Nasty Christians who care less about Poverty than they do gay marraige...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Words are powerful, but words are imprecise. Conservative can mean many things to many people. Evangelical can be reassuring to some and terrifying to others. Rick Warren is described as conservative because he has a christian ethical framework. When you look at what that actually is (without all the cultural baggage) - it's a positive thing. The root of the word 'evangelical' means 'good news'. How sad that it has become equated with a judgemental, arogant, self righteous far right wing agenda that is anything but good news.
 
cardosino said:


I posted this article a few weeks ago, this is more in line with how I think, and many others too.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041220/religion_two.art.htm

I can agree with a number of the points Wallis makes. Here's one problem though: Wallis is the editor for Sojourners, which is considered a liberal rag by many conservative Christians because it actually advocates having a balanced perspective as it pertains to one's faith. Right-wingers see only one way: to the right. There is only one truth for the current brand of conservative evangelical, and that is the Bush administration "truth."

I'm sorry to see how you stereotype, but it's always the case that the media loves to report on the controversial comments of the Buchanan/Falwell (or maybe Sharpton/Jackson on the other side) rather than what might be the more mundane and positive, but less controversial actions of others.
Remember to throw James Dobson into that Buchanan/Falwell mix, and, from what I've seen and heard, Dobson is considered a strong-valued, rational, fatherly figure to most evangelical Christians --- hell, to conservative people in general. Keep in mind that Dobson has a syndicated program about "family values" that appears here in L.A. on one of the major AM news radio stations (I heard it in the middle of the news hour on KNX, if I remember correctly). This guy is considered level-headed.

You can accuse me of stereotyping. I know many Christians that fall under the umbrella of "conservative evangelicalism" and I have personal experience with that community.
 
NotAnEasyThing said:
How sad that it has become equated with a judgemental, arogant, self righteous far right wing agenda that is anything but good news.

Well to quote Radiohead; "you do it to yourself you do, and that's what really hurts"

Christians have a bad habit about not speaking out against those schmucks that claim to speak for them, maybe it's because they honestly feel the same way as the Faldwells or Robertsons and don't want to admit it or maybe not. But one thing I can say with confidence is that the majority of churches across this nation have their priorities all wrong.
 
NotAnEasyThing said:
The root of the word 'evangelical' means 'good news'. How sad that it has become equated with a judgemental, arogant, self righteous far right wing agenda that is anything but good news.

Indeed. But that is how I view the current movement as a whole. Are there exceptions among the laity? Of course. There are plenty of good people attending evangelical churches. But the movement as a whole is making the world a less safe and more unforgiving place in which to live.
 
coemgen said:
Your father's passing away, neutral? :sad: If so, I'm praying for you and your family. :hug:

Thanks, he already has actually, this book really meant a lot to him and it was one of the last things we talked about. Yup yup gotta start reading. :uhoh:

I also find the thread title offensive, "sarcastic" or not. :down:
 
Last edited:
Its the people with the loudest voices that get heard in any organization, right or wrong......

Oh, and I am for gay marriage, and the title of this is not on my top ten list.
 
pub crawler said:
I'm guessing cardosino was being sarcastic with the thread title. And actually, I'm now thinking the title is entirely appropriate. :wink:

most likely because I do not like it...:wink:
 
Nope, that's not why, Dread. :sexywink:

I think the title is now appropriate because of the way the discussion has headed.


*edited for typo, while still not knowing if my grammar is correct. :huh:
 
Last edited:
pub crawler said:

I can agree with a number of the points Wallis makes. Here's one problem though: Wallis is the editor for Sojourners, which is considered a liberal rag by many conservative Christians because it actually advocates having a balanced perspective as it pertains to one's faith. Right-wingers see only one way: to the right.


And Left-wingers see only way: to the left ?

Don't be so quick to pigeonhole. I've personally called right wing AND left wing, it's all a matter of perspective. I may hold right-leaning opinions on some matters, and left on others. Most people I know I know are not 100% right-wing or left-wing.

pub crawler said:

Remember to throw James Dobson into that Buchanan/Falwell mix, and, from what I've seen and heard, Dobson is considered a strong-valued, rational, fatherly figure to most evangelical Christians --- hell, to conservative people in general. Keep in mind that Dobson has a syndicated program about "family values" that appears here in L.A. on one of the major AM news radio stations (I heard it in the middle of the news hour on KNX, if I remember correctly). This guy is considered level-headed.

I left him out as he's not as well known, and personally I, and many others, don't need a Dobson tellig me what is/is not appropriate for myself or my kids to watch/listen to, etc.


pub crawler said:

You can accuse me of stereotyping. I know many Christians that fall under the umbrella of "conservative evangelicalism" and I have personal experience with that community.

