Discussion:
Author examines religious right's 'hijacking' of Jesus
(too old to reply)
Gene Poole
2006-07-20 01:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Author examines religious right's 'hijacking' of Jesus
By R. W. Dellinger

How did Jesus become pro-war, pro-American and pro-rich?

That's what novelist, journalist and screenwriter Dan Wakefield wanted to
know when he began his newest book, "The Hijacking of Jesus."

"The Jesus of the Gospels ministered to the poor and to the outcasts, had
no property or possessions, and famously told a wealthy young man that it
was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," the popular writer told members
of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace July 7 at
Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.

Curious about this drastic shift, Wakefield began researching the
troubling query and was surprised at how far back the religious right's
roots went.

The search led him to Senator Barry Goldwater's defeat for the presidency
in 1964. Realizing they needed a wider base, he said Republican
strategists saw that fundamentalists and evangelicals were a "virgin
timber" voting block.

And soon a partnership was forged. "The religious right started with the
Republican right," Wakefield reported, adding that along with this
partnership, religious conservatives also forged a media empire, which
today adds up to some 1,600 TV stations. Just one, "Focus on the Family,"
has 200 million watchers in 99 countries.

"One of the marks of the religious right I find is a kind of real
nastiness," the former staff writer at The Nation said. "Pat Robertson
asked, 'Why do I have to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and
Methodists? They are the Antichrist.' So tolerance has become a bad word
on the religious right."

An official from the Christian Coalition told him that they were only
intolerant of sinners, said Wakefield. But the author observed that it
seemed a "very odd creed" for the group to call itself Christian, when it
was Jesus who told a crowd that he who was without sin should cast the
first stone.

He also talked about the divisiveness of the movement, whose faithful
often attempt --- and succeed --- at driving deeper religious and
political wedges between themselves and mainline Protestant congregations.

And he pointed out that religious right rhetoric is often filled with
statements about war. It was no accident, he said, that born-again
President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and his administration's
entire Middle East policy "smells of Christian Jihad."

"That pro-war message hardly seems to fit with Jesus' teaching to love
your enemy, bless them that curse you and be good to them who hate you,
and pray for them who persecute you," he observed.

Democrats not immune

Democrats had their own problems, with many of the secular left
experiencing what Wakefield called "religio phobia." One young man he
talked to in Boston told him that it was easier for him to come out as gay
in Massachusetts than as religious in the Democratic Party.

"So whether the secular left or the Democrats like it or not, 90 percent
of the country is religious," he reported. "And now that religion has
entered the political dialogue --- and sometimes become the focus of
political dialogue --- they had better deal with it in more than phrases
and lip service."

But Wakefield said that he was encouraged by a couple of recent developments.

A number of progressive evangelicals like Jim Wallis of Sojourners had
left the conservative National Association of Evangelicals, which was
founded by the Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

In addition, some national newspapers had noticed a shift in the
religious-political direction of certain congregations. He mentioned a May
23 front-page headline in the "Washington Post" claiming, "The Religious
Left Is Back."

Wakefield cautioned, however, that the upcoming mid-term elections will
determine "how much back it is."

"Perhaps an even wider majority could be formed among not only those who
believe in Jesus," he said, "but also those who don't, but who believe in
the causes he preached for the poor and the outcasts of society."
--
Faithfully,
Gene Poole

http://grace.break.at

God is still speaking
http://www.stillspeaking.com
=============
Remove your hat to e-mail me.
b***@juno.com
2006-07-21 03:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Poole
How did Jesus become pro-war, pro-American and pro-rich?
It was probably back when Jesus said, "I came not to bring peace, but a
sword."

(Not really, but I thought I would just toss that out-of-context quote
into the discussion, just to try and get a rise out of the peacnik
libs).
Post by Gene Poole
"The Jesus of the Gospels ministered to the poor and to the outcasts, had
no property or possessions, and famously told a wealthy young man that it
was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," the popular writer told members
of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace July 7 at
Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.
The religious right also believes in ministering to the poor. They take
Jesus' command seriously, that "whatsoever YOU did unto the least of
these, you did unto me."

