Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
Malcolm Malcolm's picture
Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b...

Quote:

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, I've known that for ages. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

George Victor

Yes, the in crowd now reject the sermon from the mount, demanding to know what Jesus can do for them. Harper's carried a good piece on that a couple of years back. Thanks for the link.  I'm seeing this also in Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor. Scary.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

It's always amusing (at least when it isn't too annoying) to hear these people claiming to be Christian while offering up a half-baked frittata of Ayn Randian economic libertarianism with a soupçon of American Exceptionalism.

Frmrsldr

In $ we trust, baby.

I am an evangelical. See how wealthy I am?

This is god's showering his bounty and blessings upon me. A sign I am a "true" believer.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Ironically, even most evangelicals admit the "prosperity gospel" is a heresy.  Whhat they really seem to mean is that Joel Osteen is too overt in proclaiming it.  But the hheresy that wealth in this world is a sign of God's blessing on the elect took root very early in the history of Calvinism. 

(Of course, prior to Calvin, scriptural injunctions against usury were taken to forbid collecting interest.  It was Calvin, the first revisionist, who first argued that they merely referred to "excessive" interest.  American Episcopal gay activist Louie Crewe has satirically used the Calvin meme to argue that the far fewer and less overt scriptural passages that appear to reject homosexual acts refer only to "excessive" homosexual acts.)

al-Qa'bong

Yeah, this sounds about right.

Quote:

It is He, it is Himself, they say to each other, it
must be He, it can be none other but He! He pauses at the portal
of the old cathedral, just as a wee white coffin is carried in,
with tears and great lamentations. The lid is off, and in the
coffin lies the body of a fair-child, seven years old, the only
child of an eminent citizen of the city. The little corpse lies
buried in flowers. 'He will raise the child to life!' confidently
shouts the crowd to the weeping mother.

The officiating priest who had come to meet the funeral procession, looks perplexed, and
frowns. A loud cry is suddenly heard, and the bereaved mother
prostrates herself at His feet. 'If it be Thou, then bring back
my child to life!' she cries beseechingly. The procession halts,
and the little coffin is gently lowered at his feet. Divine
compassion beams forth from His eyes, and as He looks at the
child, His lips are heard to whisper once more, 'Talitha Cumi' -
and 'straightway the damsel arose.' The child rises in her
coffin. Her little hands still hold the nosegay of white roses
which after death was placed in them, and, looking round with
large astonished eyes she smiles sweetly ....

The crowd is violently excited. A terrible commotion rages among them, the
populace shouts and loudly weeps, when suddenly, before the
cathedral door, appears the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor himself....
He is tall, gaunt-looking old man of nearly four-score years and
ten, with a stern, withered face, and deeply sunken eyes, from
the cavity of which glitter two fiery sparks. He has laid aside
his gorgeous cardinal's robes in which he had appeared before the
people at the auto da-fe of the enemies of the Romish Church, and
is now clad in his old, rough, monkish cassock. His sullen
assistants and slaves of the 'holy guard' are following at a
distance.

He pauses before the crowd and observes. He has seen
all. He has witnessed the placing of the little coffin at His
feet, the calling back to life. And now, his dark, grim face has
grown still darker; his bushy grey eyebrows nearly meet, and his
sunken eye flashes with sinister light. Slowly raising his
finger, he commands his minions to arrest Him...

 

Some old Russian guy

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

(Of course, prior to Calvin, scriptural injunctions against usury were taken to forbid collecting interest.  It was Calvin, the first revisionist, who first argued that they merely referred to "excessive" interest.

If you make a minimum donation of five dollars right now, we will say a prayer for you on air.

We accept cash, money orders and all major credit cards. Please no checks or C.O.D.s.

Please send in your donation so we can send a mission to spread the word of god to the poor suffering people of Haiti.

Please send in your donation so we can build our village for sick children.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

There are good charities out there, you just have to do some checking up to decide if they're worthwhile. Before I retired I supported the Canadian Hearing Society (I'm very hard of hearing - been a member of CHS since the 1960s) and the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF) of the Anglican Church. If the charity advertises/makes TV appeals, they're likely not going to get support from me. If they can afford TV commercials or entire TV shows showcasing their work, that should raise questions.

milo204

this really relates to that study a while back that showed atheists know more about religions and their ideas than the people who claim to believe in them.

they don't know what they believe=support for policies that don't reflect the values they claim to believe, mainly because they really don't believe much beyond there is a god, and he's looking out FOR ME!

all that stuff about love and understanding and forgiveness and respect was never popular among the vast majority of "believers"...

