Xians and non-xians alike. We ALL agree on one thing...

[Discord]

THE FUNDIES ARE A THREAT TO US ALL!!!!

This is not a thread to debate YOUR religion or YOUR views on religion, I would like for those posting here to focus on the one issue we agree on and how we can come up with strategies on how do deal with this threat that is quickly gaining power in the US.

I would kindly ask that those posting here refrain from ANY posts thats are derogatory in ANY way to ANYone besides the Fundies.
Lets not distract ourselves from the threat by squabbling about the issues. If you would like to do that... pick one of the 100 other religion threads and fire away, but not here.

First off. We need to clearly identify WHO the Fundamentalists are, and WHO are representing them from positions of authority. Essentially, what defines a Fundamentalist, and who are their leaders. WHO is best equipped to oppose these agendas? This will give us the ability to target them without stepping on the toes of other Christian or catching them in friendly fire.

Secondly, is to clearly define WHAT their threats are. In what way their threats oppose our core values of our party. In what fashion are they implementing their agendas. This will outline for us what it is we are really fighting for, and by identifying their targets and strategy, we will be better able to counteract their attacks as well as how to take the offensive to them effectively.

Thirdly, WHERE is the proper forums to speak out? WHERE should these battles be fought? This is to ensure that we don't step on each others toes in the process, and to prevent us from fighting them off in an improper context or forum.

I will skip the WHEN and WHY, because I believe that the majority already know the answers and are in agreement on these points.
They have been discussed many times over the last several days in the many religion topic threads.

I am hoping that by starting this thread, we can put our individual differences aside for a time and push onward to dealing with what we all seem to agree is the real issues we are facing here.

[Dhalgren]

1. Ok, sounds good

Fundamentalist Christians are:

Patriarchal - they want male domination in all things.

Nationalistic - they want US domination and control, world-wide.

Homophobic - not exactly sure why.

Parochial - they dislike anything foreign.

Classists - they are for a clearly defined two-class system (Lords & serfs)

Just a start...

[Deep13]

3. anti-intellectual

They would rather believe a lie than have their views challanged. Take the whole "debate" over evolution for example.

[Discord]

6. well, posing them as anti-intellectuals isn't

a fact, and is a refutable case. They have many among them that have law and medical degrees. Some are very studied in their craft. They are biased and often lack logic or reason in their views, but that would be a description they could effectively refute.

[Tux]

17. Biased?

Those educated fundies still believe evolution is a tool of the devil. They're more than biased, they're insane. Anti-intellectual is not strong enough term for fundies. When they claim that all diseases are caused by sin and germs don't exist, we're heading toward a bad medical system.

[Deep13]

20. Sure,

but what I really meant is they oppose any real critical analysis. They start with a conclusion then pick and choose the evidence, or just plain invent some, to support that conclusion.

Some of the stupidest people I know have advanced degrees. I know that one does not need to be particularly intelligent to get a law degree, for example. It is more of a question of stamina than of smarts.

[Discord]

22. I understand, but what I am saying is that we need to

use terms and facts that will disable their ability to couter claims.

[GOPFighter]

4. I strongly object to...

...the religious concept that God's law trumps our nation's laws. Is this a strictly fundie concept or is it more widely shared in the Christian community?

[Discord]

7. Yes, they often believe that God's Law should

override National Law.

But there is a very large grey area that surrounds this topic.

Many Conservative Christians are in support of legislation that is "influenced" by their beliefs. Abortion and Gay-Rights are both influenced by religious principles , so while valid, is not a strictly "fundamentalist" issue. While most Conservative Christians support changes in legislation, the fundamentalist are willing to work OUTSIDE the law to achieve their goals. That is the aspect I believe we could target without stepping on the Conservative Christians toes, and still not raising the Abortion or Gay-Rights issues, as being the issues with Fundies specifically.

[bryant69]

8. It's a debatable point

I would argue that any member of a nation has a responsibility to obay the laws of that nation. Render unto Ceaser for example. Or the Centerion Present when John the Babtist preached.

That said, what if the nation passed a law outlawing your church? Or forcing you to go to another church? In that case the response would be more like Daniel.

