Can the left take back the term "Christian"?

[CabCurious]

I'm not trying to start a discussion about "religion," although I do think we should be open to the question of theocracy. I would just like all of us, whatever our religious beliefs, to appreciate the LOGIC in the following quotes.

Can we all promise to remind our conservative friends of the following LOGIC?

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat.
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink.
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in.
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me.
I was sick and you did not look after me. - Matthew 25:42

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24

[jberryhill]

1. IMHO, the brand is damaged beyond repair

Like "patriot".

[CabCurious]

4. The words of Jesus still can leverage change in those communities

If you quote those passages to many conservatives, they will go silent.

There is no sincere debate once you quote Jesus in such stark terms to them. They need to be reminded.

[jberryhill]

8. Was the question about the word "Christian", or not?

You know, the diet candy called "Ayds" was, for all I know, a perfectly fine product.

Whatever you want to quote to people is okay by me. But the word "Christian" is pretty much toast. It's not as if Jesus went around calling his teachings that.

[CabCurious]

16. I respect your point

But I think it's more than just semantics at stake.

It's as much about empathy and humanity. Civil rights. Growth as a species.

[jberryhill]

22. Find another word for it

It's great that you think this particular system of thought is about those values.

In a nutshell, Christianity is the proposition that "humanity" is screwed and any individual who does not accept their own worthlessness in exchange for the substituted worthiness of a divine sacrifice is going to be eternally damned/dead (depending on your flavor).

The bottom line is that people go in one of two directions from there. Some are humbled and take it as a personal responsibility to nurture what they consider to be reflections of divine grace in themselves and others. Other people do not, and become as callous and arbitrary as the God which set up this bargain under which developing a human moral sense at all was the original sin.

People have manifested "Christianity" in those two ways from the get-go, and that's not changing anytime soon.

All you need to do is to convince everyone else who calls themselves a "Christian" that you are right, and they are wrong.

Good luck.

[Swamp Lover]

35. Christianity is liberalism

I will not bend or waiver. To be honest I find it difficult to understand progressive liberalism not rooted in faith, but I do not judge and I am confident enough in my beliefs that I welcome being judged. I can stand the scrutiny.

[jberryhill]

37. Does the Christian God believe in Freedom of Religion?

John 14:6

[Swamp Lover]

43. Yes, absolutely.

Since Jesus judged each by the unique quality one's heart and soul, coming to the father through him could and often does mean many different things to many different people, cultures and beliefs.

There are those who, as a result of many diffferent catalyst, wish to feel oppressed by that which does not oppress. That is a shame, but one can always find a dark cloud in any silver lining.

[jberryhill]

44. So the first commandment is just sort of a suggestion

[Swamp Lover]

46. If you want to be a victim of intolerance so much so that you seek it out...

...more power to you.

[jberryhill]

47. What?

I'm not a "victim of intolerance".

I'm also not a victim of the illusion that "Christianity" has something to offer politically.

Let's see... Jesus was around some 2000 years ago. Constitutional democracy was developed in the 18th Century.

Now, either Christianity has got to be the absolutely most inefficient way of getting from various flavors of monarchy to constitutional democracy, or else Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with it - let alone having something interesting to offer on subtopics such as civil rights within a democratic system of government.

Jesus made it pretty clear that his was not a political enterprise, but Christians, left and right, are bound and determined to ignore that.

What Christians are very good at is a form of selective triumphalism. There are Christians on either side of almost any political issue. Slavery is a good example - plenty of Christians pro-slavery and anti-slavery. But after the dust settles, they point to the ones on the winning side and say, "See, that was us."

Evangelicals do a similar thing with Hitler. Ignoring the writings of Martin Luther and the fact that the nascent Third Reich was OVERWHELMINGLY evangelical Lutheran, they point to certain Dutch Reformed individuals like Corrie ten Boom or Martin Niemoller, as if they were somehow representative of the majority of European evangelicals. Bottom line - they weren't.

But let's go back to your comment:

"coming to the father through him could and often does mean many different things to many different people, cultures and beliefs."

So, there is an open set of "beliefs" which may constitute "Christianity", yes? Believing in any particular set of beliefs called "Christian" is not essential to whatever it is you assert constitutes actually being one.

In that case, then getting rid of the label "Christian" should be pretty easy, since it does not, in your view, define any specific set of beliefs about anything in particular.

