“They’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.” That’s what San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno told a crowd protesting against a Christian youth rally. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “Battle Cry for a Generation is led by a 44-year-old Concord native, Ron Luce, who wants ‘God’s instruction book’ to guide young people away from the corrupting influence of popular culture.” The Chronicle editorialized, “The irony was obviously lost on the clueless San Francisco supervisors when they passed a resolution warning that a Christian youth gathering could ‘negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.'”
yeah, tolerance and progressive – very relative to perspective, huh?
Come on Mark Leno, let’s be fair. Activist groups of all kinds of met in your city and if the KKK is marching in your streets, don’t even accuse this Christian youth rally as a form of hate-speech.
Regardless of how one might feel towards Christianity, culture, social issues, this is attempted censorship.
With the exception of Christ Himself, I do not stand behind everything anyone says, including Ron Luce, (the president of Teen Mania Ministries that run these events). I am certain that I would have passionate disagreements with some people that gathered for this cause such as the lady who says, “same-sex marriage ‘is another sign of the end of times,’ said Sherilyn David, referring to the apocalypse that some fundamentalist Christians believe is foretold in Scripture.” But standing in the same room as her is this guy saying “I’m not here to hate anybody,” Scott Thompson said. “This isn’t about Bush or gays or anything other than being here to worship together.”
Just like anyone (including Christians) should not label all those in San Francisco with this lady, “I moved here to get away from people like you”, others should not label Christians either. In any case, this is not hate-speech, it’s not intolerance, but it’s ironic that some find it untolerable.
A great article from a Christian position that I find a lot in common with and an editorial I found:
Battlefield for a New Generation
Editorial from SF Gate
Sister Mary Timothy of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence shouts at evangelical Christian youths rallying outside City Hall
Photo by Paul Chin, SF Chronicle
Whichever voice the emerging generation listens to will eventually consume the world. No wonder satan is scrambling for air time when God has the stage.
Oh yeah, whats with “Christians” (I use the term loosely) think they get to be the moral police for the world? Ok look – I think there is a lot of trash out there, and I find the commodification of the female body really gross and oppressive. But I also see things like the movie High Art and wonder, if the “Christian” moral police had there way – could I watch this? Could I think about this or write about this beauitful love between two people?
I think love is always positive when it is created admist the harshness of this world. Be it a “Christian” love or other.
You certainly have some right thinking about this Jack. A big clap of the hands for ya’.
I wanted to share a piece of the email from Ryan Sharp from the play you emailed me..
I am reading a Marxist perspective on the Gospel of Mark right now. It’s been incredible reading… Not sure that you have any sort of religio-spiritual leanings (or perhaps anti-leanings!), but it’s been an incredible revealing about a Jesus who looks a lot more like a non-violent Che as opposed to a George Bush, as most Americans think.
Also, here’s an interesting site with good, solid scientific data (the kind I like):
http://www.adherents.com/
Whether you want to call it moral policing or guarding the minds of our youth that is going to end up a long discussion.
I believe very firmly that we need to cultivate the ideas of good and evil, healhty and unhealthy, etc.
I am not anti-television, anti-secular music, etc. but we have a responsibility. One as followers of Christ (to those it applies to) and second as a member of society and the human race at large.
Anyway …
I checked out the link – you could spend years going through those stats.
Glad you enjoyed the email. I didn’t see that Marxist stuff – I just saw that it was play in Portland. Let me know if you check it out.
Tolerance…tolerance…tolerance. All religions deserve respect, and no one should force their religious beliefs onto any other human being…
…except of course unless you’re a Muslim.
Apparently it’s okay for Muslims to assault, kidnap, and even murder those who do not convert to their religion, or even if you just make a cartoon regarding their religion or any particular presona in their religion.
Now if some Muslim, or any other person, here in America were to put out some cartoons, movies, plays, opinion editorials, etc degrading the person of Christ or other such ‘Christian persona’ we would all just have to understand their point of view and chalk it up as ‘Freedom of Speech’.
I think I am now just plain old sick to death of the double standard put forth by some of these media clowns who claim to be ‘unbiased’ journalists.