Chomsky had a great quote about how it was funny that american presidents proclaim a love for god etc, then go a rip to shreds the very principles they claim to believe.  And it was the bible that invented the word "hypocrite"...guess they skipped that chapter!

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The whole thing reminds me of the bumper sticker / t-shirt etc.:

Jesus called.  He wants his religion back.

Of course, it isn't helpful that there are so many people on the secular left so quick to assume that any person of faith is one of these far right evangelicals.

Frmrsldr

milo204 wrote:

this really relates to that study a while back that showed atheists know more about religions and their ideas than the people who claim to believe in them.

they don't know what they believe=support for policies that don't reflect the values they claim to believe, mainly because they really don't believe much beyond there is a god, and he's looking out FOR ME!

all that stuff about love and understanding and forgiveness and respect was never popular among the vast majority of "believers"...

Chomsky had a great quote about how it was funny that american presidents proclaim a love for god etc, then go a rip to shreds the very principles they claim to believe.  And it was the bible that invented the word "hypocrite"...guess they skipped that chapter!

This is where "The Power of Love" translates into "The Love of Power."

Caissa

I am currently reading Jesus by Geza Vermes. It would probably make most evangelicals heads explode.

A_J

Mohandas Gandhi wrote:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

I am currently reading Jesus by Geza Vermes. It would probably make most evangelicals heads explode.

I have a small library of Latin American Liberation Theology, and while at Trinity ('77 - '80), I was part of a group (Ecumenical Forum of Canada)  that arranged for one of these to visit Toronto and give a lecture.

Caissa

Liberation theology is so twentieth century, Boom Boom. Tongue out

ETA: I'm sure you had a large turnout from Wycliffe. Wink

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LOL! Laughing

 

ps: his name is Jose Miguez Bonino

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

ETA: I'm sure you had a large turnout from Wycliffe. Wink

 

True story: I was actually registered for Wycliffe in mid-1977; and had arranged accomodation elsewhere. However, on my first day at classes, I was attending a Pastoral Theology course and about fifteen minutes in the Professor asked each of us to stand and give a personal testimony. What the hell??? I gave some made-up shit, and when the class was over, I ran out to the place across the street, which I discoevered was another Anglican theological college - Trinity - so I checked it out, and discovered it was very liberal and much more suited to my thinking at the time - and somewhat High Church which at the time I had absolutely no knowledge about, but it looked like fun, what with all the incense and dressing up in colourful robes. I spoke to a few of the folks I saw in the Buttery (Trinity cafeteria) and they all seemed like really nice folk - especially two of them, who became life-long friends of mine - and I withdrew my Wycliffe registration and moved to Trinity. Haven't regretted it since.

absentia

On another forum, i've ben trying to convince people that Islam is not the reason for "economic stagnation" in Muslim countries. Aside from the unquestioned (and silly) assumptions already contained in the notion of economic stagnations itself, there is an equally silly assumption that the tenets of a religion somehow influence commerce.

If you look at history, the exact opposite is true: whatever power- and wealth-structure was in place, the local religion - any religion! Buddhism, for heaven's sake! - was made to support. Christianity has been yoked to the service of USian money interests, just as it had served European aristocracy. Religion is a tool of the ruling class and does what they want. 

Christianity came over to this continent in three or four flavours and was instrumental in genocide, slavery, rape, pillage, systematic oppression, kidnapping and imprisonment, brainwashing, grand larceny, child-abuse,... etc. The simplest strategem was and is referring to the old testament instead of the new... which was probably why those old guys in Nicea grafted the radical new religion onto a primitive tribal folklore to begin with. Schizophrenic, but infinitely adaptable.

Maysie Maysie's picture

absentia wrote:
 Buddhism, for heaven's sake!

Laughing

6079_Smith_W

absentia wrote:

Christianity has been yoked to the service of USian money interests, just as it had served European aristocracy. Religion is a tool of the ruling class and does what they want. 

Not all of them were in the back pocket of the power brokers, and for that matter not even every person in the big established churches was, either.

You only have to look at Quakers and Anabaptists as an example of people who were deported and executed because they resisted militarism and stood for a more fair society.