The religious left seems to think that Jesus said:
"whatsoever you do with other people's tax money unto the least of
these, you did unto me."
Post by Gene Poole
Curious about this drastic shift, Wakefield began researching the
troubling query and was surprised at how far back the religious right's
roots went.
What is called "the religious right" these days is what roughly 100% of
Americans were before the Great Depression and FDR.

Laissez-Faire economics, and private charity, was "American Politics"
back then.

After FDR, came Keynesian economics, and public charity.

This is what the religious left currently subscribes to. It has all
been tried before.
Post by Gene Poole
"One of the marks of the religious right I find is a kind of real
nastiness," the former staff writer at The Nation said. "Pat Robertson
asked, 'Why do I have to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and
Methodists? They are the Antichrist.' So tolerance has become a bad word
on the religious right."
Even if Robertson said this, which I highly doubt, this would not be a
"mark of the religious right." Talk about bigoted stereotypes! What on
earth makes you think you can take one dubious quote from Robertson and
think that summarizes the religious right? This kind of broad
stereotyping is very hypocritical coming from a leftist who claims to
value diversity and subtle nuance.
Post by Gene Poole
An official from the Christian Coalition told him that they were only
intolerant of sinners, said Wakefield. But the author observed that it
seemed a "very odd creed" for the group to call itself Christian, when it
was Jesus who told a crowd that he who was without sin should cast the
first stone.
This is so ridiculous.

1. First of all, that passage in the Bible is not in the earliest
manuscripts.

2. Secondly, it is not against judging per se, but against HYPOCRITICAL
judging. It is okay to judge if you personally are not at fault for the
given sin.

3. Thirdly, why doesn't the same argument work against murder? Hey
buddy, go ahead and murder! Who am I to judge? What a load of BS.
Post by Gene Poole
And he pointed out that religious right rhetoric is often filled with
statements about war. It was no accident, he said, that born-again
President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and his administration's
entire Middle East policy "smells of Christian Jihad."
Actually, although the above paragraph has multiple fallacies, I will
content myself with mentioning that the proper term would be "smells of
Christian Crusade." Jihad is a Muslim term.
Post by Gene Poole
"That pro-war message hardly seems to fit with Jesus' teaching to love
your enemy, bless them that curse you and be good to them who hate you,
and pray for them who persecute you," he observed.
Jesus' commands were for INDIVIDUALS, not governments. Governments have
a responsibility to defend their civilians. Including pre-emptive
attacks against terrorist states.
Post by Gene Poole
Democrats had their own problems, with many of the secular left
experiencing what Wakefield called "religio phobia." One young man he
talked to in Boston told him that it was easier for him to come out as gay
in Massachusetts than as religious in the Democratic Party.
This is true. The Democrats today are the first anti-Christian party
America has ever had. Even though they try to hide this fact.
Post by Gene Poole
In addition, some national newspapers had noticed a shift in the
religious-political direction of certain congregations. He mentioned a May
23 front-page headline in the "Washington Post" claiming, "The Religious
Left Is Back."
The religious left never existed. Remember the history of America right
up until FDR. The idea that Jesus commanded us to give other people's
tax money to the poor, is laughable.

No. Jesus commanded us to give OUR OWN MONEY to the poor. Not other
people's tax money.
Post by Gene Poole
Wakefield cautioned, however, that the upcoming mid-term elections will
determine "how much back it is."
The so-called religious left is just a smokescreen that the atheist
core of the Democrats are using to fool certain people into thinking
that a vote for the Democrats is not evil. But if the Democrats
actually gain power, look for massive anti-Christian legislation to
begin.

