Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Please.

  • Mar. 29th, 2006 at 7:26 AM
WTF!
Religious Conservatives Gather to Discuss 'War Against Christians'

"The message of 'V for Vendetta' is that Christians are plotting to seize the reins of power."

No, the message of 'V for Vendetta' is that fascist, totalitarian governments can only control the people for so long until someone stands up and refuses to be put down. It only features your uber-corrupt version of Christianity as the antagonist because it's something familiar to the target audience. And why is that? Because you've been forcing this Christofacist ideology down our throats for years, and screaming about how we're attacking you when we choke on it.

"...a self-described progressive evangelical..."

Well hole-e-shit. What is that? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? (Sir, a self-described progressive evangelical, sir!) Not a self-described pagan, but a self-described progressive evangelical. Of course, this is to be expected. Anyone who falls outside the "mainstream" can only be "self-described", and therefore, not legitimate.

Because no one who is anything ever calls themselves that.

"I'm the President of the United States." ~ George W. Bush, 12/17/2005 - George W. Bush, self-described President of the United States. How come we never see that from the goddamned liberal media?

I digress.

This so-called "War on Christianity" is a fabrication. It's a smokescreen and a strawman. "We're under attack!" they scream. "Gather to our banner and help us! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US!" Sounds like the same tired old rhetoric. Newsflash: Christianity is not under attack. Simply because you perceive it to be does not make it so. Liberal Judges are not trying to erase you. In fact, the judges that have made decisions that you don't like (i.e., activist judges) tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Hollywood is not out to get you. In fact, most of the battles in this so-called war are battles that you, the Religious Conservatives have started!

Gay marriage is not an assault on Christianity. Christians trying to ban it, that's an assault on homosexuals.
Evolution is not an assault on Christianity. Intelligent Design is an assault on science.
Abortion is not an assault on Christianity. Bombing abortion clinics in an assault on women.

It's not a "War on Christianity", it's a "War for Ideology". Right-wing Christians believe, despite being the priviledge majority, that they are the repressed minority. They want their ideology pushed on everyone else, and recoil in horror when everyone else objects. They started this war, and labeled it a war against them. Sounds like a kid getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and then complaining that there weren't enough cookies in it.

-pb

Comments

[info]victoria_fusion wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 01:25 pm (UTC)
damn. here here!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 01:37 pm (UTC)
Slacktavist has a lot to say on this subject, as one of those "self described progressive evangelicals" who is sensible, I listen to him. He talks often about how far away from true Christianity these people are, and where this strange thinking comes from, that these people really need some kind of excitement in their lives, since they aren't allowed to do anything, so they make up this insane war to provide it. They want to believe that they are living in the time of Christ, back when Christianity was under seige, not now, where they could be comfortable if they let themselves. It is a sick sick mindset, and one at odds with the actual teaching of Christ.
That's teh other part of it, lets face it, these people are so far away from what Christ taught their leaders have to be a tad bit guilty about leading their flocks so far astray, this may help to alieve that guilt, it's easier to believe that you are doing the right thing if you are at war (right Bush?).
Either that or the entire lot of them are bug-fuck nuts and need to be shot.
[info]eriksangel15 wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 02:27 pm (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.

There are quite a few stories out there (if you like, I'll go searching for them) on how there is some public display that is somehow tied to Christianity, and there are people who are out there that will go to the authorities and have the public display taken down because it's deemed to be "offensive" in some respect. It doesn't always work with anything but a Christian related display. I could be wrong here, but that's just the way I've noticed things.
[info]crystalsage wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 03:53 pm (UTC)
Yep, and that's the example everyone sites when they'r talking about this so called "War on Christianity." Never mind all the years of having nothing but Christian Ideology being shoved down everyone's throats. Never mind having a commander in chief who thinks he's doing 'God's Work.' And one small handful of people says "Oh, they're attacking us" when someone says "Hey, ya know, there are *other* religions out there, maybe they should either be represented too, or nobody's religion should be represented."

This is what this is all about, as pbagosy said, they're fine when they're the ones doing the pushing and shoving and demanding; but if someone pushes back, suddenly, they're being persecuted. And it seems to "work that way" with the Christians, because they're the ones who have been making the biggest stink about it. Some woman in a Target whines because someone says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas?" Geez, lady, get the fuck over yourself. How about "go fuck yourself?" How's that for a holiday greeting? Feeling persecuted? Gee, too bad. Welcome to the real world.
[info]eriksangel15 wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 04:20 pm (UTC)
Seeing as how I've grown up in the "majority" in this case, I can't always totally see something from another's point of view no matter how hard I try.

There are quite a few people that claim to be Christians and yet the way they act and everything totally represents this whole "I'm part of the majority so you have to listen to what I say" type of attitude. There are some Christians that also tend to have the "I'm right and you're wrong" type of attitude towards anyone who disagrees with them.

