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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lots of people get what could be called "direct" contact with the president. When I am talking about it I mean as part of consultations on issues, and in a regular way. and I'm with moose in wanting to see some support for that. I know that Graham was influential to the Bushes, even W, but as far as I understand the only ones with regular contact on policy discussions are Robertson and Falwell. You do know the both of them got into an argument about Robertson's revelations of what went on in their meetings?I have not heard of any black church leaders being called in to discuss policy decisions on a regular basis. Once again, I'm not here arguing whether they are good or bad, or whether what they do is right or wrong. The issue I am bringing up is what they are representing themselves as at the white house and being treated as at the white house.I am surprised that it doesn't garner more reaction. As far as I know he only met people for personal reasons, as opposed to policy discussions. And I know of no muslim leaders with direct (regular) contact with the white house on policy discussions.

---

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

You are clearly discussing a newer movement and of political nature regarding reps courting blacks. Yeah, that is true.Do you have any indication of any black church leaders being routinely invited by the white house to discuss general policy decisions, particularly throughout the presidency, and not as part of a push to court black voters.

---

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

Well I have done some digging and I have to admit that what might have been true at one time may not be true anymore, and so you may be right... kind of.I already told you that Falwell himself described the intimate connection they had with Bush on policy discussions. I don't know how to ref 60 minutes segments or I'd link to it some way.In any case it turns out that might be old news. It appears that after 911, and specifically after comments by falwell and robertson, Bush began distancing himself from those guys. Thus they were no longer meeting with him as they had been.Then again, we do have the fact that before the Iraq invasion Bush did discuss this issue with Robertson. There is a question regarding what actually was said, but clearly he was discussing how to approach the war with Bush. So despite not meeting as often as I was implying (so I am wrong about that) they still seem to discuss policy when they meet. If evidence surfaced that this was true, what would you say about that kind of relationship?But we are again getting off track. When they went there (at least in the beginning) they were as reps for Xians, and treated as such. They said so publically at the time. And there was no backlash. Honestly I was stunned after the 60 minutes thing, and the lack of reaction did make me wonder why there was such a lack of interest in this kind of posing and support for such posing.Thankfully it does appear Bush has taken to courting other religious leaders to get more support outside the evangelical community, and not meeting with them in the same capacity he once did. That would explain why there is no backlash at this time.

---

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

Arrrrrrrrgh! Read these words carefully. I already told you it was not something that 60 minutes alleged or twisted through editing. It was a 60 minutes segment on evangelicals and the white house in general. In that segment Falwell was discussing his relationship. He was very proud of what he was doing and saying. Now if you want to claim he was just bragging, that is one thing. What you cannot do is make it some liberal spin or made up story.Unless you are claiming Falwell was working for liberals at 60 minutes? Falwell was helping them create some illusion to help criticize Bush? That can't make sense to you, can it?So I am discussing what came right from the horse's mouth, and that his comments were backed by the Bush administration at that time. What he said was not rejected at all. Given that they have rejected statements made by them at other times, this tends to suggest those comments at that time were probably accurate.You did understand that the sum of my response was to admit you were right that they were no longer active in the capacity I had implied, right?

---

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