I wonder what kind of ‘world response’ we would get if a group of Christians began going around the globe, burning other Country’s flags, shooting off weapons outside of an embassy, kidnapping citizens, torturing, beheading, and car bombing restaurants and libraries?
Tolerance. Ya, everybody’s real tolerant; unless you’re trying to put forth Christian ideas, beliefs, or traditions. What a bunch of bunk!
A quote from Chairman Mao:
We cannot abolish religion by administrative order or force people not to believe in it. We cannot compel people to give up idealism, any more than we can force them to embrace Marxism. The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, criticism, persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression.
— Mao Tse-Tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
Marcguyver:
That’s a bunch of crap. You Christians had the Crusades, the Inquisition, so I would be very careful who I denounced, it might make you look like a hypocrite.
Not to mention, the Catholic Church’s policy of non-involvment during WWII, it kind of makes Christians look like blood-thirsty despots looking to be the moral police of society.
But, I have hope for some of you.
Like I commented earlier, Christians historically have been a double edged sword. Some have been very progressive, helped liberate slaves from the south, marched in the civil rights movement and defended those that fought against this system, while others, have been right on the leading rail of the reactionary sewage of society, like holding signs saying Mat Shephard is burning hell, “all fags die” etc.
Which side are you on? Are you going on a witch hunt for Muslims tommorow?
But apparently its OK for Christians to invade sovereign nations and impose their style of “democracy” on oil-wealthy third world countries? Its OK for them to Christianize the world while bringing Western standards of morality? Who elected you guys the to be the judge of the whole world? Christ didn’t vote for you!
Celtic Why can’t you say, “yes, there is a double standard”??? You know there is.
Imagine that Christians were committing these terrorist-style actions – what would be said? There have been a few evil acts done to abortion doctors and clinics and some have judged an entire generation of Christians because of that even though the vast majority of believers have condemned that and have believed and have taught the opposite of such actions! Imagine if Christian pastors and priests were leading riots calling for someone’s head to be chopped off because they converted or even because they had an abortion or anything – what would be said? Hopefully they would be saying what we’ve been saying regarding incidents such as Abdul Rahman.
“But apparently its OK for Christians to invade sovereign nations and impose their style of “democracy” on oil-wealthy third world countries? Its OK for them to Christianize the world while bringing Western standards of morality? Who elected you guys the to be the judge of the whole world? Christ didn’t vote for you!”
What’s going on with this post? The Church did not invade Iraq. Christians are split on this issue specifically. Furthermore, no one should ever impose western standards of morality because one, it is always shifting, second, not sure how “moral” it really is and third and most importantly, who cares about western/eastern morality? We ought to be only interested in what Christ’s morality. If Westerners/Easterners/Mid-Easterners/etc. want to pursue that, they shouldn’t presume they created it.
We may differ on this, but Bush’s faith is not the reason our soldiers are in the Middle East. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Christians are trying to bring the gospel message to everyone, everywhere. To be even more clear, we (and majority of missionaries) are not interested in bringing democracy but again, the message of Christ.
Hi everyone.
Jack: great post.
Celticfire:
With all due respect mate, the crusades and the inquisition happened hundreds of years ago, at a time where the average Christian was unable to even read his or her Bible. Had they been able to, it would have been clear as day to them that the Crusades and Inquisition have absolutely no basis in Christianity.
Compare this with Islamic texts (Quran, Hadith and Sunna) which give absolute permission, even encouragement, to Muslims to attack, fight, kill and maim.
Has the church made mistakes? Definitely and undeniably. More important than this, has the church recognised these mistakes? YES! Pope John Paul issued an apology on behalf of the church for those mistakes.
The church has moved on. We separated religion from the state and moved on.
As for the “invasion of Christians to soverign nations”…Jack, I couldn’t agree more. Frankly I am surprised that you (celticfire) call consider any Western country to be Christian!!
By the way, Celtic, thanks for the quote. That is helping in a different line of thought.
Bent El Neel.
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the Islamic texts (Quran, Hadith and Sunna), you probably already know, (but many don’t) that the newer translations have changed from “Kill/Slay the Infidel” to “Fight/Attack the infidel”.
“Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness” (Surah 9:123)
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah” (Surah 9:29).
It’s more user-friendly.
Hope to see you around. If not, enjoy your Easter … two weeks from now.
Hi Jack
Am still around mate. I like what i see in your blog (not the least of which the name…mmmmmm coffeeeeee)
I know what you mean re: user friendly translations of Quran and Hadith. I’m actually Egyptian so I read the Quran in Arabic and English.
But it’s not only the religious text that they change. Even Arabic media is reported differently when translated into other languages.
What people in the “Christian West” (to use an Islamic prespective on the world) need to understand, is that even these lies are sanctioned in Islam (the principal of Taqyya)
Sorry if we diverted considerably from the main issue of your post. I’m off to have a coffee now, looking at your blog name is giving me quite a craving for the liquid gold that is a strong aromatic coffee.
Cheers :)
I would just like to add, that yes Jack you are absolutly correct, there have been very few abortion clinic incidents… But how many Native americans did the Christians kill? Have you ever heard what we did to them? What we are still doing to them???
Christians are NOT perfect beings and to judge someone else is actually against YOUR own beliefs… So yes, there I said, you are all hypocrites…
Jack,
My whole point here is that is very hypocritical for a Christian to denounce radical Islam without denouncing the horrific things Christians have done, and so far, everytime I hear a Christ follower jump on Islam, I never hear mention of the horrible things so-called Christians have done.
I admitted Islam is deserving of a lot of criticism, (though I don’t agree with pacifism, I defend their right to self-determination) but that said, a lot of human rights abuses and attacks against working people are done by Muslim states. And we’ve only begun criticizing their stance one women (but hey, Christianity isn’t much better when it comes to this, only they don’t veil their female slaves.)
I don’t need to imagine Christian terrorists. They exist and there and very mobolized. They invaded sovereign lands, they killed opposition political leaders and they promote their brand of Christianized fascism.
And I call their B.S. out, just like the Muslims. The difference is that Christianity is the chosen religion of the American empire, while Islam is a oppressed religion.
Quoted in L.A. Times, Oct. 16, 2003:
“George Bush was not elected by a majority of voters in the United States. He was appointed by God.”
Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2003:
“I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin
All I am going to say is, as a atheist materialist, is that it doesn’t seem Christ like to me to throw stones at oppressed people and their religion, especially when you live in the empire.
The Church drove the Indians out!?!? Next you will say that Christians are responsible for global warming because you will find some statistic that most SUV owners check off Christianity as their religion of choice.
Ladycelticfire, no one is claiming to be perfect. Perfection is not what this is about. It’s more about the pursuit of righteousness, the pursuit of justice, the pursuit of truth, etc.
Regarding hypocrisy, yes, I have and still am at times the worst of sinners alive. I have no excuse for my selfishness. To this I say, I am ever grateful that God forgives. Partially, that’s what makes this week so special for me (and the other hypocrites I worship along side of)
Celtic,
1. You have heard/read me criticize Christians who have not been Christ-like.
2. It’s like you didn’t read that the Church did not invade Iraq. I think part of the problem is that you equate a president who professes to be a Christian as God. I don’t worship Bush. It’s completely absurd to blame all these things on Christians from the war to driving the Indians out. Not only are there no Biblical teachings of it, not only are there not any church teachings either, it as nothing to do with the beliefs of the Church. I understand your context a little more with the quotes you use. But I find them irrelevant and irritating. Irrelevant because it doesn’t change anything and irritating, b/c you equate Christians like this. It’s further stereotyping. (It’s like when people assume that all atheists are hedonists. Some atheists are extremely moral.) It doesn’t matter to me that most people in this country check off Christianity as their religion of choice. What’s being done for the kingdom of God is what I find most significant.
Furthermore if this is the official religion of the “empire”, then why can’t it’s public school teachers read it’s Holy Book in their schools? Separation of church and state right? It’s not where I would draw the line but that’s a different debate. But even still it is wrong for you to come to this conclusion when such a line does in fact exist, and religion is not being taught in our public schools. In this country, if you want faith, you have to pursue it. How about that for self-determination?