My answer would be that I forsee no set of circumstances in which the Government would force a conflict with my God. I don't think we are going to see religion or any specific religions banned, nor do I see the state establishing one religion as the correct one. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't see it happening. And since I don't see that, I don't want to speculate on hypothetical situations.

As for being able to force their beliefs on all Americans, I think that is more of a fundie idea.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[whistle]

2. Fundamentalists are a front for this group who wishes to ...

...establish a theocracy rule in America which I think addresses the WHO,WHAT and WHERE of your post:

<snip>

The Despoiling of America

How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State

By Katherine Yurica
With Editorial and Research Assistant Laurie Hall

February 11, 2004
The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.<1> And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.<2> On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”<3>

<more>
<link> http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

As for the WHERE and WHEN, see this link>

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/111704Mazza/111704mazza.html

[whistle]

10. And here is what Bill Moyers has to say on this topic...

Dominionist hues and tones

I am not suggesting that fundamentalists are running the government, but they constitute a significant force in the coalition that now holds a monopoly of power in Washington under a Republican Party that for a generation has been moved steadily to the right by its more extreme variants even as it has become more and more beholden to the corporations that finance it. One is foolish to think that their bizarre ideas do not matter. I have no idea what President Bush thinks of the fundamentalists' fantastical theology, but he would not be president without them. He suffuses his language with images and metaphors they appreciate, and they were bound to say amen when Bob Woodward reported that the President "was casting his vision, and that of the country, in the grand vision of God's master plan." ~ Bill Moyers, Welcome to Doomsday


And, another commentary:

Saturday, March 05, 2005
Who is America's Top Theocrat?
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest theocrat of all? There sure are a lot of candidates for top theocrat these days. Two major contenders emerged this past week.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in anticipation of two cases about public displays of the Ten Commandments in public spaces, declared, "I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution."

It certainly true that those words do not appear in the Constitution or any of the amendments. But the idea of church state separation is present in the clear intentions of the framers. As I noted in December, the Framers did their damndest to disestablish what were then called "established churches" in the states -- which had had mini-theocracies to varying degrees for some 150 years. One had to have been a member of the correct sect to vote and hold public office. Here, as in Europe, there was often state funding of the church in power. The Framers not only wanted to put a stop to that, but they wanted to enshrine the notion of religious equality, which meant the right of individual citizens to believe as they will, or not. This idea is present in Article Six, Clause Three of the Constitution, which states:

<more>
<link> http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005/03/who-is-americas-top-theocrat.html


And this is a little dated, but may prove useful as background

<snip>

"Jesus Feaks" and Dominion Theology

Who is Francis Schaeffer? Sara Diamond writes:

An earlier source of dominion theology was an evangelical philosopher named Fracis Schaeffer, who died of cancer in 1984. Schaeffer's 1981 book A Christian Manifesto sold 290,000 copies in its first year, and remained one of the Christian Right's most important texts into the 1990's. The book's argument was simple: America began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. But as society became more pluralistic, proponenets of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate debate on policy issues. Since humanists place human progress, not God, at the center of their considerations, they pushed American culture in all manner of ungodly directions, the visible results of which included abortion and the secularization of the public schools. At the end of A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer advocated the use by Christians of civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality, which explains Schaeffer's popularity among activists. Operation Rescue leader Randall Terry credited Schaeffer as a major influence in his own life and among fellow "rescuers." In the 1960s and 1970s, Schaeffer and his wife Edith ran a retreat center called L'Abri (Hebrew for "the shelter") in Switzerland. There young converts to Christ came to study with Schaeffer and learn how to apply his teachings to the political process back home. ~ Source: Roads To Dominion, by Sara Diamond; page 246; The Guilford Press, 1995.


<more>
<link> http://www.publiceye.org/diamond/sd_domin.html

[Cleita]

5. The main reason is that this particular Christian sect is

interjecting themselves into our government. They want their narrow view of morality made into laws for everyone to have to follow. This is the real problem here. If they just kept to themselves and their congregations, no one would object to them unless they broke the law.

