Andrew Sullivan notes the decline in young Americans who identify themselves as Christians, and the concomitant rise in hostility toward Christians. I believe he’s correct to say that part of the reason is that people are unhappy with the intolerance various denominations show towards gays and lesbians, but not as convinced by the centrality that Andrew affords to that. It seems to me, in connection with what we have learned about blasphemy and shibboleths here this week, that in point of fact “liberalism”, as defined by the illiberal, has been strikingly successful at representing itself as a civic religion, with the connivance of courts, media, schools and other bureaucracies. The only transcendental is the utopia the world would be if everyone believed as One does.
A Tragedy by Theophile Marzials
Death!
Plop.
The barges down in the river flop.
Flop, plop,
Above, beneath.
From the slimy branches the grey drips drop…
To the oozy waters, that lounge and flop…
And my head shrieks – “Stop”
And my heart shrieks – “Die.”…
Ugh! yet I knew – I knew
If a woman is false can a friend by true?
It was only a lie from beginning to end–
My Devil – My “friend.”…
So what do I care,
And my head is empty as air –
I can do,
I can dare
(Plop, plop
The barges flop
Drip, drop.)
I can dare, I can dare!
And let myself all run away with my head
And stop.
Drop
Dead.
Plop, flop,
Plop.
It’s rather redolent, really, of Scott Beauchamp, the unacknowledged greatest poet of this generation, IMHO. But this is typical Anglophonocentrism, don’t you think? I bet there are some strikingly stinky poems in other languages, too.
h/t Andrew Sullivan
It seems to me that in the actual average church, the homophobia is not exactly rife. Our pastor was gay in rural south Texas. We just didn’t talk about that. The media is just extremely eager to hand a megaphone to the most egregiously intolerant is all this is about really. I don’t know why they hate religion so much exactly, but I think it’s as simple as wanting to silence other voices.
Its telling that as a conservative, I would have the impression that it was the church’s slide towards feel-good-ism, shoddy doctrine, and overly liberal morals has contributed most strongly to its public decline. In other words, if we want to, we can all find a side of the church we don’t like and attribute it to its unfriendlyness towards an important part of our character.
Sully would not admit, perhaps as I would, that it is in fact his gayness that is making him see it this way. Obviously, my own gayness, which has been on permanent vacation since… before time, I can’t claim to feel the same way. However, there is a similarity towards his tendency to project an important part of his character onto the church. In my case this would be doctrine, conservative morals, etc. The sad truth is that the church is so diverse anyway, and that no matter how you look at it the modern church is divergent from the original in so many ways, that accurately determining the cause of any of its problems involves more than just lamenting your personal problems with it.
Did you get that? Not sure I did either.
Also, it is important to note, and do not distort this, that homosexuality is not a sin insofar as it is part of one’s nature, but only insofar as the person does homosexual acts. For instance, a gay priest who is chaste is not a sinner, nor anathema. He simply has a different struggle than others.
The problem with most conservative, doctrinaire Christians is with active homosexuals who are in leadership positions.
Apparently this is too nuanced of a position for the nuance party.
My better half and I actually switched denominations, because of a general feeling in our local congregation at our former chuch of outright hostility towards teh ghey. We now regularly attend an Episcopal church, where we have an open lesbian conducting the ceremonies. Now, having growing up Catholic, this feels odd to me, but I will get used to it.
Having said that, the likes of Caric, the Gleens, and Sully will keep me from jumping on their political bandwagon, as their means subvert the process, and in doing so, they alienate people like me and my better half, who agree with the underlying premise, but abhor the tactics and rhetoric.
Becasue there’s no group think on the Right….
Ya know there is alot of group think on the Left. Really. I know alot of folks like this (I work in academia) who mindlessly repeat the same mantras and look at me like I have 1000 heads if I disagree.
At least I can admit that, though. To run around and accuse the ‘other side’ of all the the crimes endemic to one’s own side is little more than chauvinistic advocacy, and certainly not intellectually honesty.
Why would anyone want to be Christian? In the schools, we learned just how bad and mean the Crusades were, poor Galileo was put on trial, witch trials in Salem, Spain under Torquemanda, how the Reformers were anti-semites, how noble and righteous those Enlightenment thinkers were for freeing us from the silly constraints of dead superstitions?
Actually, I believ that THIS is the worst poem ever:
freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits
On a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me
With crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
See if I don’t!
From Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Worst poem evah?
I see that you’re unfamiliar with the work of Jorie Graham.
Good for you.
Tim… wrong thread? :P
I think this dovetails with the “Death of the Grown-Up” meme. Extended adolescence through college, marriages delayed past age 30, living with mom and dad after college–the works. Let’s try these stats after the overdue growing up occurs.
Another thing to consider: the most gay-positive, anything-goes sexuality, non-judgmental, pro-leftist politics churches are cratering in attendance and skew heavily toward aging baby boomers–e.g., the Episcopalians, the UCC. Da Yutes aren’t gravitating toward religion even where it affirms them wholesale. Like I said, no grownups.
There’s a great passage in Kingsley Amis’ “The Green Man” where the wife of the protagonist tears into a Rev for forgetting that the reason people like religion is because it’s nice, once in a while, to be reminded of how you’re supposed to live your life, whether or not you actually do live their life that way. It provides a kind of breezeblock foundation for society, the basics, as it were. Absolutely hilarious book.
Now I’m off to take enough painkillers to stun a Kennedy.
“Concomitant”. “Shibboleth”.
Damn, Dan, Jeff’s rubbing off on you.
psychologizer–
Even though I did graduate work at Iowa, I don’t know Jorie’s stuff. Her husband’s an exceptional writer, though.
FAGGOT! FAGGOT! FAGGOT!
I don’t really have any ill will toward gay people.. It just feels so good to feel the power coursing through my veins when I have a chance to use one of the words that some social, sexual or racial group has endowed with such God-like power…
It’s like .. I dunno.. feels like being Paul Muad’Dib snorting fat melange lines off the bare ass of a hot Fremen chick on the back of a Sandworm as I sling powerful destructive words of power at all who stand in my way….
Sorry.. got lost in a fantasy their for a moment.. What were we talking about again?
“Andrew Sullivan notes … the reason is that people are unhappy with the intolerance various denominations show towards gays and lesbians”
Andrew is quite predictable. For him the private[s] are political.
Yawn
RiverC is right on. This is (yet) another example of Sullivan projecting part of his character into his theories about the motivations or belief systems of others. Since he obviously considers his sexuality as the most telling aspect of his character, he views christians through those glasses.
Where his theory falls apart is that more conservative churches continue to grow in membership while the large “mainstream” (for lack of a better word) churches membership numbers are plummeting. The “mainstream” churches have a very liberal view of homosexuality, while the conservative churches tend to define homosexual acts as sins. If Sully was right, wouldn’t the opposite be true? Example: the “old” Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) has lost millions of members over the last two decades. The leadership is currently promoting a sort of “don’t ask/don’t tell” approach to the sexual practices of ordained ministers. The more “conservative” Presbyterian (the PCA and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church) churches that reject this view continue to grow or remain the same in membership. In fact a number of churches within the PCUSA have opted to leave the denomination and join the other more “conservative” Presbytery’s over this very issue.
I understand Sully is referring to the youth demographic, but the above facts concerning overall membership wouldn’t be true if his theory was correct. Older members are more likely to remain with the Church they grew up in. It is the younger members leading the split in the Presbyterian (and Episcopalian) church. The newer Churches in Africa are leading the charge in those denominations against lax doctrine concerning sexual practice.
Many Christians view homosexuality as a sin. Many christians view cheating on your spouse with a member of the opposite sex to also be a sin. MAny christians have engaged in both activities. Because one feels an activity is wrong or immoral does not mean he or she is astep away from standing at a funeral with a”God hates Fags” sign. It just means that person believes that particular activity is not correct in the eyes of God and one should do one’s best to cease that activity.
I agree that many Christians attack homosexuality with more vigor than other sins. I believe that is the typical human reaction to scold those behaviors we don’t do more harshly than those behaviors we do perform. And let’s face it, more preachers have boinked the Church secretary than engaged in homosexual practices. But Sullivans theory that this single fact is destroying christianity is patently absurd. While I certainly respect JD’s decision to attend a church with a homosexual pastor and hope he finds solace there, I think he is the exception, not the rule. I agree with RiverC, the lukewarm liberal message delivered in “mainstream” pulpits is the reason all people, young and old, are staying away.
Both River and Eno hit the nail on the head.
