Who represents Christians if Falwell, Dobson and Robertson don't?

Jimmy Carter is a good choice, but he doesn't really comment upon religious issues because he considers it pretty private, I believe.

quote:

---

One thing to keep in mind is that being a public figure because you have a media ministry or job that is public due to political or social activity does not mean you are considered the most esteemed spiritual leader, and esteemed spiritual leaders often do not have TV and radio ministries of the type to put them in the eye of the secular media.

---

All I am saying is that if the vast majority of mainstream, "normal" Christians don't want Falwell and Robertson and Hinn and Dobson and all the rest of the crazies to represent them, then why aren't they getting together to support and promote a spokesperson that would combat these radical wackos?

You should be able to answer this question yourself.If there were a few popular atheists with their own talk shows who say all sorts of stupid things, would that motivate you to band together with a bunch of other atheists simply to create another "leader" to shout at those loudmouths?I think the desire to denounce or back some leader to denounce begins with feeling that person has anything to do with onesself. Most Xians are divided up into a vast array of denominations and subdenominations. What one guy says over there does not mean anything to you over here. And some eschew having prominent leaders.

---

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

First off, those are 4 different people. There are people that love Dobson and can't stand Robertson, and perhaps vice versa, and people that love Falwell but think Binny Hinn is a false prophet, and vice versa and things like that.Secondly, for all the worldly blather about these people from liberals and others, I would think they would clean house a little first before pointing fingers. Maybe I should consider Bill C. your idea of a great leader and moral example? Or perhaps some perverted guy from the past like Freud? Or maybe an outspoken movie star or some such? Jane Fonda? (although she is a Christian now too).But hey, I will just say, why do you guys let a fat slob like Michael Moore be your spokesperson?As far as Jimmy Carter, he spoke about religious issues all the time, said he was born-again while running for president, and based his foreign policy on his religious beliefs. I don't really see your point at all.This message has been edited by randman, 01-21-2006 02:44 PM

Bill Clinton, Freud, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore are not religious leaders. They, as far as I know, do not make religion a public issue and thus are irrelevant in this topic.Moose (and this message probably could just as well come from Adminnemooseus)This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-21-2006 03:04 PM

I thought randman was using him analogously. That is Falwell is to Xian as Moore is to Liberal. And that seems appropriate to the question raised in this thread.I know I don't feel like Moore is my representative, despite agreeing with him on some points, yet continually hear conservatives discuss him as if he speaks for all those that dislike Bush or dislike the war. That upsets me yet I am not about to get a bunch of likeminded people together to stand as some juxtaposition to Moore, because conservatives think he's my spokesman.So why can't it be that many Xians don't view Falwell as a spokesman, and likewise feel no need to create one just because others think Falwell is? Why can't they be like me?It certainly would have been false to view the Pope as the representation of all Xians, even during the heights of the inquisition. It seems still more bizarre to expect that of Xians these days.

---

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

There may be a bit of truth there, but I personally must look upon it as mostly being a major goal post shifting effort. Michael Moore is not a representitive of some Christian perspective.Now, if randman wants to bring in considerations of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jim Wallis, or even Jimmy Carter, that's part of the topics theme.Maybe a "Holmes critiques Michael Moore" would make for a good "Coffee House" topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment."Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Yeah I get that. What I don't get is why he can't be used as an analogy. Why must people stick with only Xians or religious leaders to create analogies?As long as it doesn't get into a huge debate about MM, I honestly don't see why its OT. And I do see that restricting analogies to Xian leaders puts all the burden on Xians... kind of reinforcing the idea that only Xians have this issue. But I'm just putting in my last two cents. I wasn't trying to critique him, and no that would make a terrible coffee house topic. Or at least I'd get bored with it. We practically had one once a long time ago and it ened in some ranting match between me and Rrhain. Yes, let us not bring that back.But this raises a question in my mind. Maybe I missed something about this thread. Is it simply a critique of those specific Xian leaders or Xians? I thought it was asking who reresents Xians, to which it seems to me a fair reply is none. Just because they are popular and Xian, does not make them reps of all.Would it be fair to ask if ayatollah Khomenei should have been viewed as the representative of all muslims? Or Farrakhan? Or today OBL? Can I ask if they didn't or don't then who does?

---

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

Granted, but that it was an analogy needed to be stressed, such as what you have done. I still think Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et all would be better counterpoints to bring up. I could easily see it turning into a huge debate about MM if the "analogy" wasn't quickly contained.Now, to direct this back to what I see as relevant people, in message 7: Moose

Thanks Holmes. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As much as we disagree on... well... many things, you really seem to be getting a raw deal these days. It does seem like you are being gagged and penned in for no reason.In any case. Moose has given enough of a reason not to use MM, as well as some alternatives, so run you argument with those. In this case I think I am in agreement with your position. Though I must admit there is a valid question standing why those that have been part of his "flock" have not said anything against him.And much more importantly, this president poses himself as a Xian, and he is being touted as an example of a Xian leader for this nation. Yet he is in contact, rather close contact, with those named in the thread title. It is public and documented. If those guys are not to be viewed as rightful Xian leaders speaking for other Xians, why is there not a hew and cry from average Xians to the president to stop going to them to find out what Xians want or need?If you are going to argue to someone like schraf that it is not the case, isn't it 100x more important that you write the president and other lawmakers not to be making the exact same error?