3. Regarding Islam, I have been more critical of the clerics than the average worshipper. I have criticized the sources (such as the Koran) as well. But I have not said the entire religion is terrible because of suicide bombers – though that’s not helping. Again it’s their holy books and their leaders saying these terrible things. “Infidels be put to death” etc. You are tired of hearing it and I am tired of saying it, but if the example of Abdul Rahman didn’t open your eyes, then I am not sure what you are looking for. You say you condemn radical Islam. Good, how about governments calling for your head because you own a Bible? You have already condemned it. The point is that You cannot call it “radical Islam” when it’s the government that is doing such evil things.
4. Self-determination. Yeah I initially like the sound of that. But as mentioned in a different post, if it’s all self-determined, then how do you begin to help anyone including the helpless. It just seems to shoot itself in the foot. It’s much better to fight what is evil, what is wrong like in this case, dictators who kill their own people among other things. And as much as I hate the sight of our soldiers dying, it’s impossible for me to condemn a war when this country was run the way it was. When the US invades Colombia for its coffee, then look me up. A Christian blows up an abortion clinic – look me up. Pat Robertson says something like Katrina is because of debauchery – look me up – we’ve talked about this before.
5. Concerning evil actions by Christians: I condemn them all – just like I condemn my own flaws, shortcomings, sins, etc. There is a balance needed in determining the value of philosophy/discipline/faith by the ideals it promotes and the reality seen in its followers. If you are looking for perfection from all the ways of life though, then the Christian is in luck – Christ was the only one without sin. But even His holiness is not what makes Christianity the truth – it’s His Resurrection. This is God’s way of validating Christ’s claims to be who He said He was – God.
6. Even so, there are terrible of Christian examples out there. Again, balance is needed. But also remember that labeling and condemning all of us is the equivalent of me lumping all the communists as the same. Which I have not done. It meant a great deal to me that you personal system of thought departed from the historical precedents of banning Christianity. Until the quote you posted earlier, I wasn’t sure if you were the only one.
7. At the end of the day and eventually at the end of our lives – it comes down to faith for each of us.
With all due respect mate, the crusades and the inquisition happened hundreds of years ago, at a time where the average Christian was unable to even read his or her Bible. Had they been able to, it would have been clear as day to them that the Crusades and Inquisition have absolutely no basis in Christianity.
Does this absolve them from everything because they were illiterate? No! And those PLOTTING and ORGANIZING these mass murders were VERY literate, and had I am sure probably memorized the Bible to the ‘T’. The Holocaust was over 50 years ago, forgive and forget, is that your attitude?
Compare this with Islamic texts (Quran, Hadith and Sunna) which give absolute permission, even encouragement, to Muslims to attack, fight, kill and maim. I’ve read the Q’uran and can’t seem to find any refference to that though it is commonly argued by Christians. Besides, even if it does exist you Christians have the bible, with its BABY KILLING, RAPING, INVASIONS, THEFT, PATRIARCHY, BIGOTRY…need I go on?
Has the church made mistakes? Definitely and undeniably. More important than this, has the church recognised these mistakes? YES! Pope John Paul issued an apology on behalf of the church for those mistakes.
Oh! Ok! All forgiven! F-ck that.
You Christians (and some do, I admit) need to do more then offer some sad apology. You need to actually join up with those fighting attrocities, not just stand aside and WATCH THEM on FOX NEWS like you did during the Iraqi invasion.
The church has moved on. We separated religion from the state and moved on.
Have we really when the president of the U.S. is always a Christian, and the one right now thinks he is lead by god to invade countries?
As for the “invasion of Christians to soverign nations”…Jack, I couldn’t agree more. Frankly I am surprised that you (celticfire) call consider any Western country to be Christian!!
The majority of these countries are Christian, so I think logic holds that Christian nations are the most aggressive and dangerous on the planet.
What War Against Terrorism? (Mumia)
Jack,
You can be irriated by these quotes, but they exist and they managed mobolize a significant number of mainly white, middle-class “Christians” to follow Bush to war, and possibly again in Iran. So these quotes are relevant.
