Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

I agree with brennakimi's post above.I suspect that you don't see so many documentaries on fundamentalist christians, but perhaps that tells us more about people who make documentaries than about the existence of fundamentalist christianity. We all too often think about fundamentalist christians "killing people for their beliefs" as something that ended in the middle ages. But it has persisted in contemporary times.For example if you read up on the various dictatorships in central and south america in the late twentieth century you find not only "religious fundamentalists" who were working honourably for peace and justice (see for example this article on Jesuits in El Salvador) but also "religious fundamentalists" who were working for torturers and assassins (see this article on the Catholics in Argentina).When did you last see a documentary on the role of the Catholic Church in Argentina's dirty war in the 1980s? Not as often as you will see manic Islamists on TV, no doubt.(For that matter, the Christians who are in favour of democracy and social welfare don't get much airtime either).Mick

Hi rahvin,I would also like to briefly add that radicalism isn't always a bad thing. For example I would consider these guys to be radical but not particularly evil.I suppose what people abhor is the imposition of one's beliefs on non-believers (whether those beliefs are religious or not); the politics of power clearly overrides religion in that sense.A question for Americans - are "conservative christian radicals" more violent than "liberal christian radicals"? If so, then violence is not to do with either radicalism/extremism nor with religion, but simply to do with politics.Mickedited by mick to give a more radical non-evil religious organization from the 1970sThis message has been edited by mick, 08-18-2005 03:45 PM

Dude, you just called Tal evil. It's like saying, "she's even uglier than Mary..."

I wholeheartedly agree. The Founding Fathers of America were radicals. Jesus was a radical. History is filled with radicals who advanced society.The flip-side consists of radicals like muslim terrorists and various religion-based hate groups like the followers of Phelps and Dobson.Radicalism is simply extremism. Dobson certainly qualifies - but he's entitled to his views and opinions, even if they are bigotted and wrong, no matter how radical.If he and people like him felt the same way, the world would be a better place. That's exactly what I fear. Theocracy. How you, I, Tal, Dobson, or anyone else feel about homosexuality, abortion, or other social issues is irrelevant. None of us have the right to force those views on people who don't share them.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

LOL. Fortunately atheists don't have to believe in evil. Tal is probably just a repressed homosexual or something

This is sort of just definitional choices. Thus you are not objectively wrong, though I might suggest an improved (more accurate) definition. Perhaps adding violent or militant to that label, would allow us to separate those that are for changing society, even by strong measures, from those willing to include violent force. But this is not true at all, at least not the "radical" Xians. If a shellfish store operator or a fortune teller come to Xians for business licenses or marriage licenses, indeed even people of nonXian faith coming to get marriage licenses, get them. Xians fight tooth and nail to not allow gays to get the ability to have that license, as they once fought interracial couples from getting them.They also kill gays, and nonwhite races, and bomb or otherwise kill people at abortion clinics. The largest terror attack (deathwise) until 9/11 was at the hands of a Xian terrorist, who targeted the US govt. Militant Xian terrorist militias killed 100s to thousands of muslims (Palestinians and Bosnians). And certainly the IRA are Xian terrorists who have killed people.The ones that are most nonviolent call for the govt to crack down on people they don't like (esp. gays), which is merely shifting the hand of violence to that of the state, because they have the power to do so.I do agree that militant islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, and a bigger threat (right now) than Xian militant fundamentalism to national security. That does not however mean there is NO threat from Xian militants, nor attempts to change our govt to a repressive religious institution ala the Taliban, but from a Xian perspective.We should not be taking our eye off the ball of protecting freedom and democracy from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are Xians and Jews in there as well as muslims.Dobson has a right to preach what he does, but he is intolerant and attempting to change the nation away from freedom and democracy. He is to my mind an enemy, and a radical. He certainly has followers who might take things farther. And who knows, after the islamic militant thing gets worked out, perhaps Xian militancy will be our next biggest threat.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But that's not what "radical" means.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1radical
Pronunciation: 'ra-di-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root -- more at ROOT

​

3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

---

"Radical" means someone who advocates extreme change, not violence.It's not Dobson's views on homosexuality that make him a radical; it's the fact that he advocates extreme change to America's political structure and traditions.Radical is an accurate descriptor for the man, as is "cleric". It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality but with his advocacy of extreme change to our society.

This is indeed the point. It is the best way for Christians to view homosexuality.While reading through this thread I remembered an interesting study done by Gallup that showed a trend of religious prejudice. It included homosexuality so I don’t think it’s too far off topic: Hmmm....Mormons scored the highest, very strange. It also looks like we won’t be electing a gay atheist anytime soon. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reduce graphic size a little.

it's called a "left-handed compliment."i wasn't specifically calling tal evil. but some fundamentalists do some pretty evil things.