I am absolutely with you on the idea that organized religion has been the major cause of much of the misery in the world, but the notion that Christianity is just one monster with many heads is false. Sorry, but there is plenty of historical evidence to the contrary.

 

Caissa

absentia wrote:
  Any sect or group that tried to remain tru to the spirit of Christianity, from about AD 20 onward, has been declared heretical and ruthlessly wiped out. 

I think your date is a smidgin off.

absentia

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You only have to look at Quakers and Anabaptists as an example of people who were deported and executed because they resisted militarism and stood for a more fair society.

By whom were they deported and executed? Doesn't that just prove that the dominant religion serves the prevailing power? Any sect or group that tried to remain tru to the spirit of Christianity, from about AD 20 onward, has been declared heretical and ruthlessly wiped out. 

There are decent people in churches, and even in fairly high adminstrative positions, i grant you. There are decent people everywhere; people who are true to whatever system of belief or rationality or philosophy they profess. And i didn't say that religion was responsible for the atrocities - only that religion never stopped, or even slowed down, the atrocities. Power elites simply do what they like and bend the practice of religion to their will.

Christianity as one monster with many heads? No, not exactly. It was originally a more or less coherent mystical cult, the adherents of which (whether there was a single, physical Jesus person or not) spread ideas like: the accumulation of worldly possessions is bad for the soul, while helping widows and orphans is good. Once the Roman military leaders got hold of it, the thing was utterly changed. When the popes got hold of it, changed again. When the present bible was faked and forged, mistranslated and plagiarized and cobbled together, it made an odd creature (monster wasn't my word, but it fits): a fresh, radical young creed of equality, forgiveness and tolerance, grafted onto a mythology of patriarchal privilege, racism and revenge. A very uncomfortable fit, but they needed both the popular appeal and the authoritarian tradition. Christians of many stripes and degrees have struggled with the contradiction ever since. The rulers have no problem at all, choosing the bits to emphasize and making up punishments for non-comformity with their view.

6079_Smith_W

@ absentia

Not true.
As one example, the struggle to end slavery was, for the most part, led by fundamentalist Christians.
Likewise, the anti-absolutionist movement in Britain was largely driven by protestant Christians.
There are plenty of religious organizations devoted to social justice and resisting war.
Your question of who was doing the deporting is based on the assumption that anabaptists and other protestants and catholics believed the same thing. In fact they did not. The fact they all had religions based on Jesus is no more relevant than the fact that some of them shared the same language.

Don't take my word for it.... their beliefs were different enough that some of them devoted a lot of time and effort to wiping out heretics.

(edit)
The OP seems seems to me like a very good one - contrasting the philosophical and moral foundation that produced Christianity with how it is interpreted (twisted) by some sects and some people.
Lets try not to gloss over that any more than those bad evangelicals have, eh?

absentia

That slavery business has been flogged to death. Yes, Christians were instrumental in abolishing something that Christians should never have been practicing in the first place. Christians have built hospitals, orphanages and soup kitchens, as well as residential schools and sweatr-shops; have included mendicant friars, as well as crusaders. Christians disagree, fight one another, kill one another, destroy continents full of non-Christians and then cry over it. They're not all the same. And their belief, whatever shade of belief, whatever their particular version of the book professes, have never, never once, actually prevented the military or the wealthy, the kings or the industrialists, doing whatever the hell they wanted to do.

absentia

Caissa wrote:

absentia wrote:
  Any sect or group that tried to remain tru to the spirit of Christianity, from about AD 20 onward, has been declared heretical and ruthlessly wiped out. 

I think your date is a smidgin off.

I know; 2-300 years. Just exaggerating to make the point that it was hijacked and twisted out of shape early on.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm sure some people here saw Michael Moore's documentary on capitalism.

He interviewed some priests,bishops and other clergymen who declared capitalism goes against the teachings of Christ.

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

All the while hiding behind their bibles and their firearms.

Evangelicals embrace totalitarism,intolerance and fascism.

They are not christian...They are a cult.

They are despicable putrid little maggots.

6079_Smith_W

@ absentia

When we look at people and faiths which stood against violence and discrimination and suffered persecution for it- and there are a siginificant number of Christian faiths which did just that - you are blaming the victim.

