My Problem with Christianism

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Public discourse on faith is now utterly dominated by the loud, shrill, bordering on crazy voices of the religious right and their bizarre obsessions with abortion and gays.

These kooks have co-opted the term "people of faith" and pushed the idea that christianity is only compatible with one set of values (anti-gay, anti-abortion) and one political party (Republican/ conservative). They have done this in order to achieve their own political agenda.

This article gives a voice to the legions of Christians who deeply resent what they feel is the mis-representation and co-optation of Christianity by the religious right.

A fascinating read.




My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

"Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.

And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.

What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

Article





 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
This is an excellent find indeed. Too many times I have been accused, from both Christians and non, of not representing Christians to the fullest for my more liberal views on gay relations, abortion, and other popular political conflicts. As a former youth director and avid member of many Christian organizations I have found it hard get my beliefs past the ever growing misunderstanding of those that listen to the more conservative Christian representatives. These listeners believe that what they hear from them is the ultimatum in our faith, which can?t be farther from the correct example.
 

spunkz

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,467
0
76
yes, there is an extreme right that has a large political voice in this country, but you can't sit there and get angry at people who are sincerely trying to understand and apply scripture in their lives. and i'm not talking about Pat Robertson, i'm talking about the majority of Christendom(ooo maybe a fancy suffix will prove my point) who see homosexuality as wrong.

Romans 1

24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


Romans 1, verses 26 , 27

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

i'm not getting angry at you either, but convince me that this reference and others in the Bible are misinterpreted somehow and i'll help spread the news. until then, continue to celebrate your tolerance if it helps you sleep at night.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.
 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
Originally posted by: spunkz
yes, there is an extreme right that has a large political voice in this country, but you can't sit there and get angry at people who are sincerely trying to understand and apply scripture in their lives. and i'm not talking about Pat Robertson, i'm talking about the majority of Christendom(ooo maybe a fancy suffix will prove my point) who see homosexuality as wrong.

Romans 1

24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


Romans 1, verses 26 , 27

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

i'm not getting angry at you either, but convince me that this reference and others in the Bible are misinterpreted somehow and i'll help spread the news. until then, continue to celebrate your tolerance if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm not angry at them at all.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
How about we start yanking the worst offender's non-profit status? Perhaps a few key lawsuits filed against the IRS would trigger better enforcement of churches and other religious groups who dabble in politics.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we start yanking the worst offender's non-profit status? Perhaps a few key lawsuits filed against the IRS would trigger better enforcement of churches and other religious groups who dabble in politics.

I assure you, you wouldn't want the country regulating religion. That is assuming you are suggesting such a thing.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we start yanking the worst offender's non-profit status? Perhaps a few key lawsuits filed against the IRS would trigger better enforcement of churches and other religious groups who dabble in politics.

I assure you, you wouldn't want the country regulating religion. That is assuming you are suggesting such a thing.


no, its regulating those who pose as a religion when all they really want to do is get government funding and try to control the public, that isnt a religion, its called scumbags
 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we start yanking the worst offender's non-profit status? Perhaps a few key lawsuits filed against the IRS would trigger better enforcement of churches and other religious groups who dabble in politics.

I assure you, you wouldn't want the country regulating religion. That is assuming you are suggesting such a thing.


no, its regulating those who pose as a religion when all they really want to do is get government funding and try to control the public, that isnt a religion, its called scumbags

I fail to see how this relates to the topic on hand. Someone enlighten me.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we start yanking the worst offender's non-profit status? Perhaps a few key lawsuits filed against the IRS would trigger better enforcement of churches and other religious groups who dabble in politics.

I assure you, you wouldn't want the country regulating religion. That is assuming you are suggesting such a thing.

Not at all. I'm suggesting the IRS yank the tax-exempt status of churches who insist on engaging in political activities. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation."
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Public discourse on faith is now utterly dominated by the loud, shrill, bordering on crazy voices of the religious right and their bizarre obsessions with abortion and gays.

You need to change the channel or something.... There are plenty of different viewpoints expressed everyday. Just like the article you posted. Just pick up a newspaper etc and you'll see 'em. No, there's no "domination"; maybe you just wanna suppress those veiwpoints you don't agree with?

Fern
 

Preyhunter

Golden Member
Nov 9, 1999
1,774
12
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Sorry , you're a Texan I wouldn't expect you to understand.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,769
6,770
126
How about the sorry-assed spineless bastard politicians that call themselves Democrats.
 

Preyhunter

Golden Member
Nov 9, 1999
1,774
12
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Sorry , you're a Texan I wouldn't expect you to understand.

