Over and over again, this is an issue with Fox-loving conservatives: if you disagree with them, you're anti-American. They claim that they are the true lovers of freedom and the Constitution, but of all the people out there, they are some of the farthest from either. They have been fed lie after lie by a particular group of overpaid pundits and have been led to believe that the Founding Fathers were evangelical Christians who based the Bill of Rights on the Ten Commandments and that America is the new holy land, decreed by God himself. All of which is completely ridiculous and unfounded. They literally need only pick up the works of the Founding Fathers to understand that, but god forbid we learn to read and think for ourselves.
Conservative Christians, in particular, have this insatiable desire to control the population. Oh, they have the right to believe and worship as they choose, but you don't. I saw a Facebook post by an ex-teacher of mine who commented that Christmas and Easter had been removed from the school calendar that teachers receive; of course, every comment after that was about the supposed "war on Christmas," much to my chagrin. I was particularly surprised because he is the teacher who taught us about the Constitution and he did not teach it from a conservative point of view. This guy made us watch the entire PBS series "Eyes on the Prize," had a POW-MIA flag in his room, and once put on judges' robes and a Nixon mask and ran through the halls. Maybe some people just get more conservative as they get older. Anyway (back to the point), the removal of Christian holidays is not an act of aggression toward Christians UNLESS Christian holidays are the only ones excluded, which of course, they're not.
The most perplexing thing about this Christmas business is that Christians are offended by "happy holidays" and holiday displays. I shouldn't be offended when a person says "Merry Christmas" (and I'm not, ever), but they are horribly offended if someone says anything but "Merry Christmas" to them. If you make a holiday display instead of a Christmas display, then you are attacking Christmas. How ridiculous. They would be just as offended if they had to look at displays for Muslim holidays (if you can make a display for one; I wouldn't know, I've never seen one). Of course, a menorah is okay because they don't want to look completely bigoted. Jews are just unsaved Christians, dontcha know? Attacking only one religion makes it okay, I guess.
Which brings me to my next point: all Muslim people are not terrorists. In fact, most Muslim people are not terrorists. In every online article I see about Islamic people, there is post after post stating, "if Muslims aren't terrorists, then why don't they speak out against the extremists?" (my version edited, of course...I can't simulate the poor language skills seen in posts like these...that doesn't make me elitist, it just means that I am disappointed with the complete disregard our nation has for education). My response to this is simple: "do you Christians stand up and publicly speak out against Christian extremists?" No one ever answers me directly. I always get some comment about how that is completely unrelated, which it's not. At all. There are Christian extremists in our country. Some live in compounds, some practice polygamy and marry off their young teenage daughters to old men, and some look like normal churches, but they preach hate and violence with all the fervor of the most devout Taliban leader. They are extremists and they're message is quickly becoming mainstream, at least within the evangelical movement.
There are many who, in fact, want to create a Christian Taliban, or to be less incendiary, a theocracy, where the ultra conservative Christians rule over the rest of us sinners with an iron fist. "Jesus Camp," a popular and well made documentary about a group of Pentecostals, brought this to light while following children's pastor Becky Fisher. Fisher said that we should be teaching our children to be as radical as the Muslim extremists. Our children should be willing to die for Christ as the Muslim children (I'm not convinced, but it's what she said) are for Muhammad. She also said that we should be indoctrinating our children...the flip side being that it is not okay for Muslim extremists to indoctrinate their children because they're wrong and the Christians are right. All fundamentalists believe that they are right and it always astounds me that they cannot understand this. Most Christians I know also don't understand that they are Christian because they were born into Christian households. Geographic location has more to do with a person's beliefs than the message ever has.
