Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The Evangelical Right

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Evangelical Right

    Anyone else see "60 Minutes" tonight? Scary...


    What we really have here is a not a religious disagreement between civilized persons, but a full scale holy war in the making. These people are not satisfied to have the freedom to do and think what they want, and then to leave you alone and vice versa. They will not rest until the rest of us either agree or are in some other way forced to live under their worldview and ethical system.

    Having things like Middle East foreign policy and civil rights decisions in the hands of such fanatics is very worrying to me. The intolerance is palpable. And you know they will not be happy until they actually get their "apocalypse" to happen somehow.

    So WW III is going to be just fine -- Jesus said it would be so!

    - Krunky

  • #2
    Hey, in the bible it says I can kill you if you don't believe.

    What, you don't believe that? Well, then...

    Get over here you heathen!!!

    Yes, I don't want anyone telling me what to think or do. If they start on me, I'm going pagan. I will start a wiccan group. Or I'll just dance naked in front of dark idols while smoking weed!!

    I bet more people would come to my services.
    When they had advanced together to meet on common
    ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
    and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
    each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
    mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
    killing, and the ground ran with blood.

    Homer, The Illiad


    • #3
      I'm a Christian and you guys love me, right?

      We're not all fanatics, in fact, I think that article overestimates how many Christians are of the fanatical type that want the Apocolypse to happen today and that sort of thing.

      The scary thing, is that the President just might fit into that group.

      Would you say that all Arabs are terrorists- I should hope not.

      Don't think of all Christians as hateful bigoted fanatics. Because the vast majority of us are not...


      • #4
        Speaking for myself, I was just refering to the crazy ones.

        The ones who think "convert or die".

        I used to have this girlfriend who was going to go to Papua New Geunie (sp?), to teach the locals about the "true" meaning of god.

        I asked her, "Well, what if they already have a god?"

        She said, "then I will teach them about the real god."

        I said, "but what if that offends them. What would happen if they don't like your god?"

        She replied, "They have to or they will burn in hell for all eternity." (this is what she really said)

        "Do you mean god would condemn his 'children' that have not worshipped him simply because of their lack of information or due to their location?", I asked her.

        She said, "yes"

        I told her that didn't sound like a just god to me or a rational one. Why would this god place people in an area that would never be exposed to him, only to have them condemned for all eternity due to ignorance?

        It made no sense. Shortly thereafter, we parted ways.

        Most Christians I have met are just fine (I am one I guess - my Cuban grandmother would fall over if I did not say so! :lol: ). They believe in helping others and having tolerance for different views - just like most muslims I know. I thought Christ was all about tolerance of others.

        Ah it's the kooks that get all the press. 8O
        When they had advanced together to meet on common
        ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
        and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
        each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
        mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
        killing, and the ground ran with blood.

        Homer, The Illiad


        • #5


          • #6
            More on the Christian Right

            All points well taken.

            dlackey said:
            "In fact, one of my very best friends, I think it saved his life, as he was an alcholic mess who didn't believe in anything. He's totally cleaned up his life and is doing great now."

            That could be the president from what I understand of his situation.

            My bigger concern is over issues like "gay marriage."

            Apparently, more people oppose gay marriage than favor it; but that's not how civil liberties are supposed to work. The ideal is that we all have basic rights and no one can take those rights away from us no matter what. I agree that over time we are expanding our collective sense of what those basic civil rights cover and for whom - and that's good!

            My worry is for people like the president who come out against basic civil rights in every category politically, but esp. for those that oppose his christian worldview.

            That might not be you, but that intolerant attitude describes a lot of christians I have met. And if you ever read the Bible, it would seem to support all kinds of intolerant views. There is an "us versus them" attitude at work in the various biblical texts. And that worries me too.

            You'd be amazed at how often it seems that people simply assume you believe as they do. It's quite noticeable when you actually not only don't hold similar views in common with the other person, but actually vehemently oppose their views.

            It doesn't seem to matter to them one bit either way. They just blather on about how all women who have had abortions are murderers and so forth.


            I use to think that such attitudes were best met with a "live and let live" approach. The older I get the more I see that such an approach is probably wrong. In terms of public discourse you absolutely have to oppose intolerant views no matter who holds them or when.

            I don't care if I have to go toe to toe with the Pope. If he's wrong then he's wrong. He can be right for himself and only himself, when he tries to speak for everyone from a catholic perspective, he's going to be wrong.

            If the president pretends that he is doing a good job preserving our Constitutional liberties by keeping gay people or women down, he's wrong. Obviously, he is merely pandering to his christian constituency. But I will not sit idly by and do and say nothing.

