I dislike the modern evangelical movement. It is the biggest threat to the freedom that America prides itself in. What do you think?

Comments

Comments

• Exercising one's freedom does not include trying to take the rights of others away. The modern evangelical movement is basically an intolerant group tolerated by people who's rights may well be taken away if they don't put their foot down.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on February 4th, 2010

• I agree with your first sentence. Balancing everyone's freedoms is always tricky and when a court rules on it, there are always those who disagree with the decision. Taking away any freedom puts one step further on the road to fascism and totalitarianism.

  • Report
  

  by Grandma Roses - my avatar is my real dog on February 5th, 2010

• Thank you Grandma Roses. That is my point exactly:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on February 8th, 2010

• So please explain which rights the evangelical movement is actually taking away from you.

  • Report
  

  by Grandma Roses - my avatar is my real dog on February 8th, 2010

• The right for my children to learn about evolution in school; the right to benefit from stem cell research; the right to have a homosexual relationship and marry; the right to have an abortion; the right to have sex before marriage; the right to have which ever faith I so wish without being labelled a 'secular humanist'.......

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on February 9th, 2010

• I see that you fell into my trap. I asked which 'rights' and you immediately went off on the tangent. The question was about freedoms, not rights. These are 2 entirely different things although they are both good things.
  Is the right to benefit from stem cell research enshrined in legislation? If not, they are not 'depriving' anyone of it.
  If you want any of those rights that you list, is the Evangelical Movement depriving you of the opportunity to move to someplace where you will have a better opportunity to exercise those rights?

  • Report
  

  by Grandma Roses - my avatar is my real dog on February 9th, 2010

• Rights and freedoms are not separate. They are both intertwined just as obligation is a part of freedom. It is our duties and obligations towards others that make us free. So your trap is in your own mind, not in your comment. And yes, the right to perform stem-cell research is written into legislation. It is either legal or it isn't and is highly influenced by religious pressure groups. As for moving to another area because one would like to have one's child taught the curriculum of one's choice - not everyone can afford to do that and choice should be a freedom provided in schools, not determined by religious fanatics.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on February 11th, 2010

• When you tolerate intolerant groups you create a situation like Germany in the 1930's. Very dangerous.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on July 4th, 2010

• It would seem Grammy doesn't have a good grasp of either right or freedom.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on August 18th, 2010

• That seems to be the case canoequide.:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 19th, 2010

Comments

• Good answer

  • Report
  

  by manywords on January 21st, 2010

• Yes, agreed. However, tolerating intolerant groups is a dangerous game.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 22nd, 2010

• That's what we said about Hitler, until it was too late!:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 22nd, 2010

• Life is a dangerous game -- but you have to have good judgment: you cannot compare evangelicals to Hitler, sorry... the parallels are not there. Yes, they're obnoxious and often bigoted, but they don't have the seeds of "slaughter 6 million people".

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on January 22nd, 2010

• I presume you heard what American missionaries have done in Uganda. They have influenced the government to the degree that it is now going to introduce hanging for homosexuals. Anyone who does not believe what they teach is labelled secular humanists. I can just see in a few years, if you have an evangelical university professor with whom you do not see eye to eye on religion, your marks may well not be as high as you would like. And as for evangelical employees....

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 23rd, 2010

• Sorry I meant employers:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 23rd, 2010

• The Christians there are rightly shocked and upset about the government's behavior... it was an unintended consequence, not a plan to crush gays. You're still stretching your point: if you demonize every group who is obnoxious, you can spin a case for suppressing them... you're doing what you're complaining about, in effect. That is how tyrants get their power -- by convincing everyone that this group or that group are a terrible threat, and making everyone overreact.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on January 23rd, 2010

• I can see your point HB, however, we are tolerating an intolerant group, one that is against anyone who does not believe in Jesus as their saviour, one that is anti-homosexual, anti-sex before marriage, anti-evolution, anti-stemcell research, anti-doing anything about global warming as the end of the world is nigh. My point is that with such a large network of people will the non-Christian or Christian be given the job in an office where the boss is Christian? And will the student who is non-Christian be given the same marks, assitance and opportunities as the Christian student where the lecturer is Christian fundamentalist? I don't think so. And why should my child be deprived of learning about evolution because we live in a predominantly Christian neighbourhood? I am not anti-Christian but anti-the present evangelical trend to bring religion into politics and into our schools. If they don't want evolution taught then they can teach their kids at home.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 30th, 2010

• Too many such groups openly hope to use your "extra rope" to come after me & many others.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on August 18th, 2010

• If they would just allow others to live their lives as they please. I thought religion was about being tolerant and non-judgmental.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 19th, 2010

• Wow, where'd you get that idea??

