What is really frightening, is that we look with fear at the Muslim radicals all over the world who threaten us as they because of the damage they do (Like the 9/11 attack) when we have some in our own country who might well be more frightening to those of us who don't believe as they do right here in the U.S. (Right now they believe that killing those who believe in abortion need to be killed vigilante style...and do it with no qualms!)
None of this is new. There has always been a crazy paranoid streak in American politics and religion. The challenge is to keep it from getting the upper hand. I think the reason that the religious right have been so prominent for the last 30 years is because the corporate oligarchy finds them useful, and thinks that they can control them. The religious right is a very motivated force to kill undesirable reform legislation, and for enthusiastic social policing to preserve the established (and profitable) order.
Ciss, the crazy "Christian" fringe scares me. I see the same sort of hatred against Obama that I saw against JFK, except the vitriol is even more inflammatory and alarming now.
Counterlight, this is not new. Frank was once one of them, and he calls the fringe who will not deal in facts exactly what they are - crazy. The thing is that the crazy fringe is driving the vehicle now and influencing and intruding into the lives of the rest of us. The corporate oligarchy has lost control. I like to hear the someone on the national news call a spade a spade.
I find all three of these videos extremely good. The one with Laura Flanders is very good. He takes on the fundamentalist atheists in that one. He calls it what it is 'crap.'
Equating religious fundamentalism with insanity is a slippery slope that makes even the moderately religious uncomfortable. If I believe in the Virgin birth - a scientific impossibility in homo sapiens - am I insane? How is that any better or worse than believing humans cavorted with the dinosaurs or that the earth is 6000 years old?
We draw the line where Jesus seemed to. Does your faith move you to being more loving, more connected, more compassionate (cf. the Summary of the Law)? Or more isolated, judgmental, and consumed by fear?
If I believe in the Virgin birth - a scientific impossibility in homo sapiens - am I insane?.
BW, no. At some level, I believe in the virgin birth, but I don't try to pass laws based on my belief in the virgin birth. And I am able to differentiate between faith and facts.
Fundamentalists can believe whatever they want, but when they begin to intrude in the lives of others to advocate for laws based on their beliefs, which they mistake for "facts", I say enough, and I label them as the crazy fringe. And not all fundamentalists are crazy.
And what Paul said. The test is love.
Susan, I haven't watched the other videos, but I will.
I don't disagree with you, Paul. If one's religion causes them to board a bus in Tel Aviv wearing a dynamite vest or to take out an abortion doctor with a deer rifle, then, yeah, of course they are insane.
But Schaeffer was also equating belief with insanity, not just action, and I take issue with that.
I had not listened to the video since I am at work and have sound turned off. I did, however, grow up among fundamentalists and thus share much of Frank Schaeffer's background. As a believer in a rich and complex system of religious imagery and tradition, I obviously don't equate belief with insanity.
I believe insanity enters the picture when actions such as picketing in front of funerals, carrying signs that say 'God hates the liberals, Obama, or f*gs,', wearing loaded guns to public meetings where the President or other persons they don't agree with, take place. And I believe that people who have the belief that God has given them the right to behave that way are insane. Of course, if that is true, then legally we would not be able to convict them for any of their actions. If I'm wrong I'm sure I will find out later.
I heard him interviewed elsewhere and thought he makes a lot of sense.
Years ago I had a "discussion" with a woman on the far right who was a member of the John Birch society and was trying to take over a school board. She was going on and on about individual rights and I asked her when her rights butted up against my rights what were we to do. She had no answer for that.
The question becomes one of "fruits," as Jesus would have it.
I believe in the Virgin Birth, as well, BW, so I can't claim complete objectivity, though I see no impossibility in it. After all, the Creator and Sustainer of our reality would have very little difficulty splitting a cell and starting off a little reaction in a fertile womb, would He? There's no violation of the laws He established, as the child grew and was born in the normal way. The important part isn't a man put his hoo-ha in a woman's flayvin and genekdegezoit his spielkis, but that the cell divided and grew - that's the miracle of birth, not the sweaty horizontal tango.
So, my point is . . . somewhere around here . . . ah! - my point is, there's no objective harm in believing in the Virgin Birth. It doesn't require that all women be virgins in order to give birth, so, there is a logical and sound reason not to oppose it. Imposition of it's acceptance as a litmus for the entirety of Faith is a different story, of course, and we can see that.