I'm not kidding. Activist Judges will feel liberated to continue their
agenda of trying to completely censor God from the public square, for
example. Right now they are all running scared, but if the Democrats
win, the activiest judges will rip their mask off, and go back to
dismantleing our Christian Heritage.
Bren
2006-07-27 03:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
The so-called religious left is just a smokescreen that the atheist
core of the Democrats are using to fool certain people into thinking
that a vote for the Democrats is not evil. But if the Democrats
actually gain power, look for massive anti-Christian legislation to
begin.
I'm not kidding. Activist Judges will feel liberated to continue their
agenda of trying to completely censor God from the public square, for
example. Right now they are all running scared, but if the Democrats
win, the activiest judges will rip their mask off, and go back to
dismantleing our Christian Heritage.
B - Yes yes..and the commies are under our beds and the sky is
falling...
They have nothing to do with being anti-Christian or dismantleing "our"
Christian Heritage...they are all about taking the jack booted attitude
of many extreme right wing Christians and nipping their power base in
the bud. We don't need to be another extreme fundamentalist country.
The Muslim world has enough of that. America is a land of all faiths
and even athiesm too and it should reflect the diversity that makes it
the great place it is. The first People in the land that was to be
named American were the animist natives...they had to suffer whilst
their world was turned upside down by so-called *civilized folks*
called Christians who thought that the "poor savages" needed Jesus at
the crack of a whip and the forcing of them to stop speaking their own
language and following their own faith. How many more persons and
cultures do the white right winged Christians want to obliterate?

Bren
b***@juno.com
2006-07-28 03:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bren
B - Yes yes..and the commies are under our beds and the sky is
falling...
They have nothing to do with being anti-Christian or dismantleing "our"
Christian Heritage...they are all about taking the jack booted attitude
of many extreme right wing Christians and nipping their power base in
the bud. We don't need to be another extreme fundamentalist country.
Sounds like your judgmental attitude is finally raising its ugly head.
Such a statement shows your utter lack of comprehension as to what the
right wing is like. Apparently, you have been listening to the
anti-Christian bigots of the mainstream media, and have filled your
head with their cheap straw-man stereotypes. Sorry to hear you are so
narrow minded and prejudiced against the "Christian right."

You know nothing of what we are like. Absolutely nothing.
Post by Bren
The Muslim world has enough of that. America is a land of all faiths
and even athiesm too and it should reflect the diversity that makes it
the great place it is.
Of course it should reflect such diversity. Christians don't want to
silence other faiths. We are just sick and tired of being censored from
the public arena by aristocratic judges. (And the anti-Christian bigots
at the ACLU are the avante-garde. Remember, the ACLU was originally
founded to promote atheism in our nation. Doesn't sound very "tolerant"
to me).
Post by Bren
The first People in the land that was to be
named American were the animist natives...they had to suffer whilst
their world was turned upside down by so-called *civilized folks*
called Christians who thought that the "poor savages" needed Jesus at
the crack of a whip and the forcing of them to stop speaking their own
language and following their own faith. How many more persons and
cultures do the white right winged Christians want to obliterate?
You sound like Rousseau. I suppose you imagine that North America was a
paradise before Columbus arrived. Let's hear you wax poetical about
"The Noble Savages." Har har. If continuous inter-tribal warfare is
your idea of a paradise, you are welcome to it. Have you been
practicing your scalping techniques lately?
Chris Smith
2006-07-28 03:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
The religious right also believes in ministering to the poor. They take
Jesus' command seriously, that "whatsoever YOU did unto the least of
these, you did unto me."
"whatsoever you do with other people's tax money unto the least of
these, you did unto me."
Unfortunately, though, the ability to claim "me too" probably isn't good
enough in this area. Jesus' primary message was that of caring for
others, both by sharing the gospel and working for their salvation, and
also by meeting their immediate material needs. Some very large
percentage of the parables Jesus told are directly related to our
ability to care deeply about others. There is only one place in
scripture where we're explicitly told about people being judged on their
life, and the criteria is caring for the poor.

For obvious reasons, it sounds disingenuous to people who really care
about the level of poverty and human suffering in this nation when the
religious right tells us that they would like to solve the problem, but
not if it incoveniences anyone. I don't see anywhere in scripture where
Jesus says to help the poor unless it negatively impacts someone who
previously expected better. Rather, Jesus talks about those with
worldly power being humbled and cast down.

It's simply not believable to make these claims. When a political
organization or group claims to care about the poor, but then
systematically undermines their chances at participating in the world by
underfunding schools in poor areas, lobbying for the government to
support big business, and so forth, then it's a little too late to
assert that really, deep down, they all care about the poor but just
don't want to spend someone else's money for it. That didn't seem to
bother Jesus at all, and He especially got upset when those in power
were engaged in this kind of false piety while arranging for the
financial exploitation of people He cared about.

