PDA

View Full Version : Christians who find the marriage of religion to flag these days to be wrong


pfflam
09-08-2004, 11:28 PM
I came across a good article that shows that many Christians are themselves getting sick and tired of the assumption that Religion means throwing away critical thought and emmediately eating up the Right-wing hatred.

I post teh whole thing because I doubt that any of you 'Christians' would read the whole thing if I didn't:

The blurring of Christianity
Has religious right hijacked American flag and Jesus?
By Barrie Hartman

It's a subject that stirs the emotional pot, and something people obviously want to talk about but seem afraid to do so:

Has the right wing of the Republican Party not only hijacked the American flag and patriotism but Jesus Christ as well?

If so, how did it happen? And why aren't mainstream Christians screaming bloody murder?

Judging by the large, thoughtful response to my Aug. 1 column that questioned where Christianity is going, I'm hardly alone in my distress. We mainstream Christians went into a Rip Van Winkle slumber, while our conservative neighbors busily turned God and the flag into a righteous partnership.

How easy it was after Sept. 11 for the religious right to grow in numbers and influence as it redefined the true meaning of Christianity, made hate, fear and revenge sound virtuous and promised that, with God, we (good) will triumph over them (evil).

A lot of you apparently grew up as I did. As a Christian, you believed that more could be accomplished with love than with hate. What mattered was helping the downtrodden and loving your fellow man. Now, with a blurred definition of Christianity, you can't be a true believer without being devoted to a war that is worth nearly 1,000 American lives (so far) because my God is better than your God.

I lamented in my last column about how the changing nature of religion was affecting the image of ordinary churchgoers - most of us. There is a tendency today to throw all churchgoers into the same pot with the religious right. Therefore, we're George Bush voters, we support the Iraqi war and we hate gays and lesbians. (Several Bible-pounding e-mailers scolded me, "We don't hate homosexuals; we join God in hating their sin.")

A number of readers wrote that "you insincere Christians" can help the poor and do all the good deeds you want. But that won't get you into Heaven. Only following Scripture - "the final word on everything" - and accepting Jesus Christ as your savior will ensure a heavenly afterlife, they lectured.

The churchgoers I respect don't help the less fortunate and engage in acts of kindness to earn their "ticket" (as one letter-writer put it) to Heaven. They do it because it's the decent thing to do. There shouldn't be any other motive.

In my view, we mainstream Christians have sunk to a new low by allowing, in our silence, the religious right and our government to use Jesus and the church as political pawns to validate an unnecessary war.

Over the last month, readers have had much to say on the topic. Here's a sampling from more than 70 e-mails plus letters I received, 90 percent of which expressed serious concerns:

From Niwot: "I, too, despair that Christianity and religion are becoming pseudonyms for patriotism and Godliness. We have a wonderful minister. But beneath this man and the congregation's exterior faade, there lurks homophobia, steadfast loyalty to the war, and an inability to adjust to any view not consistent with Biblical revelations. There is no room for using your God-given intellect."

From Laramie, Wyo.: "I feel getting health care to the poor is much more an expression of my faith than supporting a war in Iraq."

From a "Christian Republican": "The way the war was presented by our president made it look like it was the Christians vs. the Democrats."

From a retired Methodist pastor: "I am increasingly discouraged by the attitude that seems to be nurtured within the church that makes it acceptable to exclude persons."

From a non-Christian: "I hold my two grandmothers up as my ideal of Christianity, and have said several times recently that they would be turning over in their graves if they could hear what is passing for Christianity today."

From a retired Escondido, Calif., Methodist pastor: "I have become appalled at the direction of mainline denominations. It's been said that the Christian church must change or it will die. I fear, however, that it will NOT die, but only that part will persist that expresses an inauthentic blasphemy, using religion to bolster racism, sexism, homophobia and many other expressions of fear and hatred."

When will the world learn that bullets and bombs only lead to more bullets and bombs, especially if religion is part of the mix? Neither Christians nor Muslims (or any religion) will escape huge losses of life and utter misery if they continue marching down a close- minded road absolutely convinced that "our way of living, thinking and worshipping is the only way. Believe it or perish."