If you were a commie I’d call you a Trotskyist because instead of owning up to past mistakes and errors you in an idealist way seperate yourself from the bad and manage to asssociate with only the good. Bush calls himself a Christian, what then is your standard of what a Christian is?
I am not so black and white to believe all Christians like or even follow Bush. But he did manage to get into office with the help of some theocrats like Robertson, as much as I hate those right-wing fascists that call themselves Christians, they do have a very significant following and thusly have a great impact to influence voters. This of course is only the mechanical aspect of the situation but it does exist.
Their agenda, that they so openly spout includes doing away with seperation of church and state and impossing a theocratic regime, where Pat Robertson has been quoted invisioning where rape cases are decided by PASTORS! People like me, well, lets just say you want have to worry about annoying buzzing posts from us anymore. Homosexuals will be “re-educated” and sinners will be, in biblical fashion stoned to death. Abortions, gone. They don’t hide what they want. They have literally millions of followers, wether you watch Benny Hinn or not, they are there.
There is a limited degree of seperation of church and state that is being smashed by fundmantalist Christians. Of course ‘god’ still makes an appearence here and there. But it isn’t (yet) state law that one must be a Christian. But would you fight it if it was? Because there is an active portion of society arguing for it.
On Islam, we communists have every right to hate Saddam. The first person he ever killed was a known communist, something he found to like and proceeded to kill thousands of us alongside other innocent people. My point isn’t that dictators should not be brought down – my point is that the USA is not a liberator for the sake of liberating. Did you see Hotel Rowanda LFC mentions all the time? Why did the US not intervene, but even actively fight any action? Because as the hotel manager said “we had nothing they wanted.”
You can dream about the US as the good guy, as the hero, the liberator, but the cold reality is that the US is a giant mafia boss. And not even a very cool one.
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1984
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
NONE of these bombings have led to a “democratic” government even though this was more often than not the reason given for the aggression.
Which version of the Koran have you read?
Even the Penguin Classics version of the Koran have these verses:
“Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness” (Surah 9:123)
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah” (Surah 9:29)
As Bent El Neel and I have mentioned the Korans have been altered to sound less violent. Fight is a replacement for Kill and Slay from the original texts.
And the Bible does not promote rape, baby killing, etc. I’ve tried to explain to you before the difference between Old Testament and New Testament (and it’s not spin). Furthermore, most of these things are reported in the Old Testament as historical actions (as they are historically accurate but not commanded by God) but you make it sound as if the 12th commandment actually says, “Thou shalt rape the heathens!” Come on. If you want, show me these passages that you reference, I’d be happy to explain.
Regarding the Christians running the govt. logic,: People can call themselves what they want – God knows His children, He knows our hearts – fine. I’m not going to judge Bush’s faith. He doesn’t speak for my faith, he represents our country with his office. I wish you differentiate that. Supposedly Clinton was a Baptist – But you have this habit of throwing out the entire Christian faith with the bath water of issues that are not sanctioned or ordained with the Church or even more importantly, with the Scriptures.
I’m the Trotskyist? You deny Stalin killing 20 million people. I don’t know who or what Trotskyist is, but I know who/what are revisionists.
CF – “I am not so black and white to believe all Christians like or even follow Bush.”
You make all the above statements and then you insert one like this. I still don’t understand who you are calling what and who you regard as respectable and despicable (aside from the likes of Robertson, but then when you say Christians are hypocrites). No need to explain, you have done so countless times, just in the future, please differentiate better for me.
CF – “But it isn’t (yet) state law that one must be a Christian. But would you fight it if it was? Because there is an active portion of society arguing for it. “
My friend, you have no need to worry that Christianity will be a state requirement. I have come to respect you on some issues/subjects but you need to eliminate this from your rhetoric. You are a student of history, you know that spiritually, there has never been more religious diversity in the US than right now. Christianity will not be state-sanctioned.
As far as would I fight it? Consider me a comrade on this one. I don’t think Constantine was as evil as he gets credit for but I don’t think when he nationalized Christianity that it was the best idea. (But I did appreciate that Christians were no longer being killed).