And I would say again that you are mistaken. The ending of slavery and the divine right of kings, and church supremacy were significant revolutions in the development of our society. There was a religious aspect to all of these struggles.

(edit)
I'm not asking you to become a Christian; I am not one myself. But I am saying that we have plenty of allies who are, and who do progressive work based on that philosophy. I don't believe in bad-mouthing my friends for things they had nothing to do with.

(edit)
And those "heretics" who were wiped out do mean something, just as much as any other movement which was suppressed still has meaning.

absentia

Sigh!

All religions are cults. Some cults are more pernicious than others; some are lovely and benign, at least until they're destroyed or perverted. Most have good and bad members, believers and cynics, leaders and followers of various levels of intelligence, faith and goodwill.

I don't blame religion - neither Christianity nor any other - for the domestic and foreign policy of any society, in any age. Religion is neither the victim nor the culprit: belief systems are something people seem to need, so they always have one. The dominant state religion is always used as a tool of social control by the most powerful elements. The divine right of kings was a religious invention, when kings and popes were necessary allies; once the nobles had demoted the king to secondary power, the cardinals (who were nobles anyway) went with that. When America seceded and declared itself a republic, the Puritans became Republicans. The Catholic church, as well as all the others, went along. Michael Mooer's friendly priest didn't hie himself up onto any mountains to preach against capitalism, nor return the coins in the collection plate that had a president's face on them. Very few clergymen refuted social Darwinism in public, though they were pretty quick to stomp all over the real thing. Power shifts, religious organization shifts with it. All part of politics.

6079_Smith_W

@ absentia

I share your position on a lot of Christian faiths, and the abuse of religion generally.

On the other hand, I am not going to dismiss some of our allies as "cult" members, with all the implication of brainwashing and dogma that goes along with that, when I know that is nonsense.

Sorry. I might disagree with them on the existence of a god, but in my opinion some of their philosophy is very good, and progressive, and the fact is they are working for the same ends that I am. I respect their beliefs, as I expect them to respect mine.

I do not believe in a god, nor in the divinity of Jesus, but I still think there is a fair bit of truth, and good advice to be found in some of the books of the bible, if one reads them with a critical eye.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Caissa wrote:

ETA: I'm sure you had a large turnout from Wycliffe. Wink

 

Please.  We refer to it as "the other place; the one with the nice view."

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

absentia wrote:

Sigh!

When America seceded and declared itself a republic, the Puritans became Republicans.

 

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I really fail to understand why some people think it is important to insult potential allies.

I know more than a few religious progressives who have effectively dropped out of political action because they felt they were explicitly unwelcome - unless, of course, they were prepared effectively to deny who they were.

milo204

i think it's worth noting that while some christian/fundamentalist groups try and do good, they are by far the minority amongst believers, and probably proportionate to the rest of the population in terms of people doing good things for humanity.

to me this says it has nothing to do with the religion and more to do with the people's ethics that DON'T come from religion.  In other words, religion actually hinders people doing good things, or is at least a non factor.  people who are looking to help would do it anyways.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Malcolm wrote:

Caissa wrote:

ETA: I'm sure you had a large turnout from Wycliffe. Wink

 

Please.  We refer to it as "the other place; the one with the nice view."

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

milo204 wrote:

. . .  while some christian/fundamentalist groups try and do good, they are by far the minority amongst believers, . . .

 

I'd be really curious to see ANY evidence supporting that.  The religious right are a tiny minority of Christianity world-wide.

The religious right are certainly more vocal - and many religious progressives tend to downplay their religious motivations because of the frequently hostile reception meted out by so many progressives who know little or nothing of the history of the religious left.

6079_Smith_W

{joke}

On the other hand, I might be mistaken.
Perhaps Bev Oda actually made the right decision in cutting Kairos funding. After all, do we really want to have a bunch of sky fairy worshippers in charge of an organization claiming to be socially progressive?
Sure they make one or two decisions that happen to be good, but can we really trust them so long as the only take their marching orders from their big daddy in the sky?
They might seem find today, but who knows when they might just decide to start sacrificing goats, or building a big boat?
I'm not sure we should have anything more to do with them unless they turn the reins of their organization over to people who can prove they are completely secular, and not under the spell of those dangerous fairy tales.

{/joke}

milo, go to any city and see who is doing the the back-work when it comes to feeding and clothing the poor. It may not be the majority everywhere, but I would wager a significant proportion are church groups.