So why doesn't the religious right care as much as Jesus did?
Post by b***@juno.com
Even if Robertson said this, which I highly doubt, this would not be a
"mark of the religious right." Talk about bigoted stereotypes! What on
earth makes you think you can take one dubious quote from Robertson and
think that summarizes the religious right?
No. Do you want quotes from Ralpha Reed, James Dobson, Ted Haggard...
how many quotes do you need? People see this every day. The quote from
Pat Robertson (one of the less outrageous, really) was probably intended
just to remind us.
Post by b***@juno.com
2. Secondly, it is not against judging per se, but against HYPOCRITICAL
judging. It is okay to judge if you personally are not at fault for the
given sin.
Umm, right. Okay, now we know who is selectively interpreting
scripture.

I'd love to write more, but I've gotta run.
--
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

---

[This isn't the place for discussions of political philosophy. But I
have to protest against saying that conservatives think we should help
the poor only if it doesn't inconvenience anyone. The real concern is
that things that look attractive at first glance turn out to have
long-term consequences that make things worse for everyone. There are
plenty of liberals and conservatives who won't go out of their way to
help others. But the real difference is one of political philosophy:
what approach will produce the best results in the long run. Turning
it into personal attacks (in either direction -- I'm hearing attacks
on liberals that are just as vicious) is not fair, and certainly not
appropriate here.

--clh]
B.G. Kent
2006-07-31 03:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
Post by Bren
B - Yes yes..and the commies are under our beds and the sky is
falling...
They have nothing to do with being anti-Christian or dismantleing "our"
Christian Heritage...they are all about taking the jack booted attitude
of many extreme right wing Christians and nipping their power base in
the bud. We don't need to be another extreme fundamentalist country.
Sounds like your judgmental attitude is finally raising its ugly head.
Such a statement shows your utter lack of comprehension as to what the
right wing is like.
B - No.
Post by b***@juno.com
You sound like Rousseau. I suppose you imagine that North America was a
paradise before Columbus arrived. Let's hear you wax poetical about
"The Noble Savages." Har har. If continuous inter-tribal warfare is
your idea of a paradise, you are welcome to it. Have you been
practicing your scalping techniques lately?
B - YOu have no clue. No...there was a lot of inter-tribal warfare....but
nothing on the level of what the White Right winged Christians have done
to them...and I use the term "Christian" very loosly here.
Scalping was at first a white man's habit....another fine thing they
taught to the Aboriginals.


you're loosing it hon.

Bren
Chris Smith
2006-07-31 03:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
[This isn't the place for discussions of political philosophy. But I
have to protest against saying that conservatives think we should help
the poor only if it doesn't inconvenience anyone. The real concern is
that things that look attractive at first glance turn out to have
long-term consequences that make things worse for everyone.
Absolutely. In this case, though, the claim was not that social
programs may be counter-productive or fail to accomplish their goals. I
would agree with that, and I'd agree that the discussion would be off-
topic here.

The claim here was that we should only obey Christ when it doesn't
affect other people's taxes. It was claimed that it's somehow incorrect
to interpret Jesus' commands in a way that uses tax money to help the
poor. That's a religious question, and I think Bimms is on the wrong
side of it. Interpreting Jesus, after the life he lived, to say that we
should only help the poor when we can be sure that it doesn't cost
anyone else anything is, frankly, gravely contrary to the Gospel and
that needs to be said. It ignores simple facts of Christian faith: that
all things belong to God; that we are all stewards of creation and
responsible for what we do with it; that we are called to devote
everything to accomplishing God's will.
Post by Chris Smith
Turning
it into personal attacks (in either direction -- I'm hearing attacks
on liberals that are just as vicious) is not fair, and certainly not
appropriate here.
I believe there's a misinterpretation here. You seem to have read me as
saying things universally about conservatives, when I meant my comments
about the specific attitude in the post I responded to: the "don't help
the least of these with my tax money" line.