The evangelical movement is another thorn in my side. First of all, I grew up in church and only around Christian people and I never heard the things that I've started hearing in the last 10 years. I had the good fortune of not growing up evangelical; I grew up in a mainline Protestant church. Mainline Protestant churches are typically centered around social justice as opposed to proselytizing and telling people they are going to hell. Starting in the late 1990s, the movement seemed to pick up a great deal of steam, particularly, I think, from Christian rock bands and the concentration that they (with the help of youth pastors) placed on youth. After 9/11, the movement was quickly grasped by the fearful masses, looking for any explanation and comfort that they could find. I don't fault people for that. I do, on the other hand, fault the media and one channel in particular, for using that fear and confusion as a means for profit and political power. In the past 10 years, I have seen us embrace ignorance and hate instead of intelligence and tolerance. Willful ignorance is profitable and the pundits who jumped on the wagon are making obscene amounts of money on the backs of people who are often simple, uneducated, and so completely indoctrinated with the evangelical message that they are too afraid to question anything they hear in church.
On a side note, I don't think the fear of questioning has much to do with hell. I think it has far more to do with the possible reactions of family, friends, and their communities. The prospect of being shunned by most everyone they know keeps them in line, not the fear of going to hell. It can't be the fear of going to hell because they all believe that they've been saved (another concept that I was completely unfamiliar with).
I'll end with something I read in a letter to the editor in a local paper. The writer had expressed frustration with the fact that because he had done something nice, another person assumed that he must be a Christian. Of course, another writer took great offense at his offense. "What's wrong with someone thinking your a Christian?" he asked. Well, that isn't the problem. The problem is that Christians don't seem to think that nonbelievers are capable of kindness, morality, or values (by the way, I hate the words "morals" and "values" with a fiery passion). We don't need a god to teach us right from wrong.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
So I have a lot to say about Christianity...
...but I'm not putting it all in this post. I recently joined the Society of Secular Students at the university I attend. Yesterday, we invited a professor from the Southern Baptist Seminary to speak to our group (and to invite any seminary students he thought would be interested). First, I'd like to say that the secular students were incredibly respectful and asked several thoughtful questions of the professor, which he talked around, but didn't really answer. In stark contrast to the respectfulness of the secular students, I read an article today about an atheist billboard in NYC where, in the comment section, Christians were anything but respectful. That's not really the point of this post, but it irritates me in general.
The professor, Timothy Paul Jones, approached the history and documentation as a true believer, not a historian. He held the belief and then found evidence to support it; he claims that the evidence made him a believer. In fact, he even claims to have been an atheist, which has to be a lie, unless of course he doesn't know what an atheist is. I say this because no atheist would have provided the evidence he did the way he did nor would an atheist be convinced that Christ existed by the evidence that Jones provided. The claim that he is a reformed atheist is disingenuous at best.
I am assuming that he chose the method and arguments that he did because he was speaking to secularists, not because he really buys it. I think he saw it as a chance to prove that Christ existed to a bunch of atheists and picked historical "evidence" because he thought we would buy into it more. To be honest, I would have had much more respect for his arguments if he had just said, "I believe in Christ and this is why," citing personal/emotional reasoning and acknowledging why we might not believe than I had for his attempt to play the evidence game with us.
His entire argument centered on the resurrection having been witnessed by people who died for the belief that, according to him, they had seen Jesus resurrected. Call me crazy, but no one was crucified because they said they saw Jesus after he came back from the dead. That was a very misleading statement on his part and I was quite disappointed at the end of his talk. First, these people claimed to be eyewitnesses. We have no idea if they were or not. Secondly, he seemed to be trying to convince us of their sincerity, which none of us doubt for a second. We know that they were true believers and that they died believing Jesus was the Messiah.
Acknowledging their sincerity, at least within myself, I asked him how much of the prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus or if he thought it was possible that details had been fitted to his life because he was believed to be the Messiah. He essentially did not answer my question (or perhaps he did not realize what I was asking) and said that it's hard to use a truth to prove a truth, but that he does believe that prophecy was fulfilled. His friend (I'm guessing a seminary student), said that I should start with the resurrection and then work back to the prophecy. I asked him afterword if the resurrection was a part of the prophecy and he said that while it was not clearly stated in prophecy, it was hinted at and that it was certainly a part of Jewish tradition that there would be a resurrection.