CF – “…active portion of society arguing for it.” – Really? I am not aware of even Robertson saying such things. If you mean Christianity being allowed in the public square, then we’re discussing different things. For example, I DO think students and teachers should be allowed to bring/read their Bibles, Korans, Torahs, etc. in their schools should they choose. But as far as every public school student being required to worship Christianity or anything else, I would disagree but again, I’ve never heard anyone say that. I do not believe that our Bill of Rights needs to be altered on this issue. I do believe that we need to interpret things like Freedom of Religion accurately.
Glad you feel Saddam should be removed. Agreed that the US or the United Nations or someone should have intervened in Rawanda. But I think this proves my point than yours but maybe I still don’t understand your point. What I am trying to say is that we need to help those who cannot help themselves. Earlier you have said that revolution should rise from within and overcome their oppressors (not your words exactly). Again, I still don’t understand your perspective, how exactly do weak and almost defenseless oppressed people groups do this without a strong liberator? What if their uprising is put down by the oppressive dictatorship, then can their be intervention by a stronger liberator? If No to Iraq, why Yes to Rawanda and maybe now Sudan? My perspective (and countless other evangelicals) keeping saying Yes to the above three and many more.
Which version of the Koran have you read?
Yes, those verses exist, but the point is that I could easily pull a passage from a Bible where “god” commands and applauds some really brutal things, and I could characterize Christians as violent people because of it. I don’t. In fact I’ve been having some really deep, meaningful conversations with Christians who are bravely, and boldly re-thinking the historical Christ (like the one I mentioned) and who see Christ as a spiritual revolutionary, not a obedient follower of the status quo – two very roads.
As a communist, I hate the cult of personality around communists leaders. For a myriad of reasons, but one being that a cult around a communist leader doesn’t create a revolutionary people, and even capitalists can invoke the cult to promote their ideas (see China, or my post about Hu Juntao) and a non-Christian could just as easily (please not I am _not_ saying Christians are cult followers, I am just using the communist cults as an example) invoke Christ to implement their programs. And I think this happening now, and that is what I am trying to get you to see. No, I don’t consider them Christians, but they do – and they know the bible well enough to select passages to excuse their reactionary views. So buddy, what you Christians do when people invoke your Lord’s name to hurt people, to do things contrary to Christ’s will? Do you passively go alone, ignore it? Do you bitch about it, or do you make clear and bold actions against it?
In my attempts to explain my vision of socialism to you, I’ve often wondered what place Christians would have under socialism. I found your thinking that communists wanted to ban religion to the heart – not because I thought you were trying to attack me, but I tried to imagine what it would be like if I believed in someone, and the government banned it. I would rebel against it, and this conclusion lead me to reaffirm my belief in political agency under socialism. Some communists see Christians as a contradiction to be solved; I see them as taking part in building socialism. Like a poster on your blog said on another post, Christians have more to value in a socialist society than a capitalist one, and I took that seriously, because from reading your posts and comments, I think you are a good person who wants the best for humanity, and your belief in Jesus helps you strengthen that. I respect that a lot Jack. We can have debates about the existence of god, the historical Jesus and the reality of socialism as it has existed (even the Stalin period) but at the end of the day, I think we have a lot of the same concerns, as I think we demonstrated.
I’m the Trotskyist? You deny Stalin killing 20 million people. I don’t know who or what Trotskyist is, but I know who/what are revisionists.
(Trotskyist – followers of Leon Trotsky, the Russian Revolutionary who helped found the Soviet Union under Lenin, founded the Red Army, then got exiled during Stalin’s consolidation of power, attempted to build a 4th Communist International as opposed to Stalin’s 3rd, and was eventually killed by an agent of Stalin by means of ice-pick to the head. Trotskyists work in unions but talk about revolution, or they talk about revolution but only among themselves.) I admit it is really contrary to popular knowledge to argue against the Stalin-the-monster myth. But I feel credible and completely honest in it. I started off as a angry kid who thought he hated Stalin too, but the more I read and the more I thought, the more I saw Stalin more like a friend who means well but always seems to mess things up. Ever see the movie The Goonies? He’s Chunk.