The only personal attacks in my post were directed at Ralph Reed, James
Dobson, and Ted Haggard. Is this what you object to? If so, I'll watch
the tone; but I resent their claims to represent me as a Christian while
spreading hate speech, and I'll let anyone know that they don't when I
get the chance.
--
Chris Smith
Ahtuk Burger
2006-07-31 03:16:07 UTC
Permalink
On 2006-07-27, Bren <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Bren
the great place it is. The first People in the land that was to be
named American were the animist natives...they had to suffer whilst
their world was turned upside down by so-called *civilized folks*
called Christians who thought that the "poor savages" needed Jesus at
the crack of a whip and the forcing of them to stop speaking their own
language and following their own faith.
I guess this is as good a time as any to de-lurk...

While I, being a descendant of the Wampanoag tribes of
Massachusetts, appreciate your sympathy and concern for my
ancestors and their treatment at the hands of the English, I
feel I must correct some of your somewhat ahistorical thinking.

First of all, the Pilgrims were quite Calvinist in their
religion, not seeking to convert the natives except those who
came earnestly seeking. Yet there were many who did. If you
have access to a good university library, look for _Indian
Converts_ by Experience Mayhew. No Indians in New England
were forcibly converted, nor were ancient customs or
superstitions suppressed.

Secondly, not only were they not forbidden to speak their
original language, but the English helped to preserve it. The
"Great and General Court" of the colony, i.e., the
legislature, actually accepted petitions from the Mashpee
Wampanoags written in the Wampanoag language. Many were
literate Wampanoag and some in English. Sermons were
delivered in the native language. The Eliot Bible was
translated into the Natick dialect by native scholars. There
is a native linguist at Mashpee, a graduate of MIT at the
center of the revival of the Wampanoag language. Little kids
greet each other in the old language and older students can
read from the Eliot Bible.

In closing, I would like to say that it was the coming of
the Europeans that may have spelled doom for my people, but
Christianity was that which *preserved* us and our culture.
We certainly did need Jesus, but he did not come at the 'crack
of the whip,' but by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[...]
Post by Bren
Bren
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-01 02:26:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <UBezg.5704$***@trnddc02>, B.G. Kent says...
[snip]
Post by B.G. Kent
you're loosing it hon.
You are both losing it. And you, Bren, are losing worse. For you have already
been corrected by a descedant of those Indians, and one who sounds well educated
and MUCH more familiar with the facts than you are.

In fact, he called your whole post 'ahistorical'.

But since he already corrected your error about the alleged savegery of
Christians forcing Christianity on the Indians, I will tackle a different error
of yours. The real cause of the devastation of the Indians was not anything the
whites _deliberately_ did, but rather, was the introduction of diseases. Back
then, nobody understood about the human immune system, people did not realize
that the disease would be far, far more devastating to a completely unprepared
population.

Now true, occasionally, the diseases were inflicted deliberately: both the
Spanish and the British gave smallpox infected blankets to the Indians, which
was a terrible crime. But even _this_ was small compared to the natural spread
of disease, which wiped out 9/10ths of the population.

So stop slandering all of Christianity of the time for an activity remarkably
_few_ participated in.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

----

[As you'll see today, not all Indians had the same experience. There
were encounters over hundreds of years in different parts of the
country with different historical contexts.
--clh]
B.G. Kent
2006-08-01 02:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahtuk Burger
[...]
Post by Bren
the great place it is. The first People in the land that was to be
named American were the animist natives...they had to suffer whilst
their world was turned upside down by so-called *civilized folks*
called Christians who thought that the "poor savages" needed Jesus at
the crack of a whip and the forcing of them to stop speaking their own
language and following their own faith.
I guess this is as good a time as any to de-lurk...
While I, being a descendant of the Wampanoag tribes of
Massachusetts, appreciate your sympathy and concern for my
ancestors and their treatment at the hands of the English, I
feel I must correct some of your somewhat ahistorical thinking.
...

B - as a person of Cherokee heritage I also understand that there is good
along with the bad. Your experience is one...mine is another. Jesus could
have been offerred up to natives all...as a choice..not a prerequisite to
being treated well or equal. Languages were kept from many
here....children taken away from their parents and made to attend
residential schools where they had to all conform to one Eurocentric
ideal...their own religion put down as bad and evil. I believe that Jesus
is good for all...his experience that is...his lessons etc. but it could
have been done so much better than with ignorance and bigotry and evil
leading it. The "forcing" of religion and Eurocentrism is what was
evil...never the religion itself...that was my point.

