The Religious Middle

PDN

I saw this article in USA Today this week: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080811/opledereligion138.art.htm

Some persist in thinking of American Christians in stereotypical terms as 'the religious right'. In fact the true situation is much more nuanced.

I also noticed that Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham, conducted a poll this week that showed a majority favouring Obama.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

I saw this article in USA Today this week: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080811/opledereligion138.art.htm

Some persist in thinking of American Christians in stereotypical terms as 'the religious right'. In fact the true situation is much more nuanced.

I also noticed that Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham, conducted a poll this week that showed a majority favouring Obama.

Then why don't we see these people openly opposing the more controversial (unchristian, imo) views of the christian right? Its just like these moderate muslims we hear so much about, yet very few openly oppose the acts of islamism. If these people exist, they might want to start opening their mouth and make themselves heard.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Then why don't we see these people openly opposing the more controversial (unchristian, imo) views of the christian right? Its just like these moderate muslims we hear so much about, yet very few openly oppose the acts of islamism. If these people exist, they might want to start opening their mouth and make themselves heard.

Extremists are always louder, whatever their movement.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Extremists are always louder, whatever their movement.

Its not the loudness of the extremists, but rather the deafening silence of so-called moderates - who are allegedly the majority - in condemning their actions. It just doesn't seem to happen.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Then why don't we see these people openly opposing the more controversial (unchristian, imo) views of the christian right? Its just like these moderate muslims we hear so much about, yet very few openly oppose the acts of islamism. If these people exist, they might want to start opening their mouth and make themselves heard.

They, or rather 'we', frequently speak out. The problem is that our views rarely make it onto TV or into newspapers because the media's sensationalism and laziness make it easier for them to keep portraying the same stereotypes.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Its not the loudness of the extremists, but rather the deafening silence of so-called moderates - who are allegedly the majority - in condemning their actions. It just doesn't seem to happen.

You call us deluded???

"Christian says Phelps is bad news and his behaviour unchristian"

"Christian Group set up anti gay website called GodHatesFags.com"

I know which story will make it to the papers. Also, religious groups can't keep on coming out defending themselves as if they have something to defend, because some crackpots are going on a rampage! Muslim, Christian or whatever. Its not up to me to help you with your ignorance. If you choose to be a bigot, its no-ones fault but yours.

PDN

By the same token I am sure that there are lots of atheists who are reasonable and fair-minded. Unfortunately they will never receive the publicity of the likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. The media loves sensationalism and extremism because it sells.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

By the same token I am sure that there are lots of atheists who are reasonable and fair-minded. Unfortunately they will never receive the publicity of the likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. The media loves sensationalism and extremism because it sells.

Right. Do you think it is fair to compare Dawkins/Hitchens to Phelps/Abu Hamza? If Dawkins is as extreme as atheism gets, then we are onto a winner.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately they will never receive the publicity of the likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. The media loves sensationalism and extremism because it sells.

Are you seriously calling Richard Dawkins an extremist for calling your religion a load of old cobblers?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right. Do you think it is fair to compare Dawkins/Hitchens to Phelps/Abu Hamza? If Dawkins is as extreme as atheism gets, then we are onto a winner.

No, I would see Dawkins/Hitchins as similar to Jerry Falwell & Ken Hamm. Being a polite fair-minded chappie I prefer not to keep harping on about the real atheist extremists. To keep citing the real extremists (Phelps, Abu Hamza, the regimes in China & North Korea) to attack an ideology is poor debating. That's why, in The God Delusion, Dawkins takes the time to go on about some obscure violent anti-abortionist that I've never heard of.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

No, I would see Dawkins/Hitchins as similar to Jerry Falwell & Ken Hamm. Being a polite fair-minded chappie I prefer not to keep harping on about the real atheist extremists. To keep citing the real extremists (Phelps, Abu Hamza, the regimes in China & North Korea) to attack an ideology is poor debating. That's why, in The God Delusion, Dawkins takes the time to go on about some obscure violent anti-abortionist that I've never heard of.

What are you talking about? I make comment about moderates not doing enough to stand up to extremists. You point out that Dawkins is an extremist. I respond by saying that it is unfair to compare Dawkins to said extremists. Then you say I'm using extremists to attack an undefined ideology when all I was saying is that moderates of all religions should speak up a bit more against extremists. Am I missing something here or have you lost the plot?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What are you talking about? I make comment about moderates not doing enough to stand up to extremists. You point out that Dawkins is an extremist. I respond by saying that it is unfair to compare Dawkins to said extremists. Then you say I'm using extremists to attack an undefined ideology when all I was saying is that moderates of all religions should speak up a bit more against extremists. Am I missing something here or have you lost the plot?

Yes, you are missing something.

The thread began by my highlighting of the religious middle as opposed to the religious right.

