The religious right's latest meme, which is catching on fact, is summed up in their favorite new catchphrase: "war on Christians". The meme operates as a means to confuse people and positions - if you disagree with them on a policy question, it's because you hate Christians. Here's a perfect example, from an Agape Press article yesterday:
And unfortunately, the attorney points out, the Ninth Circuit that recently ruled on the case has a history of censoring conservative expression. "They've been incredibly hostile to Christians in a number of different rulings ranging from the Pledge of Allegiance to parents' rights and now to students' speech rights," he says.
This is, of course, historically inaccurate. Does one have to be "hostile to Christians" to be against the entanglement of church and state? Of course not. Indeed, some of the staunchest proponents of separation are Christians. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United, is a minister and he stands in a long line of pro-separation ministers going all the way back to the founding of the nation with men like Isaac Backus and John Leland. The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court cases that ruled it unconstitutional to force students to say the pledge of allegiance were Christians themselves who believed that it was against God's law to pledge loyalty to anything other than Him.
And I know Christians who firmly believe that schools should censor anti-gay opinion in schools to spare the feelings of gay students or to keep the peace in schools, while I, a non-Christian and strong supporter of gay rights, think that students should be able to express anti-gay opinions either verbally or on their clothing. Whatever one's opinions are on such questions, they do not indicate hostility to Christians. This is just another example of the right borrowing the mantle of victimization from the left and using it to portray themselves as martyrs, and reality be damned.
- Log in to post comments
Reminds me of a few totally ass-backward people at AtBC. They were so turned around, they were calling people opposed to gay marriage, 'bigots'. That's some kind of special contortion, when you get to the point you're using a word exactly opposite its meaning.
That's an ongoing religious right point. We can say whatever we like, and if "leftists" criticize it, then they're bigots. After all, the left is all about diversity. Snicker. Chortle. Guffaw.
Seriously though, look at Jay Stephenson(sp?) or some of the freeper brigade. Disagree with them, no matter how civilly, and you're a bigot at best and a Stalinist at worst. Apparently an inability to stomach absolutist hatred is intolerant now. Who knew that civil libertarians should be eager to allow idiocy to roam free?
One of the reasons that the hardline churches and their supporters get their voices heard more than the mainline churches is that they're simply more media-savvy. For the most part (although the United Church of Christ has recently gotten better about this) the mainline churches and theologians expect the media to come to them when religious controversies arise, whereas the hardliners go to the media, complete with pre-prepared interview footage and the like. Since editors and producers run on budgets and deadlines, they're naturally going to take the path of least effort and expense; if it's a choice between sending out a crew to do an interview with a mainline leader or punching a code into a satellite receiver to get a VNR from a hardline leader, the rational choice from their perspective is to do the latter.
IMHO, the big problem is that moderate/liberal Christians, as well as much of the political Left, have an extreme disdain for the idea that they need to sell their positions; they think it's somehow beneath them. The hard Right has no such squeamishness. A mediocre steak with lots of sizzle sells better than a great steak without the sizzle. The attitude that "our positions are so self-evidently correct that we don't need to stoop to marketing them" is going to be (rightfully) perceived by the general public as arrogance and condescension.
Agree on most Ed with exception of the close:
...this just another example of the right borrowing the mantle of victimization from the left and using it to portray themselves as martyrs, and reality be damned."
Those on the right side on the political scale are by default tough and manly while those on the left are whining and wimpish? No matter how many times that bit of conventional wisdom is repeateted it just doesn't make it true.
I consider myself a pretty left leaning individual. Even proud to call myself a liberal. I don't however stay awake at night hiding under the blanket in fear of terrorists, illegal aliens or gays wanting to get married.
Shullat-
I'm afraid you misunderstood me. It is the left that traditionally comes to the defense of those who are victimized, while conservatives - by definition - generally defend the status quo. But claims of victimization have become a powerful rhetorical tool in our society, so the right has learned to borrow the rhetoric of victimization and use it to portray themselves as victims - no matter how ridiculous the logic involved.