Incidentally, breaking the law is something they do regularly with domestic abuse. I have personally witnessed many incidents myself of spousal abuse and child endangerment because of the ignorance of many of these people. I have also been told to mind my own business by so-called pastors when I vocalized my disdain for their practices.

[Discord]

11. As I responded above, that would also include

the Conservative Christians. We need to be careful not to step on their toes. For from reading posts on FR that have been linked, many of them are as disgusted with the behavior of the Fundies as we are. To me that signals that theres a seperation among the 2 groups, and that there is some common ground to be found between us and them. In this particular fight, the alliance between leftists, and the conservative christian right would be invaluable.

To get them to publicly denounce the behavior and agenda of the fundamentalists, would stike a major blow.

[Tux]

19. Really

We studied them in sociology and psychology. They have a greater chance to rape thier daughters, abuse thier spouce and children, higher rates of mental illness, and good chance of being an alcoholic.

Of course they want a theocracy, they were made fun of by America after the Scopes Monkey Trial. That lead to the north thinking that southerns are inbred rednecks. It's not true. I met many southerns who aren't rednecks.

[Extend a Hand]

9. The fundamentalists are a threat...

but not the only threat to democracy

I think we need to understand the relationship between
PNAC, corporate interests, and the fundamentalists.

It seems like the corporate interests and the PNAC crowd
have been more successful than the fundies in moving forward their
agendas under this administration.

I'm not so sure that the fundies aren't being duped by leaders who
are in bed with big business.

[Discord]

13. While much of what you say is correct.

Those are other issues and other fights. This is to address them as their own entity and deal with them accordingly. Which is also why we need to clearly identify their leaders and protagonists.

[whistle]

15. Does anyone recall this piece on DU back in Dec 2003...

<snip>

Bad Boys
December 6, 2003
By Sheila Samples

"...don't criticize my children... or you're dead."

- Barbara Bush, Larry King Live, CNN, Oct. 20, 2003

<snip>

Which is what made the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) gang - a cabal of criminally insane neoconservative interventionists - look closely at the Bush boys when they decided the time was ripe to "rebuild America's defenses" and establish the global empire they had been planning for almost a decade. In 2000, the final blueprint for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq was good to go. This plan, written long before 9-11, targeted Saddam Hussein for impeding "the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." It recommended military intervention to bring about "regime change," not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and Syria.

In the run-up to the 2000 presidential campaign, corporate behemoths had already made major strides in disenfranchising the rabble. The courtier press had earned a place at the right-wing table with a relentless eight-year campaign to bring down a constitutionally elected president, and easily could be embedded with the new regime. Poppy Bush and Britain's former prime minister, John Major, had long ago slid invisibly into the inner sanctum of the Carlyle Group and were poised to reap the monetary benefits that worldwide destruction and reconstruction would bring.

PNAC, mostly a crusty, flinty-hearted gaggle of Iran-Contra perps such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol and Lewis Libby, knew they would likely get but one shot at achieving world domination. The only thing lacking was a candidate who was impervious to human pain and suffering, and who viewed most constitutional laws and regulations as ploys of the vulnerable to set road blocks to progress. They needed a candidate whose lust for power and thirst for blood matched their own. When they looked around for an accomplice or, better yet, a puppet, to start the empirical ball rolling, it was only natural to consider the Brothers Bush.

<more>
<link> http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/06_bad.html

[jonnyblitz]

12. I am finding out some non fundie xians are espousing some

scary views here and there, too. even here at DU. I am just saying. Ask some of the gay folk and the women. So I guess I don't completely agree with your thesis. It's not always JUST the fundies..

[Discord]

14. No, but while it may be a very small % of other

xians who may have issue with specific issues or events...

ALL Fundies are a threat, not just some of them.

[jonnyblitz]

16. yes i know. but the small number of the non fundies of which

I speak are troublesome to those of us who fall under the categories of gay or woman that they shouldn't be brushed aside just because you think their numbers are small by those of you who don't fall under these categories and aren't affected .that's all I wanted to say. I understand these gray areas don't often jive with simplistic black and white thinking and make some uncomfortable. just my two cents. see ya.