As a member of the above referenced PCUSA (minor quibble, Eno. I think it’s hundreds of thousands, not millions in the last 20 years) I can back up Eno’s observations. Interestingly enough those “conservative” churches that Eno references (seperate from Catholic and Orthodox who have pretty much maintained their membership) are mostly Evangelical non-denominational. Pentecostal churches are also experiencing significant nationwide growth. The vast majority of these churches are Bible based and “Spirit filled.” (this is where you are liable, depending on the church, to see “speaking in tongues” or healing or people falling down who have been “struck by the spirit.”)
Sullivan is looking at this purely through the peculiar focus of his personal gay binoculars. The trend in Christian congregations is towards growth in the conservative wings (which encompasses a variety of Reform tradition theological issues of which homosexuality is only one) while the liberalizing mainline denominations are gradually shrinking.
In other words, Sullivan knows not about which he speaks.
Countless words have spent expounding on higher powers across multiple domains, among them political, spiritual, mental. The Characteristic left, the recent kind of which is intolerant of opposing views, simply has its collective soul invested in political power.
In this they are spiritually ill. Or, if you prefer, mentally ill, as the two are intertwined.
So it goes when legal theft, envy, intolerance, bigotry, and their Lie become central.
But, I state the obvious, and relatively poorly.
They, on the other hand, being liars, are progressives.
This poem is better.
Well, more meaningful anyway.
Moron Pundit:
*****STANDING OVATION*****
That was beautiful, maaaaaaan….. (heh)
I don’t profess to be an expert in these matters, but that strikes me as too pat an ideologically comforting explanation. I think Techie’s closer to the truth on this one.
The only caveat being that I don’t think the anti-christian agitators are all that fond of the enlightenment thinkers either. That said, I think the decline of Christianity is owed in part to the success of the rhetoric levied against it. And contrary to Eno and RiverC’s conjectures, I think the decline is also owed in part to the pervasive sanctimony of applied Christianity.
I think that a dispassionate analysis can only reveal that Christianity, on the whole, has been an enormous boon to the western world. However, dispassionate analysis is not what wins hearts and minds. I think Christianity jumped the shark as it were when it failed to realize that in a world characterized by mass communications media, it needed to market its social value instead of trying to browbeat and scare people into submission. Fear of eternal consequences just doesn’t cut it anymore when I can go to any number of authoritative sources for philosophical conjectures that do much to call into question the metaphysical assumptions of most Christian theology. Hell, the historicity of the physical evidence for Christianity is even questionable.
Compare that with the unrelenting focus on social value that progressivism employs in its apologia and one can easily see why the Christians seem so out of touch by comparison. Which, I think, is a rather unfortunate state of affairs.
Curious that no one has also pointed out how many of the–for lack of a better word–“mainstream” religious denominations seemed to have drifted left politically. And not just on gays but other topics like the war, abortion (in some cases, not all), and immigration to name but a few.
I wish I had a dollar for every car I see with the Episcopal cross insignia sticker with an anti-war/Bush sticker as well. (I reckon I’d have enough money to start a blog!)
Could it be people are leaving these congregations because they don’t want to hear a political message from a church pulpit?
As for Sully and the centrality of his gayness to his being, one wonders that when he ponders the stars in the sky, he’s sure some of them must be gay.
Could the decrease in church attendance in some denominations have anything to do with the incredibly small portions served at Communion?
“the lukewarm liberal message delivered in “mainstream†pulpits is the reason all people, young and old, are staying away”
or maybe it’s just that church (temple, ashram, or mosque) is for folks who believe in God. I gotta agree – liberals defending/attacking religion is bizarre and worthy of derision. Belief in an omnipotent, benevolent, yet demanding supernatural being fits with the conservative philosophy.
I think Christianity jumped the shark as it were when it failed to realize that in a world characterized by mass communications media, it needed to market its social value instead of trying to browbeat and scare people into submission. (emphasis mine)
You misunderstand the purpose of real religion (as opposed to its many counterfeits). Progressives and their ilk want to “make a difference” by remaking the world in their image. The religious want to remake themselves in the Image of God.
Any moron can open a soup kitchen or dig a well in Africa, but those are outward changes only. Religion seeks to change the innards.
I don’t know whom I’m paraphrasing, but here it is: “The world would take the man out of the gutter, whereas God would take the gutter out of the man, who then takes himself out of the gutter.”