Bren
zach
2006-08-02 01:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
B - as a person of Cherokee heritage I also understand that there is good
along with the bad. Your experience is one...mine is another. Jesus could
have been offerred up to natives all...as a choice..not a prerequisite to
being treated well or equal. Languages were kept from many
here....children taken away from their parents and made to attend
residential schools where they had to all conform to one Eurocentric
ideal...
That's what happened to my birth mother, who was taken off of the
reservation and adopted out to "white" folk. She couldn't hack it and
killed herself in stereotypical fashion (drugs and alcohol). Before she
died, she and her husband (who also had the same problems) surrendered
me to the adoption agency. I am thus twice cut off from my origins.
Some people have a "complex" about it and still can't deal with it.
Like you said, we all have our own experiences. I reject my adopted
Sottish heritage (coincidentally, also my birth-father's) also. I don't
believe in taking credit for, or feeling proud to be a part of, things
to which I did not contribute. Likewise, focusing on past atrocities
that did not happen to me, even though their end results _did_ affect
the beginnings of my life, is also counter-productive. I can
acknowledge them, but not really think about them. But that is me....
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-02 01:45:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <MZyzg.3793$***@trnddc03>, Matthew Johnson says...

It looks like I am replying to myself, but I am really replying to the
Moderator's parenthetical comments below...

[snip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
[As you'll see today, not all Indians had the same experience.
I knew that. And I was careful enough with the wording of my post, _unlike_
Bren, to avoid contradicting this fact. That is why I did not say that abuses
_never_ happened, I said they were perpetrated by remarkably few. Rather, it is
remarkable how _many_, like the Protestants already mentioned, or like the
Franciscans not yet mentioned, relied on compassionate persuasion rather than
force or deception.
Post by Matthew Johnson
There
were encounters over hundreds of years in different parts of the
country with different historical contexts.
No doubt there were. Not to mention Bren sounds like she is thinking primarily
of another country, Canada. But I was thinking of Canada, the U.S. _and_ Mexico.
And this IS why Bren was so completely unjustified in making her sweeping
generalizations accusing all 'white Christendom' [not that those were her exact
words] of forcing Christianity on the Indians under the whip, or at the point of
the sword etc.
Post by Matthew Johnson
--clh]
So since I did not contradict either of your points, what _were_ you trying to
achieve by attaching those comments to my post and not to Bren's?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
b***@juno.com
2006-08-02 01:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
The claim here was that we should only obey Christ when it doesn't
affect other people's taxes. It was claimed that it's somehow incorrect
to interpret Jesus' commands in a way that uses tax money to help the
poor. That's a religious question, and I think Bimms is on the wrong
side of it. Interpreting Jesus, after the life he lived, to say that we
should only help the poor when we can be sure that it doesn't cost
anyone else anything is, frankly, gravely contrary to the Gospel and
that needs to be said. It ignores simple facts of Christian faith: that
all things belong to God; that we are all stewards of creation and
responsible for what we do with it; that we are called to devote
everything to accomplishing God's will.
So you believe Christians should force non-Christians to behave AS IF
they were Christians with their tax money?

God does not accept charity from a non-cheerful giver. The Democrat
Party forces some non-Christian people to support charity, against
their will. This taints the "good work" so that God does not consider
it valid in any way.

The only way to make a "good work" acceptable to God is, to keep it
free from the corruption of political coercion. It MUST become PRIVATE
again.