---

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

Holmes, the president or his aides meet with or at least communicate with all sorts of folks that are politically influential. It's politics. I can't say for all, but Dobson and I think some of the others have also been very critical at times of the president and Congress. Also, I don't see why shraf and others think Dobson is some bad guy. He seems somewhat mainstream to me although still not necessarily someone that speaks for Christians.Robertson has said some things that really should not have been said, but I think demonizing the guy as some have done is hypocritical. On Falwell, I don't really like Falwell, but once again, the guy built a university; preaches and practices forgiveness of his enemies such as Larry Flint (think they even sort of became friends), etc,...but once again, most Christians don't think Falwell, Robertson or any of these guys speak for them.If you really want to know what specific Christian groups venerate in spiritual leadership, just ask the denomination or church stream whom their leaders are, and they are the people they look to spiritually.But on a political level, Christians in general make up their minds on politics on an individual level, except maybe in some churches like some politically active black churches that get VERY political during election time. Overall though, Christians don't look to ministers for their political stance. They are affected by their minister's opinion, but they don't generally think of a minister as a politician.

I don't want to get into a discussion of whether any of these guys are bad or not, especially as it makes no difference to the topic. I agree but that does not actually rebut what I was saying. At the very least Falwell and Robertson have gone in as representatives of Xians of the nation. They have gone on public record saying that very thing. They are invited to attend meetings as such.If these men are not representatives, one would generally expect an outcry of independent voices denouncing the role they are invited and touted as being. And while you note that Xians are diverse, Bush hasn't really been seeking diverse Xian viewpoints. Has he invited for important meetings, people like Jesse Jackson, or Al sharpton? That may be true in general, but is not necessarily true for certain groups. I think it is safe to say that those following Robertson and Falwell do view them as politicians and someone to listen to for political opinion. Robertson lost his religious tax cover in order to become an overt politician.Further, Bush has been making maneuvers to erode that line, seeking to allow religious entities to keep tax money, even though they engage in partisan political campaigning. They are advancing arguments that the pulpit is where many get their political opinions, and should get their political opinions.Once again, there has been very little (just isolated) outrage from the general Xian community.

---

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

I am not aware of Bush consulting much with Falwell, just to be clear. I really think there is some disinformation here.Also, Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson are lumped together because they have similar political views; they are media-based people, and those views agree with most religious conservatives.However, that does not mean views such as advocating killing Chavez agree with religious conservatives, and heck, the Pope's views and some conservative Jewish groups generally agree with much of evangelical religious conservatives (pro-life), but it would be silly to lump all these people together.If you want to talk about a group of core issues such as being pro-life, pro tax cuts, pro school choice, then you can say these guys represent, in terms of advocating, the political views of religious conservatives, but going further than that is silly. They are not spokespersons and the idea Christians should denounce them is absurd. Sure, plenty of people disagree with these guys, but I'd say in terms of politics, we disagree even more with Al Franken, Michael Moore, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. So if we are going to denounce people for their views, it's going to be the people we most disagree with.Let me put it this way. Should we say Al Sharpton represents liberal Christians?This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 02:51 PM

This article from Sojourners magazine is articulate and well written, IMHO.

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Well if its disinfo, its coming from both Falwell and Bush. The program 60 minutes ran a segment on evangelical Xianity and its connection with the presidency. It was an overview of their growing influence on the executive branch.Part of it dealt with the evangelical "win" in getting Bush elected. Falwell states quite clearly that he has direct connection with the white house and is an influence for Xians on policy, because of his personal connection with Bush. This wasn't 60 minutes alleging something or cutting up footage so it looked like that's what he was saying. He was obviously quite proud and discussing the extent of himself and other evangelical leaders as reps for Xians for the Bush administration.If he was bragging and it was not accurate, then the white house would have denied that link, as they have denied anything else the media has said... even when true. If someone came on claiming to represent me, and the white house discussed them as if they represented me, then I'd likely say something. I'm not saying they must denounce these people directly, or to the media or something, just correct the president that he shouldn't take them as spokespeople for all Xians... which is what is being advanced. No and if he was brought to the WH regularly, and came out claiming he was the spokesperson for liberal Xians to the white house, my guess is there would be many people writing to the president (or in some other way demonstrating) that he is not.A good example would be (again political rather than overtly religious) Lieberman. Plenty of people, despite being dem or liberal, have publically reacted to his pretense at representing from the left. Yeah he may rep for his district, but the guy has left behind is ability to speak for libs and independents.This is all I am discussing. It does seem odd to me, perhaps complacent is the word, that many Xians are allowing them to rep themselves as they are within the political world. It sort of leaves them as de facto leaders, even if they are not.

---

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