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 19th, 2010

• That's in theory, at least. It has definately changed over the last 30 years. I have been reading your comments again. I disagree with you about taking a stand against the evangelicals. That means that no one can take a stand against a group in fear of being labelled a tyrant. So, I guess that means we cannot stand up to white supremacists or anti-abortionists. Shame really. We may just end up in Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 19th, 2010

• No, it doesn't mean anything like that.
  
  The point I'm making is to distinguish between the idea and the person. If you believe that the Earth is flat, and we get into an argument, my policy is to attack the *idea*... vigorously if necessary, and there will be no question whatsoever about my stand in the matter. But that's different than attacking you personally and telling you you're an idiot for believing that, or that you're a threat to science, etc.
  
  I'm all for challenging the ideas of evangelicals, and I do that pretty much every day. The only ones who get my "dangerous a*hole" blade are the ones who behave that way in my presence. It's a specific comment aimed at a specific person, not a vast generalization about "all those people who think like that". That's sloppy thinking.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 19th, 2010

• Okay. However, the question was about the movement, not an individual. It is about everything that those people represent. Unfortunately, they are shooting out so many wild ideas that it would be impractical to go after every idea. The movement represents the body of ideas and for that reason should be tackled as an ensemble.
  
  How would you approach the White supremacists? Would you tackle every attacks against each nationality ie on all national fronts (excuse the pun) or would you tackle the ideas that they represent as a whole which comes under White Supremacy?
  
  I tend to agree with Chris Hedges (Middle East Correspondent) about alot of things to do with the Christian Right starting with his talk on 'Who are the American Fascists?' (Google videos).
  
  I have alot of respect for your opinions HasntBeen an was telling someone the other day that he should take a leaf out of your book, but on this point I beg to differ.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 20th, 2010

• Note also the reference to facism in this video:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8675713685999107466#
  I don't think Richard Dawkins' thinking is sloppy either.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 20th, 2010

• Well I agree in part, the question is "where do you draw the line?". A "movement" is an ambiguous word -- it could refer to the meme set (the set of ideas) or it could refer to the people (a group of individuals). I think in practical terms it really covers both, so it wouldn't be my favorite word.
  
  I like "meme set" or "ideology" as terms to refer to collections of related ideas that travel together, and yes, I think it's completely legitimate to attack sets of ideas that work in concert. So in that regard, my answer is mistaken to recommend that only specific ideas get challenged.
  
  Part of my perspective is that people who adopt these belief systems are, in a certain sense, victims. (Of course, they don't appreciate hearing that). What that means is that they're the carriers of the parasitic ideology, and they suffer whatever injustices it metes out on them -- as well as benefiting from whatever goods it offers. But what they've lost is freedom and personal responsibility: by handing their minds over to the meme set, they've abdicated their role as the administrators and visionaries in their own lives.
  
  So to say that to people *is* a kind of generic "attack", it's a bit insulting. But it's still not personal really, it's not calling Jim Mason or Tom Spizt an idiot, it's part of explaining the whole theory of memes and how they propagate.
  
  I think if you're going to go after the people instead of the ideas, you need something like that -- it needs to be integral to the argument, rather than simple hostility. When you express simple hostility, you're really saying "I've given up on these people. They're in the 'out' group and so I'm justified in just bashing the crap out of them". But of course, this in-group/out-group division is exactly what their meme set wants: it wants to sharpen the group identity definition to increase the barriers for those who are thinking about trying to straddle the line between "us" and "them".
  
  So it's counter-productive, and I think philosophically unjustified.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 20th, 2010

• I don't think it is a question of bashing (although I could have worded the question a little differently). No one is bashing here. It is a legitimate concerna and something that needs to be tackled by 'Free Thinkers'. In Richard Dawkins video he points out that the number of children taking science subjects has dropped conciderably and the number of university positions for science professors in dwindling. This is very serious stuff which could have horrendous consequences in the future. What is interesting is that traditional Christians are also very concerned for the hostility that evangelicalism has towards the 'outsiders'. People need to sit up and take notice before it is too late.
  
  In this case I think it is difficult to separate the people from the word evangelical and all it represents. After all, it is a man-made phenomenon whatever they claim it is based on. And yes, some of them are victims (the children mainly), but some of them are there purely to exercise their hatred of others. Alot of it is based on ignorance and for that, some people can be forgiven. However, that ignorance is then passed on to children through and education system devised by the same ignorant people who know absolutely nothing about Science. I was horrified to see that one of the questions on a test devised by a religious body was Is Aids a consequence of sinful behaviour? The answer was, of course, yes. And Noah's Ark was somehow scientifically explained. This is rubbish and only serves to dumb down the population rather than enlighten it.
  