Here's what is wrong with public charity:

1. Forces non-Christians to pay taxes to support this charity against
their will. This taints it in the sight of God.
2. provides a convenient excuse for Christians to not help the homless
person with the cardboard sign by the freeway on-ramp. "After all,"
thinks the Christian "Surely they can get food stamps? I don't want to
fund their alcoholism"
3. since its just a cold government check, there is no accountability.
With no actual human relationship in the equation, it allows welfare to
become a substitute for hard work, and the poverty cycle becomes
trans-generational.
Post by Chris Smith
I believe there's a misinterpretation here. You seem to have read me as
saying things universally about conservatives, when I meant my comments
about the specific attitude in the post I responded to: the "don't help
the least of these with my tax money" line.
Paying tax money is a necessary evil. Trying to use it for good works,
for what Christians are supposed to do themselves, is a grave error.
Ahtuk Burger
2006-08-02 01:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by Ahtuk Burger
[...]
Post by Bren
the great place it is. The first People in the land that was to be
named American were the animist natives...they had to suffer whilst
their world was turned upside down by so-called *civilized folks*
called Christians who thought that the "poor savages" needed Jesus at
the crack of a whip and the forcing of them to stop speaking their own
language and following their own faith.
I guess this is as good a time as any to de-lurk...
While I, being a descendant of the Wampanoag tribes of
Massachusetts, appreciate your sympathy and concern for my
ancestors and their treatment at the hands of the English, I
feel I must correct some of your somewhat ahistorical thinking.
...
B - as a person of Cherokee heritage I also understand that there is good
along with the bad. Your experience is one...mine is another. Jesus could
have been offerred up to natives all...as a choice..not a prerequisite to
being treated well or equal. Languages were kept from many
here....children taken away from their parents and made to attend
residential schools where they had to all conform to one Eurocentric
ideal...their own religion put down as bad and evil. I believe that Jesus
is good for all...his experience that is...his lessons etc. but it could
have been done so much better than with ignorance and bigotry and evil
leading it. The "forcing" of religion and Eurocentrism is what was
evil...never the religion itself...that was my point.
Bren
I understand all that, the boarding schools and 'adopting out'
of Native children, but much of that is being remediated.
ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act is one example. No longer
will Native children be adopted out without first finding a
Native family if available. I have personally seen a little
boy, son of a substance abusing Native single mother in Maine,
taken in by a Wampanoag family without children of their own.
The family is Christian. The child is thriving in spite of
his prior experiences.

My own granpa was sent to Carlisle Indian School in PA, along
with several others from our tribe. Boys had their hair cut
and were put into military style uniforms. It was quite a
culture shock for most from the West, but the kids from the
East were often happy for shoes, clean clothes and good food.
My granpa didn't like it much though, and left (without
permission).

As to the language problem, Native languages are mostly useful
for communicating with elders, describing natural phenomena,
songs, and as part of one's cultural matrix. There is little
practical use in day-to-day situations outside very large
reservations. The days of language deprivation are pretty
much over, in fact there are many preservation and revival
projects going on right now. Children were forbidden to use
their native languages because schoolmasters feared that the
kids may be talking behind their backs or that they would fail
in general society without english skills. It is hard enough
to be a nation within a nation even if you do speak English.
Believe me...
o***@gmail.com
2006-08-07 02:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
It looks like I am replying to myself, but I am really replying to the
Moderator's parenthetical comments below...
[snip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
[As you'll see today, not all Indians had the same experience.
Yep I agree, the moderator has no more brains than a pastor, over 90%
of which haven't read the Bible through according to a survey mentioned
on TBN shortly after 9/11. Someone who would allow posts so off-topic
as Cherokee culture but block posts intelligently discussing Bible
ideas really should go find a job S/he/it likes.
k***@astound.net
2006-08-07 02:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
So you believe Christians should force non-Christians to behave AS IF
they were Christians with their tax money?
This would imply that you think the taxing authority is Christian. I
believe that is contrary to historical fact and theological theory.
Taxing authorities are secular. These authorities, in most situations,
believe the religion of the tax-payer does not concern them.
Post by b***@juno.com
God does not accept charity from a non-cheerful giver. The Democrat
Party forces some non-Christian people to support charity, against
their will. This taints the "good work" so that God does not consider
it valid in any way.
I doubt if the people in government - Republicans and Democrats alike -
who support public welfare consider it "good works". Enlightened
self-interest is the reason they would probably offer.
Post by b***@juno.com
The only way to make a "good work" acceptable to God is, to keep it
free from the corruption of political coercion. It MUST become PRIVATE
again.
As I read the Bible charity should be so private that no one else
(other than the recipients) even knows about it. I have trouble
believing that any present-day Christians would accept that
restriction.