Secular religions don’t offer internal transformation. Them as wants to change their hearts rather than the Whole World (by force, if necessary) will go to the more traditional churches rather than sit on a hard pew just to hear a bunch of feel-good claptrap we can get in any self-help book.
We Mormons are also seeing our numbers swell in response to people wanting something more rigorous than what “modern” churches offer.
Sorry. I see some of you have touched on the liberal slant of some churches.
I have always been unsatisfied with the rigor of the Church (which I capitalized because I was brought up Roman Catholic in the Catholic Church). I still consider myself Catholic in the sense that there are a lot of good things I’ve been taught about shaping character: humility, justice, compassion, forgiveness, reflection, etc. However, I really don’t consider myself a Catholic through and through anymore.
Oddly enough, it always bothered me that no priest I ever met would ever say that being Catholic was the only way to get to Heaven. I thought, “Well, hot damn, I may as well just go to a less strict religion if that’ll get me there too!” Basically, if you’re going to ask me to work so hard, I better be getting something for the extra effort. That and the whole “unanswered prayers” bullshit, and I got fed up.
dicentra: Well said!
Mainstream denominations have been moving leftward politically for quite some time. The PCUSA tried to work a “disinvest in Israel” scheme a while back, only to reel from the heated reaction of the membership.
Again, those churches experiencing growth are mostly theologically “conservative” (Catholic, Othodox, Morman, Evangelical, Pentacostal)and dedicated to Biblical values and traditional theology (Reform or not.) No “conservative” church with half a brain would make any hay with Phelps or any other “hater” church which inflates one sin over any other. Homosexuality is a small portion of the larger issues that churches deal with all of the time.
Sullivan is trying to cram a square peg into a hole that doesn’t exist.
Any moron can open a soup kitchen or dig a well in Africa, but those are outward changes only.
You unduly denigrate those who practice faith through acts, dicentra. I doubt you mean to, but that’s how your argument comes across (to me, anyway).
I think Mal’s got a good point: how much press do churches get for helping reconstruct the Gulf Coast or for helping fellow congregants sort out a troubled marriage? And how much more good could churches do if they reached out to non-believers to say “help improve your community *and* yourself” as opposed to “you’re going straight to Hell”?
It’s hard to recruit new members when all your national press is dedicated to the Sharptons, the Dobsons, the Falwells, and the latest pedophilia settlement.
I’d be mightily surprised if the observed trend proved to be linear; far more likely that it’s a pendulum that will slow and swing back. As local churches do a better job of marketing their value to the community, and as more people turn to local sources for information, I think we’ll see recruitment rates rise accordingly.
If the churches fail to adapt, I daresay they deserve to dwindle and wane. Looking at the last 2000 years, however, I wouldn’t bet on it going down that way.
Lest I fall prey to committing the very offense I’m pointing out in dicentra’s post, I should add that his Mormons provide an almost perfect example of broadcasting a positive recruitment message. It’s a breath of fresh air in contrast to most coverage of religion you’ll see on TV.
Many Christians view homosexuality as a sin. Many christians view cheating on your spouse with a member of the opposite sex to also be a sin.
That’s why Sen. Vitter got a standing ovation by members of the Republican Senate.
Fact is, what’s your orientation. Pious hypocrisy or mushy feel good.
I’ll abstain from both.
ps-Wasnt the Pope against the Iraq……oh never mind.
You unduly denigrate those who practice faith through acts, dicentra. I doubt you mean to, but that’s how your argument comes across (to me, anyway).
Then let me clarify my intent (and let me briefly point out the irony of accusing a Mormon of being critical of those who act on faith, but that’s another subject):
Opening a soup kitchen is something either an atheist or saint can do, or for that matter, a genocidal maniac (if he thought it would further his purposes). Yes, churches do immense amounts of good in the macro world, and they do so because of their religious faith, but that kind of good work isn’t confined to churches. If your aim is to “make a difference” in the macro world, you don’t need to join a church to do it.
I’m pointing out that interior transformation is unique to True Religion, as opposed to secular religion, which tends to assert that we’re fine just the way we are and we only have to change the structure of society to improve it.
And as you all know, those kinds of changes can ultimately be achieved only through coercion, either by law or by force of arms. True Religion, however, can be spread only by persuasion.