            In my view, when good people do nothing intolerance proliferates. To preserve your liberties, and those of others, one must tirelessly fight against intolerance.

            I don't think it's okay to accept intolerance just because it is coming from extremist christians. It happens often enough that I do believe that there is something deeply imbedded in christian thought that makes intolerance seem okay when it's not. My own tolerance has no tolerance for intolerance -- if you take my meaning.

            A true patriot fights just as meaningfully for those that disgree with him as for those that do not. Intolerance is in another category - it is not a mere political disagreement. It is fundamental difference in terms of the purposes of governement.

            The president should be saying something like this:
            "I support gay marriages even though it conflicts with my own private beliefs. As president it is my sworn duty to defend the civil liberties of all and not just to support the rights of those whose ethics and worldview are in accord with my own. I call upon all americans to help defeat intolerance by supporting the rights of others."

            You have to ask yourself the meaning behind the fact that no such statements have been made or appear to be forthcoming. To the contrary, our annoying president has made statements to obtain the exact opposite result.


            • #7
              Going toe to toe with the Pope, I don't mind. Going toe to toe with a Nazi skinhead is another matter!


              • #8
                Yeah, Im a Christian as well. I dont FORCE my beliefs on people. I talk to people about it, and if they dont wanna hear it, then thats cool too. Its not my right to try to push my beliefs on anyone. Thats why we all have free will, and the right to decide how we are going to live our lives. My thinking is that i may not agree with the way someone else decides to live their life, but im not going to hate them for it. I could go on all night about hippocrite christians, cuz believe me, there are a LOT of them. And no, i dont even believe there is a hell for people who arent Christian to go to. It kinda goes against the whole idea of "God is love" dont you think?


                • #9
                  These arguments (religion, abortion, gay marriage) always come down to huge flame wars, so I think I'll bow out. I like most everyone here. I'll leave it at this:

                  I don't think labeling those that disagree with you as intolerant or bigoted is the way to convert others to your particular worldview. Comes off as rather, dare I say it, intolerant...


                  • #10
                    The Expedient

                    Originally posted by dlackey
                    I don't think labeling those that disagree with you as intolerant or bigoted is the way to convert others to your particular worldview. Comes off as rather, dare I say it, intolerant...
                    If this is directed at me, I admitted as much. In a perfect world tolerance is not just one-sided though, it is reciprocal.

                    My possible disagreement with a christian doesn't mean I am trying to make the christian way of life difficult. I am not trying to prevent christians from marrying, or having children (or not - a right I defend for all women), or tending to one another at their death beds in a hospital. Scapegoating gay people, and using religious reasons (morals) to deny gay people basic civil rights, is to use a religious point of disagreement as a tool in public policy making. That's exactly what we have in the president and the evangelical-right that supports him.

                    At some point disagreements can be political. And from my perspective, it is the evangelical-right that is demanding the fight. They could be supporting civil rights for all people, but they aren't -- they are doing the exact opposite of that. And the president is their "numero uno" ambassador for intolerance.

                    What am I supposed to say in the face of this religiously-based intolerance? "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

                    I am not critical of the christian-evangelical-right for anything other than their intense interest in public policy. Again, that is an area where their beliefs and worldview are getting in the way of a more inclusive society. And again, I object to the intolerance inherent in the worldview of anyone that thinks I am going to hell because I do not believe as they do. It's very hard to imagine that a person that is certain I am going to hell respects my ethics or my civil rights.

                    From what I have seen of your opinions, I am not sure you are the sort of christian I am complaining about. You may be, I don't know for sure. But let me be clear that I am specifically attacking a fanatical bunch that is pointedly intolerant; and that doesn't necessarily describe the average christian.

                    I did however mention that I thought the Bible was a book filled with strangely intolerant messages. That is true. For example, go read "The Book of the Conquest" a.k.a "The Book fo Joshua" and tell me it isn't so. The ancient Israelites were the "neutron bomb" of the ancient world - killing EVERY man, woman, child, and beast in every city of the "promised land" before they took it for their own. Such a story doesn't inspire me to think that believers in that text are filled with tolerance for others. If that's the word of god, I'd just as soon it had never been written.

                    As americans we should champion difference, not stigmatize it. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect difference.

                    As a political expedient, a tolerant culture must abhor intolerance. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. It does seem slightly paradoxical I admit. From the standpoint of public policy, I don't think that seeing many shades of grey is useful in this one particular case - tolerance is a yes or no proposition. A "maybe" or a "sort of" will not do.