---

אָרַח

it has, and i'm by no means arguing that. just that our fundamentalists seem to be, on average, safer than islamic fundamentalists. there still are people who do some really evil stuff in the name of god -- such as killing people over belief systems. look at the violence in ireland between two different sects of christianity.but mostly, our american crazy fundies drink stricnine and dance with snakes. they're not beating themselves over the heads with swords. and they're generally not calling for violence in the same quantity that islamic fundamentalist leaders do.but it's not to say that such things don't happen in american fundamentalism -- see the related thread for details. i'm just saying that the degree and frequency is not as bad. they appear to something of an aberation here -- but not so much in the middle east. we don't get abortion clinic bombings a lot, but israel gets a few bus bombings a week. no, and that's a very good point. i just don't think that american fundamentalism comes close to equaling islam fundamentalism in the arab world.

---

אָרַח

That's pretty much a recent phenomenon. Our Christian culture (actually I should include the European Christian culture) from around the 1400's right through to the 20^th. Century was far more violent than any Islamic culture no matter how fanatical. We committed horrendous and horrid acts that exceed anything even imagined in the most fundamental misinterpretation of the Koranic war verses.We are perhaps 50 years, actually less, from a time when Christian violence was common and very much like what we see in the Islamic world today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

and if we include the crusades, that's definitally true.i'm really just speaking of the recent of phenomina, and really just the us.

---

אָרַח

Contemporary American christian fundamentalists generally carry out their violence overseas rather than in the US itself. Here's an example of how modern Christian fundamentalists condone and support violence overseas:

quote:

---

The Norfolk congregation, like churches near military bases around the country, is bracing for the possibility of a long war. Since the United States began retaliating against the Taliban for the Sept. 11 attacks, these churches have felt the brunt of the nation’s call to action...Norfolk is perhaps the congregation in our fellowship most profoundly touched by the conflict, with a full 80 percent of its membership in the military...These soldiers are very young, and they’re mostly new converts, said Roberts, adding that most of them are gone now shipped to the Arabian or Mediterranean seas...Cheryl Warren says such prayer from the brotherhood at large and from her own congregation is immensely reassuring. I know my husband has an army of people praying for him, she says. Her Northside elders called all the active and retired military to the front of the building the Sunday after the attack. They asked the whole church to kneel with them on their behalf, Utley said. Fervent prayer and reassurance were a part of the service at each of these churches that Sunday. Roberts says that reality weighed heavy on the hearts of those in his Norfolk congregation. Some of the guys had called me earlier that week, and they said, ‘We may be launching things at these people, and we want to talk to you about that.’So Roberts spoke from the pulpit about the right to defend our country. I told them that Jesus didn’t tell the Centurion to stop being a Centurion, he says. I quoted Romans 13, about how God establishes governments. I think they appreciated that.

---

So you see how Christian fundamentalists "reassure" their young kids who are "recent converts" that carrying out an illegal war of occupation that has killed tens of thousands of civilians overseas is actually okay.When a young soldier says "We may be launching things at these people, and we want to talk to you about that." the Church says "Jesus didn’t tell the Centurion to stop being a Centurion". In other words they provide an ideological justification for a war of aggression, which I don't imagine was something very close to Jesus' heart... After all, Jesus was executed for threatening an imperial system, whereas these military chaplaincies are urging their members to kill others in support of an imperial system. Shocking hypocricy, in my opinion. And it's hypocricy that has a price in the lives of innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians.Mick
added in edit:I suppose I am trying to see that I can't see a moral distinction between fundamentalist christian and muslim clerics. On the one hand you have fundamentalist islamic clerics who bless suicide bombers prior to or after their missions against both civilians and military targets, and who reassure the families of suicide bombers that their loved ones died in a just cause. On the other hand you have fundamentalist christian clerics, who sign up to a military chaplaincy, bless soldiers before they launch attacks against both civilians and military targets, and who reassure the families of dead soldiers that their loved ones died in a just cause.This message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 05:27 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 05:36 PM

I agree. I just read a great article that explains the Christian position and that i see as logical and reasonable. Macklemore-Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Human-Equality

quote:

---

I suspect that one day soon, the majority of America will allow public consensus to determine the contours and boundaries of human marriage. When that day comes, the sanction of same-sex marriage will be an inevitable result. Though such a change would be unfortunate, immediate disaster is not likely to result. However, the redefinition of marriage based on public consensus may prove to be a slippery slope toward a dangerous end...

---

Anyone who reads the whole article will at least understand that the Christian(or this particular club Christian) is not simply bigoted, but has a ideological reason for their stance.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Every bigot has an ideological reason for their bigotry.