Did any of you bother to read the poll results, or even the article about them? As was explicitly reported by Barna and in the news piece, the decline in prestige of Christianity is attributed to its bigotry precisely because those who report negative attitudes about it cite that as their reason. The poll asked them why they feel the way they do, and that was the reason they gave.
It has nothing to do with Sullivan, the press, or any of your other excuses for refusing to face your own behavior. People think you’re bigots because you act like bigots, and they notice, and remember, and say so to pollsters. Sullivan isn’t making up these feelings – he’s reporting the feelings that the actual poll respondents themselves expressed, after watching the way you act. And generation by generation, more people notice, and are disgusted, and reject your ugly creed.
Dicentra, I don’t suppose I need to tell you that a great many Christian theologians would respond somewhere on a continuum between a chin-rub and outright hostility to a Mormon holding forth about “real religion (as opposed to its many counterfeits).†While I find such kind of argument tedious, I can’t help but wonder; is Shintoism a “real religion� Sikhism? B’hai? Sufism? Santaria? Taoism? Ad infinitum…
Regarding the swelling ranks of orthodox/â€Âconservative†churches, I wonder; are these new converts? Or is this a migration of more rigorous folks from the increasingly unorthodox churches? In other words, are these orthodox churches really doing anything to swell the ranks of the faithful as a whole, or just facilitating the realignment of the already faithful?
Incidentally, while I’m sure you meant no ill will in impugning my knowledge of “real religion†I should point out that I specifically used the word “market†to describe what a church does to get butts in the pews, not what they say to them once they get there. Just to establish some bona fides on this matter, I’ve read Aquinas and my copy of Augustine’s Confessions is just up over yonder on the shelf. I used to listen to Hank Hanegraaff fairly regularly. I grok the notion of religion as personal transformation.
Get bent, Kevin. Or Keith. Or both.
Broad brush accusations of bigotry make you come off like an ass.
Have you spent any time in a black Baptist church? Are they bigots?
To borrow most of that phrase, belief in an omnipotent, benevolent, yet demanding principle fits with the conservative philosophy. Which is to say, principle is a higher power, or if you prefer, “God” is or can be a metaphor for principle.
If God is principle, anti-principle and it’s adherents naturally have no use for either God or another’s view of God. Viola: The most stringent Left — it’s religiously illiberal — is exemplified by the selfish and the fraudulent. The principally chaotic tend Left. It pays. It inculcates and incubates.
Which is really to say, tear the rhetoric from Left policy and whim and you find not principle, but the decay of principle. This is why the Left cannot define it’s own ideals but it will decry the order and progress of others to serve them anyway, such as they may be.
Whether conservatives fit with God-views is not the point. The point is that when you lack principle, you naturally reject the principled. From there legislating yourself their property, speech, rights and freedom is a small step.
JHoward on 10/5 @ 1:43 pm
The dictionary defines principle as: A basic truth, law, or assumption
It doesn’t define principles as being conservative or religious intrinsically. It seems you are trying to reserve the word exclusively for those who share your beliefs – that’s dogma or doctrine.
My point is that religion is for people who believe in God and that the god presented by most religions would appeal to folks that share conservative world views.
You say, “the point is that when you lack principle, you naturally reject the principled” To borrow most of that phrase, when you lack a belief in God, you naturally reject religion. Any religion, and that’s a good thing.
I’m pretty sure Jorie Graham was very popular with the poets in the U Denver writing program while I was there, so I think I sat through one of her readings, if not more.
I recall nothing about here work, honestly. But then, with the exception of some of the poets in the PhD program still willing to work formally — and Christine Hume, who has actual talent — I wasn’t really impressed with those so impressed by Jorie Graham. And given that they tended to model their work on hers, well…
One of the geometrical proofs covers the math.
That’s what did it for me. I soured on the Episcopal Church when I realize I could just read Kos and get the same message without the “thees” and “thous.” And, it might be mentioned, Islam here seems to be growing without a woozy, wooly weltanschauung.
real religion (as opposed to its many counterfeits)
Let me clarify: I was not referring to any particular denomination or tradition as “real.” As I said before, “The religious want to remake themselves in the Image of God.” That kind of aspiration is pretty universal, across Western and Eastern traditions. You can find practitioners of “real” religion all over the place, just as you can find practitioners of counterfeit religion (false piety, superstition, etc.) in any denomination. Including my own.
“People think you’re bigots because you act like bigots, and they notice, and remember, and say so to pollsters.”