The religious right are a fairly large number of people with somewhat extreme views as articulated by people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson etc. For them the Republican Party is God's Party and they speak of the 'Demoncrats'. Such spokesman have substantial popular support in parts of the Christian community.

Then you have the far right wacko extremists like Fred Phelps or the nutjobs who want to kill abortionists. These kind of people have no numerical support and are despised by the majority of Christians.

Then you have the middle. The majority of Christians who are as likely to vote for Obama as for McCain.

The media portray the religious right as if they are represent Christianity as a whole. The point of the OP was to highlight the falsity of that stereotype.

Dawkins and Hitchens are extremists in the same sense as the religious right. They are the atheist equivalent of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

Fred Phelps and the doctor-killing anti-abortionists are, IMO, the equivalent of the atheist rulers of China and North Korea.

The Mad Hatter

It would still be nice to occassionally hear 'Phelps' actions, which have been condemned by the majority of Christian leaders in the country...'

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Fred Phelps and the doctor-killing anti-abortionists are, IMO, the equivalent of the atheist rulers of China and North Korea.

It would be fair to say that the former are acting in the cause of their warped view of the bible. Is it fair to say that N.Korea acts in the name of atheism or for their own religion; communism?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It would be fair to say that the former are acting in the cause of their warped view of the bible. Is it fair to say that N.Korea acts in the name of atheism or for their own religion; communism?

That is a whole debate in itself. Is Phelps really motivated by his view of the Bible or is he using it as an excuse to act out his pathological behaviour? That is why I think it is dishonest to use the Chinese & Koreans (or Stalin) as an argument for atheism being evil - just as dishonest as using Phelps & the doctor-killers (or the Inquisition) as an argument for religion being evil. In fact, it is noticeable that both the religious right and Dawkins/Hitchens are happy to use these dishonest techniques.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That is a whole debate in itself. Is Phelps really motivated by his view of the Bible or is he using it as an excuse to act out his pathological behaviour?

I think it's obvious enogh that Phelps is using the bible to provide infallible legitimacy to his own weird and anti-social views in exactly the same way that, for example, the DPRK's Dear Leader is using the (locally) infallible views of his frightful father to legitimize his own nastiness.

PDN wrote: »

In fact, it is noticeable that both the religious right and Dawkins/Hitchens are happy to use these dishonest techniques.

What exactly is dishonest about pointing out that Phelps justifies his unpleasantness by referring to the bible? I'd have thought that D+H were being scrupulously honest in doing so.

wolfsbane

I'm sure most of you have heard, or heard of, Cal Thomas, the syndicated columnist/FOX News contributor.

Cal is an Evangelical Christian and is worth reading. He contributes a lot about politics, but it put it firmly in its context recently:
Christian churches have a lot of work to do in addressing biblical illiteracy, ignorance and, yes, heresy, in their midst. They might want to pay more attention to fixing what’s gone wrong among their members before expending too much energy on politics and politicians.
From, Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/do-they-think-jesus-was-a-liar/

His website:
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2338

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

By the same token I am sure that there are lots of atheists who are reasonable and fair-minded. Unfortunately they will never receive the publicity of the likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. The media loves sensationalism and extremism because it sells.

Pol Pot and Stalin were surely more extreme than Dawkins or Hitchens ?

Flamed Diving

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Pol Pot and Stalin were surely more extreme than Dawkins or Hitchens ?

Were Pol Pot and Stalin really acting in the name of atheism? If so, where can I find this atheist doctrine?

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure most of you have heard, or heard of, Cal Thomas, the syndicated columnist/FOX News contributor.

Cal is an Evangelical Christian and is worth reading. He contributes a lot about politics, but it put it firmly in its context recently:
Christian churches have a lot of work to do in addressing biblical illiteracy, ignorance and, yes, heresy, in their midst. They might want to pay more attention to fixing what’s gone wrong among their members before expending too much energy on politics and politicians.
From, Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/do-they-think-jesus-was-a-liar/

His website:
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2338

He has a regular spot on the Last Word, Today FM. I find he can be astute and also gob smackingly right-wing in fairly equal measures.

Húrin

Good. I've always found that fortress mentality repulsive. Good to see that many American Christians are finally taking heed of Barth's advice to "keep a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other."

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

Good. I've always found that fortress mentality repulsive. Good to see that many American Christians are finally taking heed of Barth's advice to "keep a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other."

I like that.

...

...

Especially given that all decent newspapers require two hands to read...;)

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

Good. I've always found that fortress mentality repulsive. Good to see that many American Christians are finally taking heed of Barth's advice to "keep a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other."

Dashed inconvenient for those of us who like to do much of our reading when sitting on the toilet. It's much less messy if you have at least one hand free.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Dashed inconvenient for those of us who like to do much of our reading when sitting on the toilet. It's much less messy if you have at least one hand free.

After that mental image, I'd ban you for a week if I could, PDN

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After that mental image, I'd ban you for a week if I could, PDN

Agreed. I'm almost ready to ban myself!