  On the other hand, bashing might become necessary. How can a silent group defend against the insidious encroachment of this belief system into our daily lives. They certainly defend their territory and are constantly pushing to expand it. So who will stop it and how will they go about it? And what if they become the majority?

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 20th, 2010

• I'm not sure they're not already the majority :)
  
  We agree that "how to fight it?" is a crucial question. I don't know that any viewpoint can be defended in an objective way in this arena -- what's the best strategy? There are a variety of different views about that, and you can make a case for a number of them.
  
  I have my own preferred way to go about thinking on complex issues, it's a little idiosyncratic I guess. I don't trust "linear thinking" when the complexity of an issue is high, for a variety of reasons. What I like could be called "integral thinking" -- in that mode, one thinks about the problem sort of like one would go about trying to balance on a skateboard while juggling eggs and doing the Macarena at the same time: the question isn't whether or not you're doing the best juggling or the best Macarena, the question is whether you can get them all working in some viable fashion simultaneously.
  
  I don't know if that metaphor is too obscure, but in this argument, typically each person will take one perspective and refine their points to a high degree: you're a smart guy, you'll succeed at that if you focus on the details of your viewpoint and do a good job of responding to objections, yes? That's like doing the Macarena well.
  
  But, the eggs are falling on the floor, or you're not balancing the skateboard, or whatever -- that's the downside of linear thinking: you get one part of it working and precise, but then other aspects suffer.
  
  I find that to do "integral thinking", I have to keep changing perspectives. I have to be able to give up my current viewpoint and adopt another, and think about the problem from that view, and then change again to a 3rd, etc. It's like walking around a sculpture to see it from different angles.
  
  After that multiple-perspectives "scan", I sit back and relax, and let myself detach from any particular viewpoint. I don't want to be an ideologue, yes? I just want to let them all whack away at each other and see what falls out, or see if there's a higher-level perspective which gives them all their due.
  
  On this topic, my overall sense is that we can trust the chaos of human social evolution. Yes, these ideas are harmful and confused, but they're also mixed in with some good ideas. The conflicts are multi-dimensional and will continue, and nobody can control the flow of the battle. But overall, if you pan the camera back to a wide angle, I think it's all doing what it should do -- we scrap and argue and fight, and that's the sound of social evolution taking place. It doesn't have to be pretty.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 20th, 2010

• Hasn't Been, I'm beginning to think you are softening a little an/or becoming somewhat evasive. I can grasp your views on thinking. Nevertheless, however much you choose to walk around the subject and juggle everything from your eyes to your toes I cannot quite see how much more juggling it needs. And as for sitting back and watching the crap hit the fan, isn't that a little too passive? And regarding the wide-angle view of eveything flowing as it should do, while everyone is out fighting the foreign threat they are turning their backs on the domestic one. If a thinker like you is only prepared to sit back and watch the frey, then who will do anything about it?

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 20th, 2010

• Hehe. I understand your concern. But I have no plans to stop fighting, I enjoy it too much :)
  
  I think some perspective is helpful, that's all.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 20th, 2010

• How much more perspective does one need? We have had a good 30 years of it already. Isn't that enough?
  
  Re: 'I have no plans to stop fighting' - On Answerbag? or Elsewhere?

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 21st, 2010

• Well this week I got into an argument about Prop 8 with my state Assembly representative, so I guess that counts as "everywhere".
  
  I guess with regard to the perspective issue, I don't really see the value of arguing. We have different views on this and I don't sense that you're anxious to hear mine.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 21st, 2010

• LOL Do I have to get anxious to hear your views, HasntBeen, or are you just procrastinating? I am a patient person and I am all for dancing, balancing and juggling. However, I would be delighted to hear your views. That is the purpose of this thread. But, so far, you have just offered your ideas on how you approach a subject rather than your intimate views on it.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 21st, 2010

• I spent 5 years in Zen training. When you do that, you get very patient -- hours and hours of just sitting, sometimes day after day... letting the mind settle, letting the confusion and reactivity of the thoughts calm down. It's very educational, I think.
  
  In a way, I see the world as a whole sort of like a macrocosm of the mind -- there's constant reaction, each new idea develops a counter-idea, and then a counter to that one -- old themes like bigotry and dominance and the battle between good and evil play on like familiar tunes -- it's this whole chaotic and wild and uncontrollable mess.
  