We can see, in some parts of the Scripture (which is what the "fundamentalist" debate hinges on), the soundness of reasoning - I won't go into the reasoning at the time for the soundness of kosher laws, but, take "turn the other cheek" - we see, in the Congo, Nigeria, Bosnia, Palestine what happens when we do the ancient revenge-taking. "Do unto others" - we see what happens in a Hitler, a Bundy, a Gacy what happens when that development of empathy is absent.
Some parts are clearly harmful and likely false - the physical abuse of children (even to killing for disobedience), the prohibitions on homosexuality (which we are told in the same breath was unknown in the ancient world and St. Paul understood entirely! That, itself, is a clue to its irrationality!), the view of women as inferior and incapable of representing Christ in the congregation. When mysticism turns to a reason to harm others, a reason to avoid the nagging voice of self-doubt, then it is where the line's been crossed.
It's never a matter of scientific precision, which is why community is a necessity for us. Whenever we try to draw surgical "lines," it behooves us to ask ourselves if we draw them for others' protection or for our convenience.
Wow. Em's is fighting words but everyone else has picked up on the two lines that got my attention: there's a fifth column and that is a culture of insanity in the fundamentalists (or words to that effect) and: A village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiots.
Randal Balmer's books on evangelicalism and fundamentalism are also good.
BW, it's your right not to go there. To me the craziness is not in what they believe, but in not accepting common proven facts. And it's a fairly large group of people who persist in vincible ignorance. Perhaps, they're not certifiably insane, but something is appallingly skewed in their powers of reasoning.
What is really frightening, is that we look with fear at the Muslim radicals all over the world who threaten us as they because of the damage they do (Like the 9/11 attack) when we have some in our own country who might well be more frightening to those of us who don't believe as they do right here in the U.S. (Right now they believe that killing those who believe in abortion need to be killed vigilante style...and do it with no qualms!)
ReplyDeleteNone of this is new. There has always been a crazy paranoid streak in American politics and religion. The challenge is to keep it from getting the upper hand. I think the reason that the religious right have been so prominent for the last 30 years is because the corporate oligarchy finds them useful, and thinks that they can control them. The religious right is a very motivated force to kill undesirable reform legislation, and for enthusiastic social policing to preserve the established (and profitable) order.
ReplyDeleteCiss, the crazy "Christian" fringe scares me. I see the same sort of hatred against Obama that I saw against JFK, except the vitriol is even more inflammatory and alarming now.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, this is not new. Frank was once one of them, and he calls the fringe who will not deal in facts exactly what they are - crazy. The thing is that the crazy fringe is driving the vehicle now and influencing and intruding into the lives of the rest of us. The corporate oligarchy has lost control. I like to hear the someone on the national news call a spade a spade.
I find all three of these videos extremely good. The one with Laura Flanders is very good. He takes on the fundamentalist atheists in that one.
ReplyDeleteHe calls it what it is 'crap.'
Equating religious fundamentalism with insanity is a slippery slope that makes even the moderately religious uncomfortable. If I believe in the Virgin birth - a scientific impossibility in homo sapiens - am I insane? How is that any better or worse than believing humans cavorted with the dinosaurs or that the earth is 6000 years old?
ReplyDeleteWhere do we draw the line?
We draw the line where Jesus seemed to. Does your faith move you to being more loving, more connected, more compassionate (cf. the Summary of the Law)? Or more isolated, judgmental, and consumed by fear?
ReplyDeleteIf I believe in the Virgin birth - a scientific impossibility in homo sapiens - am I insane?.
ReplyDeleteBW, no. At some level, I believe in the virgin birth, but I don't try to pass laws based on my belief in the virgin birth. And I am able to differentiate between faith and facts.
Fundamentalists can believe whatever they want, but when they begin to intrude in the lives of others to advocate for laws based on their beliefs, which they mistake for "facts", I say enough, and I label them as the crazy fringe. And not all fundamentalists are crazy.
And what Paul said. The test is love.
Susan, I haven't watched the other videos, but I will.
I don't disagree with you, Paul. If one's religion causes them to board a bus in Tel Aviv wearing a dynamite vest or to take out an abortion doctor with a deer rifle, then, yeah, of course they are insane.
