray before meals. After all, we're the ones on the side of tolerance and multiculturalism, aren't we?

Ok. Let's be practical. We know most americans believe in God. We're not trying to change the minds or religions of anyone, because we'd like this country to be big enough for all of us. People of faith can obviously disagree about the meaning of scripture. To me, the most important thing to keep in mind is that no one knows the mind of God. What we have here in this country is a profound lack of humility. For anyone to think that he or she really knows God's mind or plan is pure hubris.

So we're back to scripture, where we obviously disagree. I think one thing we can do on the left is expose the true beliefs of the right. For example, many people just do not realize that the religious right thinks that everyone who does not subscribe to their belief system will be damned to hell. And they want to institute a theocracy in this country. So really, as a catholic I find this insulting. Why should I vote for someone who thinks I'm going to burn in hell no matter what I do just because I'm catholic? What - just pay my taxes, die and go to hell? Ok then, I'm glad I know my place.

The real problem is this: the religious right is perilously close to cramming it's agenda down the throat of every person in this country, and yet they have not been honest about their agenda. Most people don't know one tenth of what the religious right really believes. Most americans just think it's harmless and doesn't affect them. Not true at all. Everyone assumes america will always provide basic protections like the separation of church and state. Guess again. We're about 8 months away from a theocracy. These people have been working toward this for decades, and it's all on the line this year. If they win, they take over.

Mris,

On the topic of bumperstickers, I've been surprised at the range of possible interpretations for "Jesus is my co-pilot." I mean, that one seems utterly straight-forward and not even particularly annoying. But non-Christians of my acquaintance have found various offensive messages therein, including the assumption that Christ is a coercive force requiring the person to surrrender their free will. *shrug* People get very weird about bumperized religion.

The bumper sticker about "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven," definitely reeks to me with implied brimstone. It makes sense that a Christian would find great comfort in it. After all, forgiveness is the way you make peace with yourself and your shortcomings -- which we all have. That comfort isn't available, for me. I have to find a different way to move forward from day to day, with my mistakes dogging me and the bad things I've done still reverberating in the air. In the end, we all find a way to go forward, because time won't stand still. Forgiveness is one way, but not the only way, for a good person to continue to be less than perfect in a less than perfect world.

Okay, some expansion of my post above:

What Randolph said:

It is scared people who grasp for simple moral absolutes; sets of rules like those of the Old Testament and Paul, rather than precepts like those of Jesus. Hence outbursts of religiousity in times of great travail like ours.

"The absolutes almost always win, and one of the reasons is that the people who believe in relativity are embarrassed by it."

"The best lack all conviction/While the worst are full of passionate intensity."

What I read:

Par 1:
People who look to the Old Testament are morally inferior to those who look to the precepts of Jesus -- they are scared, rather than thoughtful, in the pursuit of their faith. (Of course, those who look to Paul rather than Jesus are similiarly inferior, but that's something for someone else to argue, if there's someone irritated by that). Teaching such as the precepts of Jesus are more nuanced and complex than those similar to the lists of rules the Old Testament provides.

Par 2.
Those who 'grasp for simple moral absolutes', again, those who turn to the Old Testament or similar texts, are likely to win, because absolute arguments present more strongly than relative arguments.

Par 3.
The good people are uncertain, while the bad people are certain.

It's quite difficult, in the context in which it has been quoted, not to see that last bit, the quote from "The Second Coming", as meaning "Jews and Pauline Christians are bad and likely to triumph, while true Christians are good, but lacking in conviction."

In truth, though, it probably wasn't meant exactly in that manner. It was probably more along the lines of "I dislike some religious Christian, but like other ones. Perhaps I can come up with a unifying theory to explain my likes and dislikes."

And yet, I cannot read the first paragraph I quoted without it saying that people who turn to the rules of the Old Testament are acting on baser motives than those who turn to the teachings of Jesus. And I cannot read the quotes that follow as meaning anything other than those who turn to the Old Testament's certainties are wrong, and bad people, but certain, as opposed to those who follow the precepts of Jesus, who are right, and good people, but uncertain.