  You and are and our fights with the evangelicals or the Muslims or the reactionary geniuses are a part of that reactive stew, we're not separate from it. We're representing (usually) some kind of 'progressive' set of ideas. I'm not saying all ideas are created equal, but ideas are still ideas -- they're concepts, they're not the absolute truth. They're abstractions.
  
  One of the most defining characteristics of human beings is that they identify with their favorite concepts and then fight about them. That's what we do. Each person thinks that if only the world would adopt their concepts, it would all work out. "Why can't they see it the way it is?!", we shout.
  
  Nothing wrong with all that. That's what we should do -- keep working for justice and freedom and all that good stuff.
  
  But, if you pan the camera back and see the whole, this is one piece of carrot in a huge stew. What is the stew doing? I think it's cooking the future... human culture is evolving, as it has done since we left the monkeys in the trees. We've hit a knee in the rate-of-development curve, things are accelerating.
  
  That acceleration increases the anxiety -- change often does. What will the future be like? We don't know. But we keep trying to steer it. We can't control it, but we keep trying our best.
  
  In the end, the forces at work are much larger than you and I and our views, yes? It's like trying to ride a wave: if you just lay down on the board you can't steer. If you try to force the wave to go your way it will win. You have to "dance" with the power of the wave -- you're not in control, but you can keep adjusting. If you don't see yourself at war with the wave, you and the wave become like one phenomenon and something interesting happens.
  
  So that's how I relate to the 'battle': these people aren't really my enemies, they're the wave. We're all the wave. I prefer to slice it so that I'm neither alienated-at-war, or laying-down-and-not-steering.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 21st, 2010

• That's all very well Hasn't Been but you sound rather as if you hunt with the horses and run with the hounds. And men do create the future as we saw with 9/11 so 'laying back and thinking of England' just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather do the salsa even if I am just a carrot. At least I would make a splash! And you could be the heat under the stew, if you so desired.
  
  However, I am glad you had an argument over Prop 8. Perhaps with a grouping together of 'Free Thinkers' you could have less of an argument and more sway. And, now that we have got absolutely nowhere with this discussion, however pleasant it has been to play peas and carrots, I must go and take a shower.
  
  Your a clever guy though, HasntBeen. There's no doubt about that.:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 21st, 2010

• Emperor Augustus, don't you think you are being a little unfair? What you are saying is "if you are not with us you are against us."
  
  That line does have its merits depending on the situation, true. However, it appears that if HB does not take the same action as you would like he is therefore on the fence. To say that is dishonest and you are trying to force a reaction by implying he is on the fence so that he sides with you up to the point that his views mirror yours. Or at least until you are satisfied.
  
  Are there areas in your beliefs that you agree with other people but are not as determined to take action as they do or more specifically, in the same way that they do? It matters not what that ideas is, just how strongly one feels about it is what I am referring to. Say, tea party or PETA, pro choice and pro life. Many people are on different sides of the fence but do not bomb clinics or chain themselves to a lab that performs animal experiments, etc, etc.
  
  Many people may agree in part or in whole but they may not agree on the tactics or they have other areas that consume their energies.
  
  I also think it is unfair to ask HB what "HE" is doing to combat this and that without you stating what you are doing.
  
  I must respectfully say you have a very narrow "us versus them" attitude and are beginning to sound like the very ones you seem to dislike.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 21st, 2010

• While you are wiping the tears from HB's eyes, I must respectfully say that you are talking rubbish which can only result from misinterpreting the tone and the content of the thread. Have a nice day now.:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 21st, 2010

• Here's what I care about most. Arguing is just a hobby :)
  
  The family

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 21st, 2010

• Absolutely.:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 22nd, 2010

• @Emerror
  
  I think you misinterpreted my tone as well. I just thought a few things were odd and pointed them out.
  
  
  
  @HB
  
  Aww, is that your little guy and your wife?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 23rd, 2010

• He's a riot. He loves attention, and has a great smile. So he's constantly getting people coming up to him when we're out and just smiling and giggling like schoolgirls. If we go to a public place and he's bored, he'll spit his pacifier out onto the ground and just start shouting to get everyone's attention, then he does his "shy little boy" act with the smile and they're all in his trap. It's hilarious.
  