ReplyDeleteBut Schaeffer was also equating belief with insanity, not just action, and I take issue with that.
I think since Schaeffer lived with it and feels that he survived it, he can call it anything he wants to.
ReplyDeleteBW, did you watch the entire video? Obama the anti-Christ? Obama not born in America?
ReplyDeleteAnother good line:
A village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiots.
I had not listened to the video since I am at work and have sound turned off. I did, however, grow up among fundamentalists and thus share much of Frank Schaeffer's background. As a believer in a rich and complex system of religious imagery and tradition, I obviously don't equate belief with insanity.
ReplyDeleteI believe insanity enters the picture when actions such as picketing in front of funerals, carrying signs that say 'God hates the liberals, Obama, or f*gs,', wearing loaded guns to public meetings where the President or other persons they don't agree with, take place. And I believe that people who have the belief that God has given them the right to behave that way are insane. Of course, if that is true, then legally we would not be able to convict them for any of their actions. If I'm wrong I'm sure I will find out later.
ReplyDeleteI heard him interviewed elsewhere and thought he makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteYears ago I had a "discussion" with a woman on the far right who was a member of the John Birch society and was trying to take over a school board. She was going on and on about individual rights and I asked her when her rights butted up against my rights what were we to do. She had no answer for that.
Draw the line . . . at sanity.
ReplyDeleteThe question becomes one of "fruits," as Jesus would have it.
I believe in the Virgin Birth, as well, BW, so I can't claim complete objectivity, though I see no impossibility in it. After all, the Creator and Sustainer of our reality would have very little difficulty splitting a cell and starting off a little reaction in a fertile womb, would He? There's no violation of the laws He established, as the child grew and was born in the normal way. The important part isn't a man put his hoo-ha in a woman's flayvin and genekdegezoit his spielkis, but that the cell divided and grew - that's the miracle of birth, not the sweaty horizontal tango.
So, my point is . . . somewhere around here . . . ah! - my point is, there's no objective harm in believing in the Virgin Birth. It doesn't require that all women be virgins in order to give birth, so, there is a logical and sound reason not to oppose it. Imposition of it's acceptance as a litmus for the entirety of Faith is a different story, of course, and we can see that.
We can see, in some parts of the Scripture (which is what the "fundamentalist" debate hinges on), the soundness of reasoning - I won't go into the reasoning at the time for the soundness of kosher laws, but, take "turn the other cheek" - we see, in the Congo, Nigeria, Bosnia, Palestine what happens when we do the ancient revenge-taking. "Do unto others" - we see what happens in a Hitler, a Bundy, a Gacy what happens when that development of empathy is absent.
Some parts are clearly harmful and likely false - the physical abuse of children (even to killing for disobedience), the prohibitions on homosexuality (which we are told in the same breath was unknown in the ancient world and St. Paul understood entirely! That, itself, is a clue to its irrationality!), the view of women as inferior and incapable of representing Christ in the congregation. When mysticism turns to a reason to harm others, a reason to avoid the nagging voice of self-doubt, then it is where the line's been crossed.
It's never a matter of scientific precision, which is why community is a necessity for us. Whenever we try to draw surgical "lines," it behooves us to ask ourselves if we draw them for others' protection or for our convenience.
Wow. Em's is fighting words but everyone else has picked up on the two lines that got my attention: there's a fifth column and that is a culture of insanity in the fundamentalists (or words to that effect) and: A village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiots.
ReplyDeleteRandal Balmer's books on evangelicalism and fundamentalism are also good.
Schaeffer made a lot of sense to me.
ReplyDeleteIf I was polled a year ago while our economy and my IRA was hemorrhaging I probably would have said that Bush "might be the Antichrist." And meant it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just can't label someone as insane because of their religious beliefs - even those I vehemently disagree with.
Can't go there.
BW, it's your right not to go there. To me the craziness is not in what they believe, but in not accepting common proven facts. And it's a fairly large group of people who persist in vincible ignorance. Perhaps, they're not certifiably insane, but something is appallingly skewed in their powers of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteYou could apply one legal definition of an insanity plea:
ReplyDeleteThey don't know the difference between right and wrong.