(I am not going to respond to the Constantine, I only know bits and pieces of that era, and I need to do a lot more research, but I’ll agree it’s not cool to kill off Christians for being Christian, or Communists for being communists, but maybe fascists for being fascists, maybe…)
What I am trying to say is that we need to help those who cannot help themselves. Earlier you have said that revolution should rise from within and overcome their oppressors (not your words exactly). Again, I still don’t understand your perspective, how exactly do weak and almost defenseless oppressed people groups do this without a strong liberator? What if their uprising is put down by the oppressive dictatorship, then can their be intervention by a stronger liberator? If No to Iraq, why Yes to Rawanda and maybe now Sudan? My perspective (and countless other evangelicals) keeping saying Yes to the above three and many more.
Good questions, John, and very difficult ones. Although not altogether relevant I thought of Stalin’s comments to Mao that “The fact is that we, as communists, are not altogether comfortable with stationing our forces on foreign soil.” From the comments you wrote above I think I have more clarity about you and your aims. It is good to help the weak. But some people help the weak for the motive of gaining something, and other for the respect and dignity of helping. Why do you think the U.S. Invaded Iraq, really? Sure Saddam was a mass murdering dictator, but lots of countries have these, and the U.S. Seems to be very selective about who it deems necessary to invade. I don’t agree with everything he says, but Ward Churchill has some eye-opening work in this department, he outlines the governments propped up by the U.S., and the ones the U.S. Chose to destroy (and attempts to answer why). The evidence that the U.S. Is in Iraq for explotive reasons is overwhelming. I recommend for one Larry Everest’s book “War, Oil and Empire.”
Lets take a history lesson for a moment. The Chinese revolution spreads like a prairie fire over China, except the remote and distant land of Tibet which has little contact with the outside world. Tibet under the Dalai Llama was a not a spiritual heaven, as liberal minded Westerners believe today, but a living hell for those experiencing it. Tibet had a long standing tradition of slavery, and extremely sexist attitudes towards women. Serfs were treated like despised “inferiors”–the way Black people were treated in the Jim Crow South. Serfs could not use the same seats, vocabulary or eating utensils as serf owners. Even touching one of the master’s belongings could be punished by whipping. The masters and serfs were so distant from each other that in much of Tibet they spoke different languages.
The only thing worse than a serf in Tibet was a “chattel slave,” who had no right to even grow a few crops for themselves. These slaves were often starved, beaten and worked to death. A master could turn a serf into a slave any time he wanted. Children were routinely bought and sold in Tibet’s capital, Lhasa. About 5 percent of the Tibetan people were counted as chattel slaves. And at least another 10 percent were poor monks who were really “slaves in robes.”
The Dalai Lama writes, “In Tibet there was no special discrimination against women.” The Dalai Lama’s authorized biographer Robert Hicks argues that Tibetan women were content with their status and “influenced their husbands.” But in Tibet, being born a woman was considered a punishment for “impious” (sinful) behavior in a previous life. The word for “woman” in old Tibet, kiemen, meant “inferior birth.” Women were told to pray, “May I reject a feminine body and be reborn a male one.”
Lamaist superstition associated women with evil and sin. It was said “among ten women you’ll find nine devils.” Anything women touched was considered tainted–so all kinds of taboos were placed on women. Women were forbidden to handle medicine. Han Suyin reports, “No woman was allowed to touch a lama’s belongings, nor could she raise a wall, or ‘the wall will fall.’… A widow was a despicable being, already a devil. No woman was allowed to use iron instruments or touch iron. Religion forbade her to lift her eyes above the knee of a man, as serfs and slaves were not allowed to life the eyes upon the face of the no
bles or great lamas.” (Source)
So basically Tibet sucked. The Communists didn’t simply invade and take over and say “no more Buddhism here!” (although that was advocated by some.) They did tell the Dalai Llama that he could not own slaves any longer, and Tibet was inviting to take part in the National People’s Congress, the highest decision making body in China, a congress of elected representatives that decided national policy, much like the U.S. Senate. And they did. The Llama worked with the communists, and communists worked with the Tibetans to teach the Tibetan masses about socialism. There is even a number of pictures of Mao and the Dalai Llama. But after long, the Llama class decided they wanted their power back (I guess you could say, self-determination for THEIR class) and began working with the CIA, and organized a small coup against the Tibetan Regional Government, it failed and the Llama class feld the country. So, Jack – what do you make of that? Kind of a “kill ’em with kindess” way to getting rid of dictators.