"Love thy enemy," Jesus preached 2,000 years ago. What do you suppose Jesus would be saying to us - and about us - today?

Barrie Hartman is a retired Boulder newspaper editor living in nearby Louisville. He is a member of the Louisville United Methodist Church.

MarcUK
09-09-2004, 12:12 AM
link?

crazychester
09-09-2004, 11:02 AM
One of the things I'd really like a Christian who advocates killing in the name of the WOT or as capital punishment or whatever to explain to me is where exactly is the ambiguity in "Thou shalt not kill". I mean "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass" is a statement that requires a degree of interpretation for many modern human beings. But "thou shalt not kill" has always seemed like one of the straight forward ones to me.

I've never seen it written as "thou shalt not kill - mostly" or "thou shalt not kill unless <insert qualifier eg. they're Muslim>". Different versions of the Ten Commandments always seem to state that one the same. If anything, you'd think the only question it raises is whether he meant only humans or a more encompassing definition a la Buddhism. Indeed, I believe the Hebrew actually translates as "any kind of killing whatsoever".

The "eye for an eye" thing is very much open to interpretation. And besides, the 10C were a direct delivery from the Big Guy complete with burning bush and all manner of fanfare that seemed to be a clear indication he was saying "Oi you lot! These are really important."

So what gives? Am I missing something here?

And given JC was wandering about in an occupied territory and the invaders were happy to see him strung up on a cross and they gave the Jews a particularly hard time because they resisted occupation, how come he didn't advocate killing Romans? And why would he support killing Iraqis now?

JC's not a flip-flopper is he?

Strange that, in my experience, the people who adhere most steadfastly and consistently to the idea "thou shalt not kill" are atheists.

Northgate
09-09-2004, 12:45 PM
That's a great article. While my family is Catholic and staunchly conservative, my wife's family is also Catholic and staunchly liberal. My family wears their Republican and Catholic badges with honor, while my wife's family spends an inordinate amount of time debating how Republican co-opted their religion.

MarcUK
09-10-2004, 09:04 AM
Thanks for the link pfflam

:p:p;)

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~31701~2376784,00.html:p

Frank777
09-10-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by crazychester
One of the things I'd really like a Christian who advocates killing in the name of the WOT or as capital punishment or whatever to explain to me is where exactly is the ambiguity in "Thou shalt not kill". I mean "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass" is a statement that requires a degree of interpretation for many modern human beings. But "thou shalt not kill" has always seemed like one of the straight forward ones to me.

I've never seen it written as "thou shalt not kill - mostly" or "thou shalt not kill unless <insert qualifier eg. they're Muslim>". Different versions of the Ten Commandments always seem to state that one the same. If anything, you'd think the only question it raises is whether he meant only humans or a more encompassing definition a la Buddhism. Indeed, I believe the Hebrew actually translates as "any kind of killing whatsoever".

The "eye for an eye" thing is very much open to interpretation. And besides, the 10C were a direct delivery from the Big Guy complete with burning bush and all manner of fanfare that seemed to be a clear indication he was saying "Oi you lot! These are really important."

So what gives? Am I missing something here?

And given JC was wandering about in an occupied territory and the invaders were happy to see him strung up on a cross and they gave the Jews a particularly hard time because they resisted occupation, how come he didn't advocate killing Romans? And why would he support killing Iraqis now?

JC's not a flip-flopper is he?

Strange that, in my experience, the people who adhere most steadfastly and consistently to the idea "thou shalt not kill" are atheists.


The sixth commandment does not say "Thou Shall Not Kill".
It is correctly translated "You Shall Not Murder".

This is not the 17th century, and we don't speak King James English anymore.

Res
09-10-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by crazychester
-snip-
And given JC was wandering about in an occupied territory and the invaders were happy to see him strung up on a cross and they gave the Jews a particularly hard time because they resisted occupation, how come he didn't advocate killing Romans? And why would he support killing Iraqis now?
-snip-


As far as historians can tell, JC was inciting a jewish uprising against the Romans, which is why they crucified him.

Would JC be in favor of this war? There is no way to tell.