Comments on: The Three Weltanschauungs

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:07:56 +0000

Thank you for that extremely clarifying answer: telepathy justifies my ridicule and I’ll marginalize you and your annoying requests by calling you names like “radical.” Brilliant, but I’m also telepathic and you really should be thinking about that right now. I’m curious though, from such a right-mind person — what is a “real” Christian? Oh, there I go again with annoying questions. I’m sorry — you already knew I was going to ask that and you were typing up your non-response as I thought it. You should take this show on the road.

By: Lynn S

Lynn S — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:18:19 +0000

Radicals (either Right or Left) never believe that they are radicals. Radical “Christians” actually think they speak for real Christians. Radical Leftisits actually think they speak for real Liberals. I have found that there is no point in trying to have a discussion with such people. They just keep saying the same things over and over and over again, like they’re selecting from a short list of prepared responses. I’ve got the list memorized already. No matter what I say, I know what your response will be so why should I waste my time.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:11:27 +0000

Lynn S., can give you give the name of a specific group or individual you are leveling this “American Taliban” or “Christofascism” argument against? Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, the Catholic Church, George Bush — who exactly on the Christian Right is proposing a autocratic theocracy of Christian elders akin to Iran?

You write:
“It is entirely appropriate to compare those radicals with militant Islam because if they ever completely get their way (which I seriously doubt) we, in America, would have no more freedom than they have in Iran.”

The comparison would be “entirely appropriate” if those radicals (whatever that means) are “militant” (whatever that means). Is George Bush a radical militant Christian? And what is exactly “get their way”, what is their way?

As a Christian what do I have to proclaim to get into this dangerous group? Flying airplanes into buildings or just overturning Roe v. Wade.

By: Lynn S

Lynn S — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:43:49 +0000

It is true that “the moral climate that permeated the popular culture 40 or 50 years ago” was not a theocracy but it is also true that for some people back then things weren’t all that great. Furthermore, today’s radical Christians (not all Christians, just some) are nothing at all like the Christians whose ethic dominated society 40 years ago. It is entirely appropriate to compare those radicals with militant Islam because if they ever completely get their way (which I seriously doubt) we, in America, would have no more freedom than they have in Iran. Now I’m not talking about Republican politicians. Most of them are not as stupid as they seem to be. They just say whatever they think will get them elected or re-elected. Same goes for Democrats.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:58:36 +0000

First of all, Cicero, that is an excellently written and enlightening post. Quality like that will keep me coming back to donklephant. Hunter, I agree that the RR probably won’t institute “public stoning day” for the heretics and immodest. As a white married male with a wife and daughter — please God, can we go back to the 1940-50’s?

By: Hunter McDaniel

Hunter McDaniel — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:17:52 +0000

A nice summary, except for the gratuitious comparison of domestic Christian politicians with militant Islam.

Here’s some free advice for liberals – stop trying to make boogeymen out of the Religious Right. Not because you need to give in to their policy prescriptions, but because doing so clouds your judgment and prevents you from understanding where their appeal comes from.

The fondest dream for the farthest reaches of the RR would be to reestablish the moral climate that permeated the popular culture 40 or 50 years ago. I’m old enough to remember those times, and they were not in any sense a “theocracy”. As for the two examples you chose, let’s consider them one at a time.

First, churches have always considered social work as a vital part of their duty and mission. Over the past two generations we have increased the role of government in this sphere, with the side effect of letting the secular crowd out the spiritual. Bush’s proposal simply redresses this (to a very small extent).

Second, ID is a reaction to the rather aggressive anti-religion and culture war which infuses the way public schools teach evolution these days. When they show my kids Inherit the Wind in science class, does that have ANYTHING to do with explaining the theory and mechanics of evolution? Now that doesn’t mean that I think ID should be taught as science – I agree with all those who point out that it doesn’t meet the definition of a scientific theory. But I do understand the motivations of the ID crowd; if the materialists can propound their philosophy as science, why aren’t they allowed to do the same?

By: Lynn S

Lynn S — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:58:37 +0000

The scary thing is that here in the US we have elements of all three. Freedom of speech belongs to whoever has the money to defend it (or take it away) in court. And “Christian” extremists who desperately trying to turn the US into a theocracy actually have the ears of the president and many congressmen.

By: lgude

lgude — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:25:24 +0000

Yes, an excellent revisioning of the current dillemma. I particularly like it that you get outside the current divisions in the liberal West which obscure the seriousness of the consequences globally.