Appreciate your comments. Really I do.
Still I’d really like to know which passages you allude to. Never once have I read Jehovah applauding the raping of women, etc.
You will find that God punishes the wicked (like the rapists and murders and other immoralities and atrocities), but never applauds evil.
Glad that you don’t all Christians to be violent and that you are engaged in conversations about the historicity of Jesus. Yes, He definitely wasn’t status quo. Rising from the dead is definitely revolutionary.
CF- “So buddy, what you Christians do when people invoke your Lord’s name to hurt people, to do things contrary to Christ’s will? Do you passively go alone, ignore it? Do you bitch about it, or do you make clear and bold actions against it?” –
Well some used to burn people at the stake, but that was a bad idea. How do you fight bad ideas? With good and better ones. The Church fights on so many fronts that I personally admit, I feel overwhelmed. Think about it, I personally desire to worship, invite others to worship, help the helpless, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, all the while proclaiming the Gospel (as it does no good to feed them in this life and abandon them in the next), protect the persecuted, right the wrongs within us and on and on. However, when I do feel overwhelmed, I seek strength from God and ask Him to bless our efforts. My joy is being faithful in the calling that we have received.
More specifically to your question though is one of the things that the Church is good at, is criticizing itself (sometimes too good at it as we are prone to being too divisive). So to be direct, when people invoke the Lord’s name to hurt people, we try to lovingly correct and go from there. It is definitely seen within our community. But there is tons of empirical evidence in our periodicals and books. If you have 10 seconds look at http://www.Sojo.com (on my link list).
I appreciate you taking into consideration the idea of religious freedom in your vision of socialism. Though I may be mistaken, I think among the primary reasons it is left out, is because it poses a threat to the power of the State. Doesn’t the State (or Community or Vision, whichever word you desire to capitalize) feel it is the highest priority? It knows that the truly devoted would never choose to put them higher than their God. Christ’s stand on government is appropriate here, “Give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The problem is that at times Caesar wants what is only God’s … This is why the disciples continue to preach the Resurrection of Christ, even while they were being persecuted and Christianity was made illegal in the Roman empire.
True at the end of the day, I regard you as a good person and one that desires the best for humanity as well. To a great extent, the debate is healthy but I wish you would not be so quick to attack the Religious Right or Conservatives or whatever. And I know you like to differentiate between them and the “progressive” ones but there is a great deal of good that they do and have done. For instance, it is not because of the Church that we are in Iraq. I have seen your open-mindedness in several areas since we have met, but I am puzzled on why this one is different.
CF- “Why do you think the U.S. Invaded Iraq, really? Sure Saddam was a mass murdering dictator, but lots of countries have these, and the U.S. Seems to be very selective about who it deems necessary to invade.”
Again mixed feelings. To articulate them all would be take an enormous amount of time. But I am working on it. I do want you to know that I am spending a lot of time thinking, reading, and talking about this issue though.
Regarding my question, though I appreciated the history lesson (very informative) I am not really sure you answered my question. It’s fine, I know I have missed some of yours as well but glad we are gaining a better understanding of each other’s thinking.
Regarding your Tibetan history lesson, yes, eastern religions are not all that. Many have wrong impressions about them. It does kill me though that you see the evil treatment of women in these and do not see how women were exalted in the New Testament. In a time period, where women were not even allowed to give testimony in court, the first person that Christ appears to after His Resurrections is a woman! (and it wasn’t because they were lovers Dan Brown) The first century Church has deaconesses (church leaders) and women are praised by name(!) in some of Paul’s letters. That’s a big deal. Christianity does not get the respect it deserves on that issue.
Anyway, concerning your concluding paragraphs, not sure where the kindness actually was in Tibet but again, glad we are appreciating each other’s perspectives and gaining from them.