However, on the other hand, you'll likely to find this kind of fundementalist, I'm right and you're wrong so convert type of religious person in almost *ANY* religion, if not all of them. For an example, look at that guy in the Middle East, who some wanted to execute, for converting from Islam to Christianity. There, the majority is Islam, not Christianity, so it's just always the Christians. It just happens to be Christians here in America, because that's what the majority is.

People who are included in the minority religions are always willing to attack anyone of the majority religion(s) in an area. But not all those who follow or are in the majority religion(s) are all the same.

I guess by my last few statements, what I'm trying to say is don't jump to labelling and stereotyping a majority of anything because society has stereotyped the group you're in.

I'm not saying that [info]crystalsage or [info]pbagosy when I am saying this. I'm just generalizing here.

Yes I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean I'm stereotyping anyone else who isn't a Christian or pushing them down.
[info]crystalsage wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC)
I grew up in the Majority too. That doesn't mean I can't see all sides. Some people have a more difficult time than others seeing past their own dogma.

And your assertion about the Majority in America is right, to a degree. However, I don't agree with your statement about minorities willing to 'attack' the majorities. That's where the problem in this discussion comes in. The minorities don't see it as an attack, they see it fighting back.

Think of it this way: your'e walking to your car one night, and some guy comes up behind you and grabs your purse. You whirl around, you happen to have your keys in your hand and you stab him in the face. He runs, then a few days later you find out you're getting sued by some guy who says you "attacked him" because you didn't' want to give up your purse. You were defending yourself, but he's the one who ended up with the wound. See where I'm going with this? They scream "oh, we're being attacked" when its really just a matter of someone standing up and saying "Ya know what? We don't want to be victims of your dogmatic attitudes any more, and we're going to stand up for ourselves by demanding equal treatment."

And you're right, the majority of someone in a religion may not be part of the outspoken group, but ya know what? The outspoken ones are going to wear the face of the group, especially if the others don't speak up. Not enough basic, faithful Christians stand up and say "Hey, ya know what? We don't agree with your policies. We don't stand for torture. We don't stand for discrimination. We don't stand for hatred. WE believe in freedom of choice." Its too easy to melt into the background and vote for the candidate because he says he represents the "faithful" and then too scared to admit that it was a mistake. So its not wonder that the image that the "Christian Church" as a whole has is the one that Bush and Co and the right wing Fundies have put forth, because nobody's doing anything to stand up and say 'no'.
[info]victoria_fusion wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 06:38 pm (UTC)
thats pretty much what i was going to say. that and, as a minority, we don't care to attack anyone else. we just want to be left to believe what we believe. we only speak up because we are speaking *against* actions that are already being taken by us.

you purse snatching story was a really good metaphor!
[info]crystalsage wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 06:46 pm (UTC)
This whole "we're being attacked" thing just makes me sick. I absolutely cannot believe that they have the nerve to say this, after everything they have done to oppress and control people who want nothing more than to live their life and be left alone.
[info]victoria_fusion wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 06:33 pm (UTC)
all i have to say to that is this: no other major religion has tried to get their basic tenants written in stone in a public display. we have yet to see "do as you will an it harm none" before a courthouse.
[info]crystalsage wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 06:49 pm (UTC)
Good point. The day we see "Charge of the goddess" or quotes from the Quran in a plaque in town hall, then we can talk about how 'equally' minority religions are treated.
[info]eriksangel15 wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 06:59 pm (UTC)
I was just playing devil's advocate. I'm sorry.
jhfurnish wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 03:16 pm (UTC)
They brag about how persecution always makes them grow, so their tactic is to incur persecution or at least reign in the followers by crying out that they're being persecuted. It's a control technique, unworthy of a religion of any true spiritual substance but always characteristic of a cult.

> It only features your uber-corrupt version of Christianity as the antagonist because it's something familiar to >the target audience. And why is that? Because you've been forcing this Christofacist ideology down our throats >for years, and screaming about how we're attacking you when we choke on it.

This is what they can't get through their heads: this is how they behave, and this is how we react. They have made themselves into villians in the minds and perspectives of everyone around them; ergo, we depict them as bad guys. They can't conceive of it because THEY CAN'T PLACE THEMSELVES INSIDE ANYONE ELSE'S PERSPECTIVE. Americans have always had a terrible time trying to do this, and that's when they've even tried to do it. Fundamentalists are even worse, because they think it's a sin and that there is no other real perspective.
[info]pirat_ponton wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 04:57 pm (UTC)
Anyone who falls outside the "mainstream" can only be "self-described", and therefore, not legitimate.

Because no one who is anything ever calls themselves that.

"I'm the President of the United States." ~ George W. Bush, 12/17/2005 - George W. Bush, self-described President of the United States. How come we never see that from the goddamned liberal media?


excellent observation :)
[info]egyptian_spider wrote:
Mar. 29th, 2006 07:13 pm (UTC)
Again, linking, 'cuz you put it better than I ever could.
[info]sacredbean wrote:
Mar. 30th, 2006 07:13 am (UTC)
DAMN STRAIGHT! Couldn't put it better in any other words!

Just one thing:

"Bombing abortion clinics in an assault on women."

*Is