Now, if there was a tradition that the Messiah would be resurrected, that invalidates the argument that Jesus was resurrected precisely because they believed he was the Messiah. If the authors of these accounts wanted to make sure that people believe Jesus was the Messiah, it is likely that they would have made Jesus' life fit the prophecy to ensure that. He also claimed that because the Gospels agree that Jesus rose on the third day and that Mary Magdalene was the first witness, then they must be correct, especially because Mary Magdalene was a woman and women were not credible at that time (completely disregarding that the authors would have been familiar with the same story precisely because they were in the same group). He said, "why would they make that up? If it weren't true, it would have been more credible to have Simon Peter (or any man, really) be the first witness." That's an awfully weak argument. I should believe it because it's unlikely that they would have made that particular fact up? He said the same thing about the census that caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Why make up a census that could be (potentially) refuted through records? It would be a lot less difficult to make up a different reason. So we should believe because it is unlikely that something was made up. He also cited "other things" that we believe, even though we only have documents written by eyewitnesses, but he never actually named any event. It seems that he was unwilling to understand (or perhaps acknowledge) that it is easy to believe a war happened, but not so easy to believe that a man was born from a virgin or that he was raised from the dead.
Jones also said that we shouldn't throw out miracles just because they are improbable. Again, that is an incredibly weak argument. Do I honestly believe that there was a guy named Achilles whose only weakness was his ankle? Of course not, but I don't need to believe that to know that the Trojan War has some historical basis (although greatly exaggerated in the Homeric tales). I don't really have a problem with there being some historical basis for Jesus. I can easily accept that there was a person or group of people that the Biblical Jesus is based on, but that doesn't mean that I believe he was brought back from the dead or walked on water. If I want to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, I'd have to believe in alchemy.
Anyway, I'm not against Christianity, I just have issues with some Christians.
The professor, Timothy Paul Jones, approached the history and documentation as a true believer, not a historian. He held the belief and then found evidence to support it; he claims that the evidence made him a believer. In fact, he even claims to have been an atheist, which has to be a lie, unless of course he doesn't know what an atheist is. I say this because no atheist would have provided the evidence he did the way he did nor would an atheist be convinced that Christ existed by the evidence that Jones provided. The claim that he is a reformed atheist is disingenuous at best.
I am assuming that he chose the method and arguments that he did because he was speaking to secularists, not because he really buys it. I think he saw it as a chance to prove that Christ existed to a bunch of atheists and picked historical "evidence" because he thought we would buy into it more. To be honest, I would have had much more respect for his arguments if he had just said, "I believe in Christ and this is why," citing personal/emotional reasoning and acknowledging why we might not believe than I had for his attempt to play the evidence game with us.
His entire argument centered on the resurrection having been witnessed by people who died for the belief that, according to him, they had seen Jesus resurrected. Call me crazy, but no one was crucified because they said they saw Jesus after he came back from the dead. That was a very misleading statement on his part and I was quite disappointed at the end of his talk. First, these people claimed to be eyewitnesses. We have no idea if they were or not. Secondly, he seemed to be trying to convince us of their sincerity, which none of us doubt for a second. We know that they were true believers and that they died believing Jesus was the Messiah.
Acknowledging their sincerity, at least within myself, I asked him how much of the prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus or if he thought it was possible that details had been fitted to his life because he was believed to be the Messiah. He essentially did not answer my question (or perhaps he did not realize what I was asking) and said that it's hard to use a truth to prove a truth, but that he does believe that prophecy was fulfilled. His friend (I'm guessing a seminary student), said that I should start with the resurrection and then work back to the prophecy. I asked him afterword if the resurrection was a part of the prophecy and he said that while it was not clearly stated in prophecy, it was hinted at and that it was certainly a part of Jewish tradition that there would be a resurrection.