As do I, my in-laws for example, but I assure you many do not either. I have incredibly heated debates with them, my father-in-law with his "Promise Keepers" (which I sometimes think is a major scam specifically designed to sell t-shirts) and his Dobson/Focus on the family stuff, but many of my fellow members of Saddleback and even within my old congregation of the Catholic and Episcopal Churches (Yes, it was a long and interesting journey before I found what I consider my spiritual home) I've attended are considerably more "tolerant" and liberal than you might think.
 
cardosino said:


And Left-wingers see only way: to the left ?

Sure, but the problem lies in extremism. The current right wing is extreme without even knowing it. A parallel would be if the left was currently holding power in the White House and was successfully instituting communism as a way of life in the U.S.

Generally, I don't have a problem with conservatives, but that all changed after 9-11 and Bush decided he would wage pre-emptive strikes on any country or people he deemed a "terrorist threat." Like I said, many conservatives in this country drank Bush's koolaid and are falling in line behind him like good soldiers.
Don't be so quick to pigeonhole. I've personally called right wing AND left wing, it's all a matter of perspective. I may hold right-leaning opinions on some matters, and left on others. Most people I know I know are not 100% right-wing or left-wing.



...personally I, and many others, don't need a Dobson tellig me what is/is not appropriate for myself or my kids to watch/listen to, etc.
I'm not arguing with you. I wrote that you do not come across as the typical conservative evangelical. I don't think you're typical at all. I actually agree with a lot of what you've written.



As do I, my in-laws for example, but I assure you many do not either. I have incredibly heated debates with them, my father-in-law with his "Promise Keepers" (which I sometimes think is a major scam specifically designed to sell t-shirts) and his Dobson/Focus on the family stuff, but many of my fellow members of Saddleback and even within my old congregation of the Catholic and Episcopal Churches (Yes, it was a long and interesting journey before I found what I consider my spiritual home) I've attended are considerably more "tolerant" and liberal than you might think.
No, I think I have an idea of how "tolerant" and "liberal" they are. I've pretty much taken the reverse path that you have and I suspect that I could easily have a civil and interesting/enlightening discussion with you.
 
pub crawler said:

No, I think I have an idea of how "tolerant" and "liberal" they are. I've pretty much taken the reverse path that you have and I suspect that I could easily have a civil and interesting/enlightening discussion with you.

The Catholic one is tough. Anti-Death Penalty, Anti-War in Iraq, Pro-fight against poverty, Pro-help for AIDS in Africa, but anti-gay, but their lack of harsh action against the sexual predators within their own organization really turned me away.

The Episcopals were more "Catholic-lite", and have their own less publicized issues. with the same problem.

Either way, I think their position on the major items are definitely more liberal than they are conservative. Of course, depends on what you consider "major" !

If the most imprtant thing is gay marriage, they are definitely conservative. If it's the death penalty or the war in Iraq, they are definitely liberal.

That's why they (and others) shouldn't be so quickly pigeonholed as being either right or left leaning.

Same goes for Conservative Evangelicals, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that the media stereotype of the Evolution-denyin', home-schooled homophobic Robertson-watchin' Bush-lovin' warmongering racist is indicative of everyone who goes to a Conservative Evangelical church. Last I checked Bill Clinton was (or claims to be) a practising Southern Baptist, along with Jimmy Carter.
 
neutral said:

I also find the thread title offensive, "sarcastic" or not. :down:

I agree. Gay marriage has nothing to do with this, plus you are only giving one example. Really this title has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
 
Got ya'll you read it though, didn't it? ;)
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But so would "the Pope is gay":|

I'm all for titles that make the person read the thread, but it should do something with the subject at hand.

When I read the inital post in the thread I had the impression that what the author (of the thread) was pointing out with the title is that here is a congregation who's big issue isn't gay marriage, but trying to eradicate poverty. So the is title provocative, but I didn't think entirely off topic either.
 
Last edited:
indra said:


When I read the inital post in the thread I had the impression that what the author (of the thread) was pointing out with the title is that here is a congregation who's big issue isn't gay marriage, but trying to eradicate poverty. So the is title provocative, but I didn't think entirely off topic either.

No, I understand what they were trying to do, it was just poorly executed. Very poorly.
 
So we still haven't figured Left and Right is bullshit, if people can't see past labels we're all fucked no matter how much you hold to your ideals, right or wrong in mine ore others opinions they may be.................... thank you
 
Back
Top Bottom