Make no mistake about it -- while Orthodox Judaism has a certain amount of theological discussion, the primary focus of the religion is halacha -- that is, the law, those lists of "thou shalts," and "thou shalt nots", both biblical and rabbinic. There is a vast rabbinic literature devoted to defining the exact boundries of the shalts and shalt nots. If there is one religion that can be described as grasping sets of rules like those in the Old Testament, it's Orthodox Judaism.

And what Randolph is saying is that while there may be some Christians -- those who turn to the Old Testament, or to the teachings of Paul -- who are as bad as the Orthodox Jews, there are no Orthodox Jews who are as good as those who turn to the teachings of Christ.

I'm pretty sure Randolph didn't mean to talk about Jews at all, but I cannot see how what he said doesn't mean that about Jews.

And, yeah, that made me turn to bad language. Or, to be more accurate, it made me turn to coarse language. I'd prefer to call speech good or ill depending on its content, rather than by the presence or absence of swear-words.

One possible interpretation for Jesus is my co-pilot is you're hogging the left hand seat (unless it's a helicopter) - of course in the book it was a single seater so perhaps the flight engineer was dancing on the head of a pin.

I take it then some argue no universalist is a member of the religious right? given that many people just do not realize that the religious right thinks that everyone who does not subscribe to their belief system will be damned to hell Some interesting alliances out there and odd behavior among groups that tend to universalism but otherwise disagree with some common/popular positions on these pages.

Indeed it is not at all clear to me that being public members of the Democratic Party at the national level imposes any obligation of party discipline and party line positioning on this particular issue - if it does I'd like the list of who's left after reading out the ideologically impure. Then again I personally consider all the above named to be flat intellectually dishonest in their positions on other issues so....... (maybe there's something in Silverlock about drinking of the Potomac?)

Patrick said, quoting Mris:
"How much more politically prominent do we get than Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake?"

Who left office over 20 years ago.

Or, as I remarked earlier, Martin Luther King.

Who was murdered before I was born.

You wanna know why people today don't think of liberals as religious? That's why. The examples you come up with don't mean much in an emotional, I-saw-that-person kind of a way to anyone younger than the Baby Boomers. Martin Luther King was a great man, but he's not directly relevant to a current conception of non-conservatives in the way that, say, Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry is.

Ah, politically prominent is perhaps reserved for politicians?

Hence William Sloan Coffin has long passed from the scene, remembered only in Doonesberry? Folks who merely write and demonstrate and witness aren't prominent but must like Jesse Jackson make the front page of the National Inquirer?

Who can forget Mrs. Al Gore and her drive for decency? Perhaps in the modern manner the politicians are making religion the realm of the wives and children? But Kerry marches in the St. Patrick's Day Parade and follows his Church's teaching on marriage by going for an annulment himself - shouldn't that count?

The examples you come up with don't mean much in an emotional, I-saw-that-person kind of a way to anyone younger than the Baby Boomers.

That's funny, Josh, because I'm 25, and they mean a heck of a lot to me. And do you really think it's mostly our age group that's determining how the parties are seen? I really, really doubt it.

The fact remains that it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have had ordained ministers running in primaries for most of my life -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are people one sees. If you're counting Carter's political career as the time he was in elected office and no more, you're ignoring many of the man's biggest achievements for peace and social justice. And the media isn't; Carter isn't invisible these days. Nor has he suddenly become apolitical. Campus Republicans at one of our local colleges were still urging people to protest against Nobel Peace Prize winners appearing, and part of their protest asked people to "kick Jimmy Carter in the teeth." That's younger folks than me, and Carter is still a symbol of liberalism for them.

This isn't about Boomers resting on their laurels.

Katherine Yurica (yuricareport.com) wrote an extensive article, The Despoiling of America, in which she details the plans of the religious right. By the religious right I'm referring to Pat Robertson, GW Bush, Tom DeLay, Antonin Scalia and other leaders in the republican party. Their real agenda is under the radar because it's abhorrent to most people and they know it. The neocons have been partially exposed with the failure in Iraq, but the theocons are still playing their cards rather carefully.

Just to give one example - they think medicare and medicaid are immoral because it's theft. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, and poverty is a sign of His disfavor. If you're poor, suck it up and go get charity from your family. It's not the government's problem