Now, if there was a tradition that the Messiah would be resurrected, that invalidates the argument that Jesus was resurrected precisely because they believed he was the Messiah. If the authors of these accounts wanted to make sure that people believe Jesus was the Messiah, it is likely that they would have made Jesus' life fit the prophecy to ensure that. He also claimed that because the Gospels agree that Jesus rose on the third day and that Mary Magdalene was the first witness, then they must be correct, especially because Mary Magdalene was a woman and women were not credible at that time (completely disregarding that the authors would have been familiar with the same story precisely because they were in the same group). He said, "why would they make that up? If it weren't true, it would have been more credible to have Simon Peter (or any man, really) be the first witness." That's an awfully weak argument. I should believe it because it's unlikely that they would have made that particular fact up? He said the same thing about the census that caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Why make up a census that could be (potentially) refuted through records? It would be a lot less difficult to make up a different reason. So we should believe because it is unlikely that something was made up. He also cited "other things" that we believe, even though we only have documents written by eyewitnesses, but he never actually named any event. It seems that he was unwilling to understand (or perhaps acknowledge) that it is easy to believe a war happened, but not so easy to believe that a man was born from a virgin or that he was raised from the dead.
Jones also said that we shouldn't throw out miracles just because they are improbable. Again, that is an incredibly weak argument. Do I honestly believe that there was a guy named Achilles whose only weakness was his ankle? Of course not, but I don't need to believe that to know that the Trojan War has some historical basis (although greatly exaggerated in the Homeric tales). I don't really have a problem with there being some historical basis for Jesus. I can easily accept that there was a person or group of people that the Biblical Jesus is based on, but that doesn't mean that I believe he was brought back from the dead or walked on water. If I want to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, I'd have to believe in alchemy.
Anyway, I'm not against Christianity, I just have issues with some Christians.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Yo.
So every time I hear some right winger say that small town values are the most American, I just want to scream, "I'm American too, Motherfucker."
When exactly did city dwellers become less American? Not only that, but when did having an education make you less American? How ridiculous.
Ever since 9/11, anything that isn't American Idol and apple-pie wholesome is anti-American. Maybe it is because I was still a teenager, but I remember the 90s as a time when it wasn't cool to be cool. It was the decade of grunge and My So-Called Life. I had no desire to be popular or to even be friends with popular kids. I wanted to be like the kids who listened to Marilyn Manson or who read Vonnegut and that seemed to be the norm, at least to a teenager. There was a celebration of the ugly. I mean, we all wore sloppy-fitting flannel, and let's be honest, flannel really isn't that flattering on anybody, fitted or not.
Like a lot of people, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated that we've allowed the media to abandon journalistic integrity in favor of profit-inducing propaganda. So, that's what this blog is about, mostly. It's about a kid of the 90s who was promised the world as long as I got a college degree, but entered a world without opportunity or hope. It's high time we stood up to the fear-mongers.
We're all American, Motherfucker.
When exactly did city dwellers become less American? Not only that, but when did having an education make you less American? How ridiculous.
Ever since 9/11, anything that isn't American Idol and apple-pie wholesome is anti-American. Maybe it is because I was still a teenager, but I remember the 90s as a time when it wasn't cool to be cool. It was the decade of grunge and My So-Called Life. I had no desire to be popular or to even be friends with popular kids. I wanted to be like the kids who listened to Marilyn Manson or who read Vonnegut and that seemed to be the norm, at least to a teenager. There was a celebration of the ugly. I mean, we all wore sloppy-fitting flannel, and let's be honest, flannel really isn't that flattering on anybody, fitted or not.
Like a lot of people, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated that we've allowed the media to abandon journalistic integrity in favor of profit-inducing propaganda. So, that's what this blog is about, mostly. It's about a kid of the 90s who was promised the world as long as I got a college degree, but entered a world without opportunity or hope. It's high time we stood up to the fear-mongers.
We're all American, Motherfucker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)