[Discord]

23. I understand, but lets not bite off more than we want to chew.

Hows that old quote go...

"cut off the head... "

[hfojvt]

18. HeyHEY we're the fundies

and people say we fundy around
but we're too busy preaching
and putting everybody down

[The White Tree]

21. Hey Hey were the fundies

Come and watch us preach and pray
We're to busy at preaching
to let Jesus get in the way.

My apologies for jumping on your bandwagon, you made me laugh.:yourock:

[The White Tree]

24. Just out of curiosity

What is the purpose of the use of the terminology Xians?

It doesn't seem to be just to save on the typing.

Stupidly, I didn't even get that reference until recently when I was flipping around amongst threads and realized what it meant.

But I'm curious what the motivations are for the usage (not just by you but by anybody) as it could be interpreted as mildly offensive by people which would seem to go against your goal of giving us the ability to target (fundamenatlists) without stepping on the toes of other Christian.

Please note I'm not trying to hijack your purpose. I'm just really curious.

[Discord]

30. shorter to type. cant speak for anyone else tho. nt

[whistle]

25. I guess I missed something in your thread rules....

Defining Terms.
"Xian" is a common name free thinkers use for "Christian." The "X" in "Xian" replaces "Christ" in "Christian" just as "Xmas" does for "Christmas". Using this method my name would be "Xopher".

"Fundy" or "Fundie" is a religious fundamentalist.

"Theist" one who believes in a god of creation.

"Sheep" is a slang word for fundamentalists and anyone else who follows along blindly with something they have been told without bothering to investigate or even question it. It seemingly never occurs to Xian sheep that they are Xians simply because they were brought up in Xian households in a predominantly Xian country and that if they had been born to devout Muslims in Iran they would probably think Xianity was so much horse shit.

"God" is the god of the Christian religion. Yahweh is another name for him.

"god" is any of the other gods which Christians claim are "false".

[BreweryYardRat]

33. Off-topic...

...but thanks, you just saved me from making a big damn fool of myself.

I've been trying to come up with a term for my own particular belief system (I believe in just about every god humanity's worshipped at some point or other, but my deity of choice is the Judeo-Christian God), and I'd been thinking of using "theist" to describe it, without having done any research on what the word actually means.

Any ideas about what would be an appropriate term? "Deist" maybe?

[whistle]

26. Does this still apply as part of our Bill of Rights.....

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"
(U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3).

[Discord]

31. I would guess that it would unless it had been ratified

at some point.

I dont think they test to require. but doesnt apply as an exemption if thats what you were thinking?

[ArkDem]

27. That is what X would think.

[arwalden]

28. Don't Forget The Stealth Bigots Who Claim To Be Dems...

... but who are INFLUENCED by the fundies and who vote for homophobic laws and who support similar policies. Don't forget the "non-fundies" who express their approval and permission by NOT standing up against the efforts of the fundy brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Discord]

32. I dont think Dems who support gay bashing last too long.

I do think that the rest of the Christian community could be doing more to be more vocal about whats going on.

Silence = Acceptance

Non-Religious people can easily be ignored by the CC's and the Fundies, for the same reasons the debates can go on and on between the non-religious and christians here on DU. Non-religious people can just say we are targeting all chrisians or anti-christians.

They can't say that about other christians. Well, they could, but I think even they might notice how silly that would sound.

[Az]

29. Its actually due to a loss of faith

Our society was a special one when it was first proposed. Instead of depending on might and authority to govern ours was built on the concept of keeping faith with the social contract. That is we agree to abide by others and try to guide our society together. With no one person or group holding dominance.

But the religious right has lost faith in the social contract. They no longer wish to abide with those that do not agree with them. They have tossed the social contract aside and are trying to force their positions into the seat of power.

[BiggJawn]

34. Indeed! Indeed!

Those scarey people who want to burn me at the stake if I don't bow my head and bend my knee before the School Board are the true enemy.

The Dominionists threaten us all, CHURCHED as well as the unchurched. Because if you're churched and you're HERE, you're in their sights, too.