If they really want a war, let's have it. Not a "war on christians" but a war on hypocrisy. Christians are welcome to join with us.
Reminds me of a few totally ass-backward people at AtBC. They were so turned around, they were calling people opposed to gay marriage, 'bigots'. That's some kind of special contortion, when you get to the point you're using a word exactly opposite its meaning.
1) "It is the left that traditionally comes to the defense of those who are victimized, while conservatives - by definition - generally defend the status quo."
Leftist oppose the status quo - but that does not always imply standing up for victims. Broad terms like "left" and "right" invariably encompass a lot of partisan hacks and hypocrites. Everyone defends the victims of their enemies, but not everyone defends those of their idelogical "allies". I've talked to "leftists" for whom the Kurd's history of domination and persecution by foreign rulers does not, in any way, mitigate their support of the American invasion of Iraq - persecution, shmershicution, they supported Operation Iraqi Freedom so they are reactionaries and "stooges" of america and/or world capitalism.
2) "But claims of victimization have become a powerful rhetorical tool in our society"
Yes and this is due, in large part, to the subset of "leftists" who pushed the envelope to advance their own agendas without realising that the same rhetoric could be used to rollback those agendas. It didn't help that their slogans and chants were so simplistic as to make their hijacking even easier. The past is past, but the problem is that many don't seem to have learned their lesson - instead of realising the danger of such rhetoric they spend their time constructing academic arguments on why "Christians" aren't really an oppressed minority. I agree - they are not - but only a person incapable to "thinking like the enemy" could possibly think that such arguments are going to make an impression on the Christians screaming "victim". The leaders are going to keep exploiting it as long as it works and the followers are not going to read and/or agree with the arguments of "secular leftists" whom they obviously mistrust.
There is an article from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, "Evangelicals claim persecution" that has some more examples. The author opines:
I'm still waiting for the non-evangelical/fundamentalist Christian denominations to take a stand against the evangelical/fundamentalists. And define their own beliefs of a Christian stance. How is it that we only seem to hear the evangelicals? Where is the voice of Christian compassion? I remember hearing it when I was young.
Rod wrote:
Oh, I think there are many voices out there doing exactly that. They don't get the attention that the bombthrowers get, primarily because they don't have the institutional apparatus built up behind them. Remember, the religious right has built an incredible network of interlocking organizations and managed to get them ingratiated into the apparatus of one of the two major parties; the religious left, or religious moderates, don't have that kind of base built up. But they are out there, and they are speaking out. In addition to some of the obvious ones, like Bishop Spong and Jim Wallis, you have groups like the Texas Faith Network, a coalition of clergy that fights the religious right. You have the more than 10,000 clergy who signed the letter criticizing ID creationism and accepting evolution as valid science. There are liberal and moderate voices in Christianity. They don't have the media presence that the right has, but make no mistake about it - they exist and they're fighting hard.
Rod said:
Well, I'm not exactly in love with this platform either, but here is an example of a fledgling religious bloc which is not anything like the religious right we know and love...I mean hate...I mean....
It's alive and well in the Episcopal Church, which is ordaining gay clergy and blessing gay unions. Take a look at the writings of Bishop John Spong, for just one example. Spong has written things like this:
Here are a few other books that might address what you're looking for:
What God Has Joined Together? : A Christian Case for Gay Marriage, by David Myers and Letha Scanzoni.
Jesus, the Bible, And Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, by Jack Rogers.
A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born, by John Spong.
Stealing Jesus : How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity , by Bruce Bawer.
God in Us : A Case for Christian Humanism, by Anthony Freeman.
The God We Never Knew : Beyond Dogmatic Religion To A More Authenthic Contemporary Faith, by Marcus Borg.
I think even from the titles it's clear that there is a lot more to Christianity than is commonly discussed here.