  I guess he'll either be a stand-up comic or a politician: someone whose need to be liked exceeds their common sense :)

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 23rd, 2010

• That makes me miss the days when my boy was that small. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 23rd, 2010

Comments

• Yes, Rosie, that is true. However, when the group becomes large enough and political enough, their intolerance can become part of government and limit the freedom of those who tolerated them all along. Anti-homosexuality, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-stemcell research, anti investment in scientific research (because it's all in the Bible) because the world is coming to an end, anti-anyone who doesn't believe like them......That covers a pretty large segment of the population and considering that there are 70 million of them which, if they banded together with the white-supremacists would have considerable voting power, we should pay considerable attention to. Hitler was intolerant and it didn't take him too long to rise to absolute power.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 22nd, 2010

• Nicely stated m'dear. I agree with every word you said. It is at once discouraging and scary since it is a perfect example of "the inmates are in charge of the asylum". You cannot discuss anything logically with such people. They are a world/universe unto themselves and hold tight to one another and shout and stomp lest any fresh thoughts try to creep in and take hold. Happy Friday to you! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on January 22nd, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Indeed!

  • Report
  

  by manywords on January 21st, 2010

• I doubt it. He may well not be able to weather the economic crisis perfectly but not 'a threat to freedom'.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 22nd, 2010

• He was supportive of a bill to force Americans to make a consumer purchase or face a fine and/or jail time. That's an absolute threat to freedom.

  • Report
  

  by manywords on January 22nd, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• The modern evangelical movement is basically and intolerant group. They are anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, anti-stemcell research, anti-scientific research, anti-anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is their saviour (labelling them secular humanists), anti-evolution....We tolerate them because it is their right to believe what they do and therein lies the fault. Hitler was also intolerant and we were tolerant of him until it was too late. The evangelical movement is made up of 70 million people and together with the white supremacists, who are on the rise, will make a considerable voting force in the near future. As poverty and the gap between rich and poor increases, and more middle class jobs are outsourced to developing nations, more dissatisfied people will turn to the evangelical movement for comfort. If they obtain power, our children will no longer be allowed to learn about evolution, or get jobs in scientific research (because the world will be coming to an end anytime soon). In fact, the world just might come to an end soon because there will be no money invested in ways to prevent global warming. If the evangelical movement wins in the US, ones children may well not get a place at university or a job where and evangelical is in a position of power unless, of course, they hold the same beliefs. In short, you will belong to a fascist state when it is too late to do anything about it.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on January 22nd, 2010

• Dear, you give them way too much power. Over 75% of the country is Christian so, of course, that group is powerful. It should be with such a majority. However, much of your concern is not reality.

  • Report
  

  by manywords on January 22nd, 2010

• I am not talking about Christians generally, I am talking about the modern evangelical movement which is quite different from traditional Christian; you know, the ones that like to get involved in politics.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on February 8th, 2010

Comments

• Oh!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on July 9th, 2010

• I, for one, cannot feel anything but squeamishness bordering on disgust whenever I encounter the (various stripes of) evangelism and their guaranteed faulty logic, speculative and often terribly garbled theology and their attempts to force fundamentalist thinking in school boards, city councils, etc. One concrete example is the recent brouhaha involving certain members of the Texas Board of education. Those who market and actively campaign for mandated ignorance are not for me a source of pride. Those who continually campaign against constitutionally based rights are to be feared, not admired.
  
  As for "a triumph of marketing," consider the plague of fast food / junk food which permeates (and degrades) many sectors of our culture. The plastic food joints which dot our nation are a considerably larger influence on capitalism than mega-churches and fundamentalist "discovery institutes." A bit more briefly, quantity is no assurance of quality. The so-called "creation museum" in Kentucky is apparently a financial success. That does nothing to counter its totally faulty representations of history, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology and, in general, the human condition.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on August 18th, 2010

• Well said canoeguide.:)

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 19th, 2010

• is it true what they say about Americans not getting irony?
  
  .. and the plastic food industry, another jewel? Of course I agree with you about most of it except that the junk food business is not a great influence on capitalism but a natural consequence of it.

  • Report
  

  by fluffylucy on August 25th, 2010

• It's not a matter of "getting irony," but a mater of offering such comments where any nutter will take such comments as some confirmations of sloppy thinking. The internet is awash with the drivellings of those who take comments such as yours as the only possible measure of all things.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on August 25th, 2010

• lol,nutters have sloppy thinking anyway so i'm definitly supporting ironic comments, internet is a shit/quality bag depending of who's looking in;)

  • Report
  

  by angie1789 on August 29th, 2010

Comments

• If you listen to Chris Hedges (New York Times and Middle East correspondent) on Christian Fundamentalism you will get a better view that if I explain it to you.

  • Report
  

  by Bohemian is back on August 20th, 2010

• Ok, thanks. I will Google him.

  • Report
  

  by RequiemKiss on August 20th, 2010