And sorry... I don't buy the line that they are all doing it just to hook people into converting.

And as for ethics being separate from that belief, by that logic you absolve all religions from the evils that have been done in their name, because those people would have done bad things anyway. You can't have it both ways.

Aristotleded24

absentia wrote:
All religions are cults.

[url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm]Definition of the word "cult," courtesy of ReligiousTolerance.org[/url]

Frmrsldr

alan smithee wrote:

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

 

They do have their use for say, televangelist "ministers."

"Please donate what you can right now so we can send a mission to spread the word of Jesus christ, our lord and savior, our salvation to the poor and needy, to the suffering of (say) Haiti."

This is literally translated to read: "Please donate what you can right now so we can send our people for an all expense paid vacation to an exotic Caribbean resort where we will assault these godless communist atheists, devil worshippers and heathens with our religious bullshit. Bibles rather than secure employment with a living wage and food. The reason why these people suffer from poverty, unemployement or poor paying jobs, homelessness, malnutrition, poor health, illiteracy, crime and natural disasters is because this is god's way of punishing them for not accepting Jesus christ into their hearts as their one true savior. The remaining profit after expenses, and there always is remaining profit, all goes to me, minister of the church of [insert name here.] Tax sheltered religion means 'No Taxes', 100% profit after expenses. The reason why I am rich - look at the homes I live in, look at the cars I am chauffeured in, look at the Gucchi business suits I wear, look at all the jewell encrusted gold rings I wear on my fingers - is because I accept Jesus in my heart and these are the outward material manifestations of god's wondrous bountious blessings."

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

absentia

One more time: I do not blame religion for anything that's done in its name. I do not blame the faithful, nor the belief system to which they adhere. I do not disrespect political allies, either in person or on principle.

The things that are done in the world - both good and bad - are done, not by gods but by people. People belong to organizations and organizations have leaders. Most of the things that are done are done at the command of leaders, by people who obey the leaders. Whether the things that are done are good or bad, you can judge for yourself, in each case, and you can measure and compare the magnitude of various acts. I've said that organized religion never stopped the rulers of nations from behaving as they wished, and that the dominant religion of a state adapts to and supports the political elite and tends to persecute its rebels, often to extinction. I can't take back any of that without proof to the contrary of everything i've read of history.

As for definitions of cult, i may be wrong: maybe the evangelicals are and all the others aren't, or some are and some aren't -  the religious can sort it out among themselves.

6079_Smith_W

@ Malcolm

Actually the scenario with Charlie would probably have caused more of a rift than a union - or even given grounds for Britain to start up the war again. And I don't imagine it would sit well with either the American's protestant sensibilities, or Charles's Catholic absolutist ones.

I'm not doubting you.... It just seems completely odd and improbable.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

He doesn't dig the monarchy at all.  He just knows his history.  Would you say that anyone who was up on the history of the Third Reich "really digs that Hitler stuff"?

(...other than David Irving, I mean...)

Fact is, anti-monarchism is a much more pressing issue for the Brits(at one point in the Eighties, the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy) than it is for Canada.  Malcolm is just as anti-monarchist as you are.  He just doesn't believe that that is the SINGLE most important issue for the Canadian left.  Why can't you just accept that its an issue Canadian leftists can legitimately disagree about?  Fighting globalization and ending support for the imperial ambitions of the U.S. are, arguably, far more pressing concerns for Canada's left than putting paid to the Windsor Germans.  Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan.  Nobody's dying because Liz is still on the money.

Aristotleded24

absentia wrote:
As for definitions of cult, i may be wrong

You're not. The problem is that the common understanding of the word "cult" has been twisted by high-profile mass suicides. Check the definitions of the word posted above.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fmrsldr, it's a hobby.

SmithW, I agree that it would have started the war over again, but it would have been a much different war.  The Hanoverian kingdom had just been humiliated by a gang of colonials, and the Stuart prince still had some following in various parts of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and northern England.  That said, the protestant sensibilities of most colonial Americans would have mitigated against the whole thing, and apart from that, I doubt that the Americans would have had much interest in conquering their former masters.  My point was more to speculate on what it might have meant if the odd and improbable had happened.

Frankly, if the Americans had chosen to be a monarchy, a House of Washington strikes me as the most likely alternate scenario.