Disorganized charity is sure to be inefficient. Organized charity not
supported by tax money has its dubious aspects, but it can and often is
effective. But the facts of modern life make it almost impossible to
run an organized charity by donations alone. Almost all organized
charities get at least some of their money from tax dollars.

I fear your point about "good works" is one more cloud-cuckoo-land
dream. It is nice to dream of living virtuously. But most of us would
rather accomplish something.
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-08 01:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
It looks like I am replying to myself, but I am really replying to the
Moderator's parenthetical comments below...
[snip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
[As you'll see today, not all Indians had the same experience.
Yep I agree, the moderator has no more brains than a pastor,
You agree? How can you say "I agree" when I never said any such thing? What or
who do you think you are agreeing with?
Post by o***@gmail.com
Someone who would allow posts so off-topic
as Cherokee culture but block posts intelligently discussing Bible
ideas really should go find a job S/he/it likes.
Remember that this is SRC, not SRC.B-S. Christian _culture_ is the topic, not
Bible topics per se.

That said, I do have to agree that I am seeing a lot of posts that really are
off-topic. But what do you expect when the Charter and FAQ for this newsgroup
are _so_ out of date?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

---

[All of Christianity is fair game. This includes the Bible and topics in
it. --clh]
Chris Smith
2006-08-08 01:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@astound.net
Disorganized charity is sure to be inefficient. Organized charity not
supported by tax money has its dubious aspects, but it can and often is
effective. But the facts of modern life make it almost impossible to
run an organized charity by donations alone. Almost all organized
charities get at least some of their money from tax dollars.
I fear your point about "good works" is one more cloud-cuckoo-land
dream. It is nice to dream of living virtuously. But most of us would
rather accomplish something.
(I seem to be running afoul of either network problems or over-zealous
moderation, so we'll see whether this gets through.)

I would be a little more cautious, perhaps, about attaching the label of
"inefficient" to charitable works. I don't see anywhere that charitable
works are called upon to be efficient, either in scripture or from any
other moral authority. The idea of efficiency is built on the myth of a
zero-sum game, where you have a fixed amount of resources to allocate as
you see fit. This may or may not be a reasonable approximation in
business, for example, where you pay people a salary and expect them to
do as they are told... but it's certainly an inadequate to consider
doing God's work.

Someone I know lives in a house with about half a dozen people whom he
has invited to stay there free of charge. The residents are often
homeless, recently released from prison, or otherwise facing problems of
some kind. They all live as a family. A few years after he started, he
first came under a lot of pressure to expand the "program." He would
have certainly laughed at calling it a program. Instead, he just handed
off the house to someone else, and started renting a new house. He
won't stay in a house if it's getting larger than what he can call a
family. Today, there are about half a dozen of these houses.

Anyway, Steve would scoff at what he calls the modern idolization of
efficiency. Not that I am saying you should never be efficient, nor do
I think Steve would. He also started the soup kitchen (actually, at the
time it was peanut butter sandwiches) in this city thirty years ago, and
he certainly would do everything he can to make sure everyone is fed,
including optimizing the serving process. But he would point out, and I
would, too, that far more often the need is for people to live in
community with each other, and efficiency just drives people away.
Efficiency is what makes people feel like charitable work is what you do
one Saturday every other month.

That said, I basically agree with you, though I'd have phrased it
differently. I don't see God looking down and being particularly
impressed with the convictions of Christians that helping others should
be approached cautiously, lest we might force it on someone. Although
it's certainly the case that we get things back -- both spiritual and
temporal -- from good works we perform, I don't imagine God much liking
the "what's in it for me?" approach to helping others.

Unfortunately, that's basically what's being demonstrated here. I first
responded to bimms because I was surprised that, somehow, in his post
about fulfilling God's command to help the poor, the focus was carefully
kept on the person doing the helping with no mention of the person
needing help. It was basically said that since the spending of tax
money may not help taxpayers spiritually, it can't be justified. At
that point, I guess I can't imagine it matters what else is going on,
where the money came from, etc. The problem is that in considering how
to fulfill God's command to help the poor, we've somehow managed to
forget about the poor!
--
Chris Smith
Loading...