I got to say the nay-no, Kevin. The problem is that we don’t act like bigots; we act like ordinary people, because that is what we are. As malaclypse said earlier, “the decline of Christianity is owed in part to the success of the rhetoric levied against it”, and this “bigotry” business is just one aspect of that.
All of which is to say, there’s a difference between “we act like bigots and people notice” and “media types like Sullivan claim that we act like bigots and people believe it”. The poll results don’t access information on which of the two effects is more pronounced, but a lifetime of keeping company with Christians suggests to me that the latter is dominant.
he decline in prestige of Christianity is attributed to its bigotry precisely because those who report negative attitudes about it cite that as their reason.
I didn’t read the actual report, true. And I believe you. The issue of homosexuality may very well polarize the country the way that slavery did in the mid 1800s. And given that for many people, bigotry is the highest social evil, any perceived bigotry on the part of Christians will turn them off post-haste, regardless of whether it’s deserved.
Of course, the current definition of “homophobia” is anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage (a political stance, which by leftist definitions is how you measure morality), and given that many Christian denominations are hard-set against it, we’re “bigots” by definition, regardless of how we may act toward individual gay people.
So if people stay away from Christianity because it goes against the grain of popular culture (for the first time evar!), so be it.
Given that there’s no link to the actual report, I’m guessing that Keith hasn’t read the actual results either. Which is not to say that he or Sully are misrepresenting them, but that it would be nice to see the source material and it isn’t provided.
mment by Kevin T. Keith on 10/5 @ 1:32 pm #
Did any of you bother to read the poll results, or even the article about them? As was explicitly reported by Barna and in the news piece, the decline in prestige of Christianity is attributed to its bigotry precisely because those who report negative attitudes about it cite that as their reason. The poll asked them why they feel the way they do, and that was the reason they gave.
It has nothing to do with Sullivan, the press, or any of your other excuses for refusing to face your own behavior. People think you’re bigots because you act like bigots, and they notice, and remember, and say so to pollsters. Sullivan isn’t making up these feelings – he’s reporting the feelings that the actual poll respondents themselves expressed, after watching the way you act. And generation by generation, more people notice, and are disgusted, and reject your ugly creed.
So prays the humanistic Sanhedron loudly on the streetcorner.
Roxette should do a song about this.
And generation by generation, more people notice, and are disgusted, and reject your ugly creed.
With hatred like that you must be a Republican.
In my experience too much yin-yin or yang-yang tips yin-yang out of balance.
Nature is the sun and the moon.
can i suggest that it may well be that to really get it, you have to not get it at all. that is to say, it runs counter to the pop-cult to ever imagine there is anything more important than the self. it’s easier to just imagine we screw and never die. as for Christianity Lite… well, again, you get what you pay for. let me get this straight… the Constitution deserves a static interpretation, but the teachings of the Christ, well there’s more wiggle-room there? twisted.
In all honestly, people who report leaving Chrsitianity because of “bigotry” reek of ulterior motive. Having spent my whole life among Christians of every stripe, I can say that I never met one that I would call a “bigot”. They must be out there – I just haven’t seen this particular evil the Left is always waxing poetic about. Since I married a Christian from China, and know Christians of every race, it’s too hard to swallow this charge.
If we’re speaking strictly of homosexuality, well. I agree with everyone here – the denominations who embrace homosexuality and gays in the pulpit are losing their numbers. The political left is apparently not as popular when dressed up in robes.
Say what? Good luck with making that stick, if for no other reason than it’s statistical rubbish at least as far as American political conservatism goes. From there, I’d point you back to, yes, principle being, if it makes your grasp of the subject easier, a manifestation of “God”.
Which is to say, conservatives are ignorants? Moral chaos is progressive? What?
How about we just drop it.
What? I practice an ugly creed? Holy shit, pappa needs a brand new bag. Nah, on second thought, I won’t change for the haters. This is one, OF MANY, Christian that doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin (a religious view) and also has no problem with gay marriage (a political view). How do I reconcile against such strong proof that Kevin brought to the conversation? Eh, I’ll go on.
BTW, way off topic, but go Indians. No love from the nation, but they’re gonna beat the Yankees. Hmmmm…Indians/Rox world series? Has a nice ring to it.