All that said, see this amusing alternate history.

milo204

what i mean is that the proportion of religious people involved in doing humanitarian work vs those who do not is probably about the same as in the non religious population.  so i agree with the point about them being people who are capable of all the things good and bad people do, and that the religion probably has little or nothing to do with it.

i think it's mainly due to how people can and are encouraged to interpret religion as whatever they want.  whether it's fire and brimstone or angels and heavens or killing people or hating them, saving them or helping them, worshipping animals or abusing them.  it's all there!

i could be wrong, but that's pretty much what i see around me.  

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Frmrsldr wrote:

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

Ken Burch wrote:

He doesn't dig the monarchy at all.  He just knows his history.  Would you say that anyone who was up on the history of the Third Reich "really digs that Hitler stuff"?

In a word, "Yes." Other people who would study the Third Reich to the extent it appears Malcolm has studied British and European monarchy, would do so to oppose nazism, neo-nazism, the Third Reich and all it stands for.

Aside from the occassional lip service to republicanism followed by an excuse for why not to try to achieve it (as you yourself provide), Malcolm has otherwise said absolutely nothing about opposition to monarchy. So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, feels like a duck, smells like a duck, chancs are, it's a duck.

Ken Burch wrote:

Fact is, anti-monarchism is a much more pressing issue for the Brits(at one point in the Eighties, the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy) than it is for Canada.  Malcolm is just as anti-monarchist as you are.  He just doesn't believe that that is the SINGLE most important issue for the Canadian left.  Why can't you just accept that its an issue Canadian leftists can legitimately disagree about?  Fighting globalization and ending support for the imperial ambitions of the U.S. are, arguably, far more pressing concerns for Canada's left than putting paid to the Windsor Germans.

If you think abolishing (the suzerainty) of the British monarchy in Canada is the single most pressing issue with me, compare the number of antimonarchy posts with the number of Afghan war posts I've made.

This binary thinking is a fallacy. It's not a case of Canada's left either invests all its energy into abolishing the monarchy or it invests all its energy into fighting against globalism, (American) imperialism and the Afghan war.

It is not impossible, in fact it's quite possible to do all these simultaneously and successfully, even when allocating time, effort and resources appropriately.

Ken Burch wrote:

Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan.  Nobody's dying because Liz is still on the money.

In fact, the absolute contrary is very much the case.

As a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegiance to the "... queen, her heirs, successors and representatives."

In other words, as a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegience to a foreign sovereign - the British crown.

A foreign sovereign, the British queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canadian soldiers are fighting, dying, maiming and murdering innocent Afghans and every other evil act they are committing in this immoral, unjust and illegal war in the name of a foreign sovereign (head of state) - in the name, that is of the BRITISH QUEEN. (Yes indeed, the face that adorns Canadian legal tender whenever Canadians make financial transactions.)

How does that grab you?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fmrsldr, this thread was about the disconnect between evangelicals' religious and political beliefs.  You've used the pretext of a throw away comment on another point to derail yet another thread to deal with your bizarre obsession with a constitutional triviality.

Stop.  Just stop.

6079_Smith_W

On that note, I am sure most of you have heard of this book from 2000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prayer_of_Jabez

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/Jabez.htm

 

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, this thread was about the disconnect between evangelicals' religious and political beliefs.  You've used the pretext of a throw away comment on another point to derail yet another thread to deal with your bizarre obsession with a constitutional triviality.

Stop.  Just stop.

Okay.

But tell me. Did we really need to be inundated with all that bullshit on a possible restoration of monarchy in America you posted?

Tell me honestly. Who, other than you, the fuck cares about something extremely unlikely that never happened that you lectured us about?

This is about the hypocrisy of fundamental evangelical christians of today. Not about the puritans and monarchists of colonial America times gone by.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fmrsldr, there was no post about the restoration of the monarchy in the United States.  You should really stop lying.

There was a post which challenged the assumption that Puritan anti-monarchism was driven by the choice to make America a republic, suggesting rather that the inherent antimocarchism of Puritanism was more likely a contributing factor in the decision that the newly independent United States should be a republic.  There was then a side observation that the choice of a republic was by no means certain, and that serious consideration was given to establishing an American monarchy.  The side issue of monarchy was made by another poster.

None of which has anything to do with your wierd personal obsession which you and you alone have imposed on this thread.

Pages