So you're just trolling yet again? I figured.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.
This pretty much sums up why there is so much confusion as to why some people are social conservatives. I'm not a social conservative because my pastor tells me to be a social conservative. Indeed, my religion requires me to actively seek out what is right and wrong on my own.

This lead me to the study of ethics - the formation of universally applicable solutions to the problems that the author lists here. These solutions are universally applicable because they are based on logical, rather than religious, foundations. My answer to all of the author's questions is that, as a human, I'm a creature of reason. Accordingly, I should seek to use this reason to determine the best solution to the problems with which I am faced. Thus, I can arrive at the conclusion of what constitutes 'good' behavior completely independently of religious principles and, as such, may be implemented as law without infringing on another's right to freedom of religion. Since, presumably, God made us creatures of reason, it seems reasonable that he might expect us to use this reason to solve such problems. This is why I try to openly debate topics like gay marriage, abortion, and contraception. My views are not fixed by my church, but by my own conclusions after sincere reflection on these issues. Accordingly, if presented with sufficient evidence to induce change in my genuine beliefs, I can actually change my viewpoint without fearing that I've somehow alienated myself from my church. I know that this is probably not true of most Christian sects, but that's why I don't belong to said sects.
Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.
I don't care for Rush or Ann, but this paragraph is pretty ridiculous. It misrepresents the views of the Democrats regarding abortion in an effort to make it sound somewhat justifiable while cherry-picking negative comments from the Republican talking heads. :thumbsdown:

The primary failing of the article is that the the author neglects to even suggest that there might be generally applicable principles of behavior that are independent of faith or religion. Indeed, he pretty much rules out this as even a possibility, stating that people should be able to behave as they please. This is a step in the wrong direction. I firmly believe that no one in this nation should be obliged to follow my religious convictions. However, I equally believe that people should be obliged to behave in an ethical manner. Thus, the debate should be not whether one religion is forcing its faith-based views on others, but whether one behavior is ethical or not. This focusing on whether or not one group or the other is 'right' is completely without meaning, since we neglect to actually discuss the ideas that these groups support. It's like saying Republicans are 'right' or 'wrong'. While I agree with some things they stand for, I would certainly not say that their entire platform is 'right.' Until we realize this and act accordingly, we will forever fester in our partisan-dominated mess that we have created.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).
Isnt' that what the democratic process is? The majority make the laws.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,769
6,770
126
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).
Isnt' that what the democratic process is? The majority make the laws.
Not is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, no. Ones representatives make the laws and they are subject to enforcement by the executive and changeable by the citizenry via the courts as to their constitutionality.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).
Thanks Lotus, no doubt he still doesn't get it.

That's the problem when you are brainwashed, you can't see what has been done to you.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).
Isnt' that what the democratic process is? The majority make the laws.
Not is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, no. Ones representatives make the laws and they are subject to enforcement by the executive and changeable by the citizenry via the courts as to their constitutionality.
I am very aware of the system of government we have, i just stated a that voting is part of the democratic process.

The places i have lived (oregon and alaska) allow for citizen to place bills on ballots that get voted on directly by the people.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Just a brief overview, I do not wish to impose my beliefs on anyone else. In fact, i'm quite liberal in that regard. But I do have many areas where I believe there is a distinct difference in right and wrong. Many would disagree, is it really shocking that I would have a stance on issues that I feel are immoral?

It is quite apparent that maybe your stance, dmcowen, is that you believe everyone should be able to do as they wish. Where do you draw the line on moral issues? I can assure you probably wouldn't be in favor of legalizing pedophilia would you? Isn't that primarily because you find it immoral?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Trying to find morality in politics is like trying to find beef in a pig.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Preyhunter
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TravisT
As a devoted Christian, I have voted and will continue to vote based on morals to a certain extent. The great thing about this country is to be able to put someone in office who believes similar to yourself. Everyone has their reasons for voting and why they vote for specific people. But I do not understand why or how voting someone in based on their morals is the wrong choice as there can be an infinite or minute reason for voting for people.

The ones I dislike are the party voters. I don't think it should matter whether you are Republican or Democrat. You should pick the one you feel is best for the position and stands for a lot of things that you support whether legal, moral, or any other type of issues.

Thanks for admitting you put faith above the integriy of the U.S.

That took guts.

Care to explain in more detail for those of us that ride the short bus?

Travis claims he votes for his morals (ie: he votes to force his morals on everybody else).


I'm inclined to believe everybody does this. Only some wish to call it by a different name.

Fern