How Not to Argue Against the "Christian Nation" Crowd:
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-not-to-argue-against-christian.html
How Not to Argue Against the "Christian Nation" Crowd:
posted by Jonathan Rowe
The way Chris Hedges does in his book, "American Fascists: The Christian
Right and the War on America." The New York Times gave it a poor review
(ironic, in that he used to report for them), and so did the Baltimore Sun,
because it simply goes too far and overstates its case (and plays into the
hands of the reactionaries, who now term books like Hedges' "hate
literature" against Christians).
And while the so called "war on Christians" theme is generally bunk, given
Hedges' prescription (which by the way, will never happen), Christianists
would have a valid complaint of persecution. From the Baltimore Sun review:
Nevertheless, Hedges concludes that the Christian right "should no
longer be tolerated," because it "would destroy the tolerance that makes an
open society possible." What does he think should be done? He endorses the
view that "any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the
law," and therefore we should treat "incitement to intolerance and
persecution as criminal." Thus he rejects the First Amendment protections
for freedom of speech and religion, and court rulings that permit
prosecution for speech only if there is an imminent threat to particular
individuals.
Emotional overreaction seems to have ruined what could otherwise have been
a thoughtful, informative book. So what caused Hedges to overreact? Things
like the following. From the same article:
Hedges also goes to the National Religious Broadcasters' annual
convention, where 5,500 Christian TV and radio folk gather in Anaheim. And
he joins a five-day "Evangelism Explosion" seminar in Florida to learn
tactics for converting people to the Christian right's version of Christ.
That conference is run by D. James Kennedy, whose The Coral Ridge Hour is
seen weekly on more than 600 TV stations. There, he and 60 other people
learn the sales pitch and how to fake friendship for the potential convert.
Then they talk about sin. The aspiring evangelists also are told that
"eternal life cannot be achieved through good deeds or even a good life,"
that there is no escape from sin, that belief in Jesus is the only way to
eternal life.
But the key message Hedges and the others are taught to deliver is that
conversion obliterates "our fear of death, not only for ourselves, but the
fear we have of losing those we love" - for example, children or spouses
fighting in Iraq. This, Hedges argues, is "not only dishonest but cruel,"
because the fear of death cannot be banished.
This message is also dangerous, Hedges writes, because the goal of the
Christian right is "not simply conversion but also eventual recruitment
into a political movement to create a Christian nation," where
constitutional freedoms would be replaced by biblical law, as interpreted
by evangelical leaders. Kennedy has been clear about this goal: "As the
vice regents of God," the Florida-based minister has written, "we are to
exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools,
our government," as well as "our entertainment media, our news media, our
scientific endeavors. ... "
I don't know how far Robertson or Falwell would go, but I do know from
constant monitoring of D. James Kennedy that he is one of the so called
"dominionists." He even has his "Center for Reclaiming America" which
purports to take back America from those who stole it from the
Christianists. The problem is Kennedy's historical claims are fraudulent.
They have (and contra Hedges, ought to have) every right to engage in
political activism; but if conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists
understood history, not the revisionist twaddle Kennedy et al. feed them,
perhaps they would be less zealous about trying to reclaim something they
never owned. (And many conservative evangelicals do indeed understand
Kennedy is full of it on this matter.)
Just today I watched Kennedy give one of his revisionist lectures to his
Center for Reclaiming America. And off the top of my head I recall the
following errors:
1) Equating America's Founding with Columbus and the earlier colonial
orders, as opposed to what when down between 1776-1787.
2) To prove America was "founded" by Christians for Christians, offering
the following phony quotation by Patrick Henry, which seems on point:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!
The problem is Patrick Henry never said it. Perhaps Kennedy never got the
memo from David Barton, the person primarily responsible for spreading that
and other "unconfirmed quotations" as he euphemistically termed them. And
by the way, on this year's broadcasts, Kennedy has cited almost all those
quotations.
3) Asserting that Jefferson, while President of the United States insisted
on having the Bible used as a textbook in the DC public schools, which is
another David Barton myth. As the late Leonard Levy put it, "In matters of
education, however, Jefferson was a complete secularist, never deviating in
any significant degree."
4) Claiming that Jefferson and Franklin were practically the only two
"non-born again evangelical Christians" among our Founding Fathers, which
again, is utter nonsense. At the very least we know that Ben Franklin,
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James
Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton (before his conversion
towards the end of his life), James Wilson, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen,
were not orthodox Christians, certainly not "born again evangelical
Christians."
Get well Jim Kennedy. As long as you keep shoveling it, I will have a job
to do here.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
