PatsFanInVa

I think a bible study thread would be fine as well, and I may even partake... need I say it? In the Religion forum.

I can't guess Patter's reasoning here, as to the timing of this thread. I don't know the thread is supposed to be an exemplar of the "line" as he'd want to draw it, or a basic announcement that he's fine with religion everywhere.

I do take issue with the assertion that our moral/ethical/etc. beliefs are the primary determinants of our arguments and our behavior, particularly as an argument for the substitution of proselytizing for discussion -- this is where we've gone with the argument in the past, though it may not be the intent of the current comment.

Besides that difficulty, the assertion, though oft-made, is not substantiated.

One can argue that our viewpoints come from parental or environmental influence; one can argue that our ideologies are superstructures built upon our material status; one can argue that our "selfish genes" are responsible for behavior patterns, which we can crystallize in our dogmas. Finally, particularly given the gap between "belief" and "action," one can argue that more than one set of motivations - the stated (to oneself) and the unstated - are always in play. This goes a long way to explaining hypocrisy (such as many can easily see in the late Rev. Falwell's public statements.)

Finally, basing board custom on this shaky assertion (that our politics are all about our belief/moral/ethical systems), sort of obviates the point of a Political forum -- unless, of course, we had something like, ohhhh let's say a Religion forum, where such viewpoints can be exchanged.

The problem with substituting these "core views" for comment on observed phenomena, is that we can say whatever we want, and essentially formulate views in a vacuum of data, if we go by our "religious" guidelines -- and this is precisely what happens when threads included these religious tangents before. The right/left polarization we see anyway is that much more exaccerbated by spurious claims of divine authenticity. Hence, the creation of a Religion forum.

One can argue that God hates America; that God hates Muslims; that God hates homosexuals; that God prefers one or another party to win a given election; etc. We do not know any of these premises to be true, and yet we feel free to assert them, based on one or another dogma, with or without scriptural "evidence."

This is like the conviction of "witches" in Salem, in supposedly bona fide courts of law, using something called "Spectral Evidence."

The observable, physical universe, gentlemen, is what we all share without recourse to custom, divine revelation, and supernatural explanation. I continue to suggest that this is the universe which is pertinent to a Political forum.

PFnV

reflexblue

Well, I quess that about sums it up.

__________________
S.H.E.S.
I Likes Spikes.

Lifer

but i would caution, and pardon the saying, careful what you pray for.
Martin Luther King based much of his persuasive reasoning in changing civil policy on religious themes. He made it a moral issue. There our candidates on the left who have cited scripture to make Poverty, not just a political issue, but a moral issue.

Again, I didnt care for Falwells ranting, and he wasnt a hundreth a man as Dr.King was. But lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater ( no references to abortion intended).
If Rev.Falwell used similar ranting tactics to rail against right wing sacred cows, i would imagine people on the fringe left would love him as a "truth teller" and the right wing Christians would have posted anti-Falwell posts on football website political forums shortly after his death.

...just keeping it real...

PatsFanInVa

Well, I'm pretty center-left, but have been accused of far-leftdom here. I have to say the current mantra among Democraticv candidates is that their faith inspires their values - and the mantra scares me.

Although it's about time they come up with something to match the "we're God's favorite" cant of the Republicans, what they've come up with is pure imitation. "Go ahead, let that genii out of the bottle! It'll be fine!"

As to the Dem candidates themselves, the argument they use is basically - "since faith shapes everyone's values, your religion may as well be used publicly and positively throughout the campaign."

It's more the Republicans who are in "religion trouble" now. A Mormon or a Catholic who might be "going to hell..." or associates of the evangelical right, always a loose cannon when not actually in charge of the party? The GOP's religious fervor is toned way down this time (thus far.)

Interesting times.

PFnV

reflexblue

King preached love,tolorance,and compasion,Falwell preached hate,intolorance and the belief that if you wern't a born again Chritian you were an unbeliever,a sinner, the work of the devil,and the ENEMY. In my opinion this is what he boiled down to,at the most base level. He and others like him inserted these beliefs into politics and the country has never been the same since,and its for the worst.

__________________
S.H.E.S.
I Likes Spikes.

Lifer

you see, thats the mantra that sounds scary to me. As if your average Christian voter is like Falwell. And the left would like nothing better than Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like to be what everyone imagines when the word Christian or Evangelical is used.

So when values or abortion or Christianity is ever discussed, do they bring up Charles Stanley? Jack Hayford? T.D. Jakes? Joyce Meyer? Beth Moore? Joel Osteen?
Nope.
its always Falwell and Robertson, the lunatics.

Falwell did a lot of damage to the Gospel in my opinion. To the glee of political liberals.

Patters doesnt have to deal with Jesus message of love, tolerance, and compassion,nor does any other sinner, when you can make Jerry Falwell the face of Christianity.

So why was this thread started in this forum again??

wistahpatsfan

Naw! I think everyone recognizes that most Christians are good people and that Falwell, Swaggert and Robertson don't represent Christians. I think Reflexblue was referring to the sliver of Christians that tried to inject their warped views into government. They were successful, to a point, because Congressmen and other government types can't help themselves from pandering to them. They are so out of touch with what Americans are all about, they think lobbies, special interests, and those who buy access to them actually represent what Americans - voters and non voters - believe.

reflexblue

What he said.

__________________
S.H.E.S.
I Likes Spikes.

Lifer

the irony, and maybe this is another thread, is that liberalism was kind of shattered by a President from Texas who ruined his whole Presidency by running America into an idiotic war and even after it was a lost cause, kept up the doomed policy so as to not admit making a mistake.
Lyndon Johnsons Great Society was ruined by the Vietnam War and it laid the groundwork for the conservative movement.

Has anything destroyed the right wing more than this Texas President doing the same thing?

The G.O.P. doesnt even have a real conservative, or at least one in the top tier, running in 2008

PatsFanInVa

It's interesting that the trend is for the Dems to stand on religion. I think Falwell-style mixing of church and state has lost ground -- but to me, it's also less than optimal to run on an MLK-esque religious platform. Why? Religion is not statecraft. To his great credit, as a member of a whole 'nother religion, I feel I could be part of King's movement -- as many Jews were. Try that "thought experiment" in the Falwell case.

But King was an exceptional man in an exceptional time. I'd prefer where you go to church, what God told you in a dream, and the biblical interpretation of the Breton Woods agreements to stay in the mind of the candidate, personally. What happens to the minority religions, when religious faith is considered a legitimate "criterion" for election? To the extent that confessional group is in the equation, we will end up voting by confessional group -- not by who we think espouses the best views or is most likely to handle the business of the country best.

Did King start such a trend? No. Would Falwell, given a chance? Of course. Would the current batch of Dems? No... unless they were going to lose an election. Then Yes.

If you want to house the homeless, you want to house the homeless. It is immaterial whether you come by this belief reading secular humanist works, the Tripitika, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Tanakh, or the Greek bible.

Similarly, if you want to oppose the same stance, you can find your justification just as easily within as outside of a religion.

Why not explain your argument's merits from first principals?

PFnV