I don’t follow. If you are proffering criterion for what is “real/true religion,†are you not advancing a theological argument? Let me push my Socratic needling a bit further to illustrate: Is the Temple of Set a “true religionâ€Â? Anton LaVey’s Satanism? Gnosticism? Catharism? I think practitioners of these religions would argue that “personal transformation†is at the heart of their faiths. I think they would take umbrage to the suggestion that they are not “true†or “realâ€Â. And if they’re not “real†or “true†in your opinion, then why isn’t the Missouri Synod Lutheran or Southern Baptist theologian likewise justified in considering Mormonism something other than a “true religionâ€Â?
For the record, I’m not trying to be flippant. Mostly, I just like edifying discussion. Additionally, I think the convoluted machinations one must undertake to justify one’s faith (especially when to do so means to reject other faiths) are instructive as to why Christianity is having a hard time selling itself to the media savvy youth of today’s western world.
I can understand why some disagree with the political views of various religions, but in the end, aren’t the fundamental basis of most, if not all religions how to be better people by following the teachings? So some have different paths. Who cares? We all tend to gravitate to places that are comfortable for us – with our friends, neighborhoods, blogs, and religions. I, and others, practice a religion that is more accepting of homosexuality than others. That makes this religion no better, no worse. just different.
And, it still makes Sully and Greenwald sanctimonious lying crap weasels. And Keith Kevin Kerry is no better.
On second thought, Kevin Keith is worse. Sully and the Gleeens are selling a product to a gullible group who should not be trusted with governance, money, or air. KK is a believer in that crap, which is far less tolerable.
Heh. Typical Rethug supply-sider.
Lordy, this thread is tedious.
The young are always unwise and selfish. They abandon beliefs that do not fit desire and justify the decision with fashionable rationalizations, adopting fashionably acceptable judgmental generalizations as the prop to smug self-righteousness. In this way, moral assertion is perceived as bigotry and a href=”http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=8399″>condoning destructive behavior becomes a satisfying necessity.
Wisdom comes later in life, at least for some.
Link corrected.
I miss preview!
The Homofag bit is getting tired. This particular bit of illogical jujitsu and mind control is really disgusting.
Homofags are the new “true Scotsmen†– in that no evil, conniving, or devious individual is a “true Homofag,†whether or not the individual in question engages in homosexual behavior. And yes, I subscribe to the view held in Western Culture before homosexuality became the maul of cultural Marxists and a political cause – viz, it is an activity engaged in, more or less, by the horny, and not an identity or culture of itself.
As a matter of fact, a history of the world’s great villains would find Homofags grossly overrepresented, from Nero Caesar through to the SA Brownshirts, and quite possibly Hitler himself. To add to this, evidence that a villain is a homosexual is suppressed or dismissed, i.e. the possibility that the two chaps at Columbine were “friendly,†and the admission of one of Matthew Shepherd’s killers that he is and was bisexual. Thusly, the priests who seduced adolescent boys – an act which would be properly classified as ephebophilia and squarely within the mainstream of homosexual fantasy/practice (Greek much?) and no different than the statutory rapes perpetrated by Mary Kay Latourneau and Deborah LaFave were incorrectly labeled “pedophile priests†rather than “homosexual priests,†and their crimes were pinned squarely to the Church and not the sacred cow of Homofags.
This last bit about the Church segues neatly into my next point, which is that the Marxist media only portrays the Church as a photographic negative – (I’m talking about the Catholic Church in particular, but this applies to any non-leftist Church in which belief that a God actually exists is a requisite); an essentially corrupt and corrupting institution on par with the old KGB or something.
It is no wonder that those who consume of the media bilge in large volume adopt this view, or in fact see something noble and superior in being from the persecuted class of eternally fashionable Homofags. The added benefit of eschewing religion and celebrating Homofags is the tacit agreement that we’ll all agree that there are no “adults,†and that we won’t judge my vices because I won’t judge yours. (i.e. illicit drug use, irresponsible non-parenting, just about any species of inordinate selfishness, *but with the odd and inconsistent exceptions of whiskey, strippers, guns, tobacco, muscle cars and trucks with lift kits, porn that wasn’t directed by bulldykes, big dogs, football, swattin’ broads on the ass and roasting animals.)
As Asatru, I don’t find Christians particularly bigoted, at least about my religion. I DO find atheists and secular progressives bigoted, to the point of insulting people of faith as inherently stupid for believing in anything greater than themselves.
Except for Islam, which is interesting in itself…