[Swamp Lover]

54. I share some of your beliefs...

...just without the giant chip.......

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. "Jesus was around some 2000 years ago" - Either that or a myth was started some 2000 years ago.

[cleanhippie]

148. And your deflection and accusation over such a simple question is why

Christians in the left empower the Christians on the right.

[arely staircase]

105. i dont think my

Church is going to stop calling itself Christians because of the existance of fundamentalists any sooner than a Muslim would because of their fundamentalists or a Jew because of theirs.

[jberryhill]

106. It's not just fundamentalists

Hello, this is not some kind of "extremist" in the primary body of Christians, by any measure:



He is, in fact, the leader of the largest Christian organization on planet Earth, by far. He is not some obscure extremist sect leader.

Now, if we are going to limit "Christian" in its application to certain long-diminishing Northeastern liberal Protestant denominations, and thoroughly ignore that persons who self-identify as "Christian" overwhelmingly believe homosexuality to be an offense against God, then maybe we could weed out the majority of persons you do not believe to be somehow "representative" of Christians. But I assure you that this process will eliminate a large majority of all persons who identify themselves as such.

[arely staircase]

114. i ll see you that and raise you this

[jberryhill]

117. So?

That is your attempt to demonstrate that there is some "correct" set of opinions which naturally follows from being a Christian?

You prove my point - "Christianity" is mathematically orthogonal to having a decent opinion about anything.

Let's say I have two people. One has an innate personal disposition toward being a decent human, and the other one is an asshole.

If I hand them the kit and instructions for building a bookshelf from Ikea, I am going to get two identical bookshelves.

If I hand them each a Bible, I am going to end up with a decent person and an asshole, each of whom is more sure of themselves.

[arely staircase]

121. yeah, maybe

but you were just showing the a**hole.

[Jawja]

136. The proper term should be

"Paulianity" as opposed to "Christianity", as Paul of Tarsus basically created the "Christian" church. He set himself up as the purveyor of the "Christian" message and basically perverted the teachings of the man known as Jesus. The actual words of their "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" would be lost on them.

[Maraya1969]

144. And yet they say that God created man in God's image. In the same

breath they tell you that image is filled with sin and hopelessness.

I used to be a Christian many years ago and there was just too much hypocrisy and plain old meanness going around. I had an anxiety disorder and it just made it worse. I'll never forget being in the lunch line at the southern baptist college I chose to go to and asking one of the guys what happens if a Jewish baby dies and he just matter of factually said, "He goes to Hell." When I got upset about it he said, "sorry that is just the way it is."

Now THAT guy is probably still a right winged Christian that ate a Chick fil' a the other day.

[Angry Dragon]

89. Christ was not a Christian

[noel711]

2. We have tried that approach...

but get bashed...
by conservatives for 'having the wrong interpretation of that passage"
(they say Jesus was talking about other christians, and not others..)

and by many liberals who say the bible is bull-pucky and shouldn't
even be part of the conversation.

We've tried. Nice try tho....

[CabCurious]

3. We've obviously not tried very hard nt

[treestar]

141. That passage gives them no excuse to interpret it that way

Nor do the other Bible passages about being good to strangers.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. "John Fugelsang will take on religious right on new TV show"

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) - "I want to do a show that takes on Chick-Fil-A and the Westboro Baptist Church using the bible," Current TV's new primetime host John Fugelsang told TheWrap on Wednesday.

Comedian Fugelsang will take on the religious right in a new primetime show the network announced earlier on Wednesday. In addition to being a comedian, Fugelsang is a frequent guest on cable news programming and over the past few months has filled in for Current hosts Eliot Spitzer and Jennifer Granholm.

"As Gov. Granholm focuses on democratic politics and Gov. Spitzer on Wall Street malfeasance, this show of mine will focus on the hypocrisy of the Christian right," Fugelsang told TheWrap.

The show is set to debut in September, and though no exact time is set, it is expected to air at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., with a late-night feel, eliminating the possibility of an afternoon timeslot.

Fugelsang will mix comedy, politics and pop culture, introducing viewers to new music at the same time he dresses down politicians.

More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-johnfugelsang-currenttvbre8701tr-20120801,0,2858087.story

[sadbear]

24. After the religious right mobilize against this show

it won't last very long. We've drawn the blueprints with what we've done to rush limbaugh. And it doesn't matter that he'll take on Westboro either. They see any attack on any "christian" as an attack on them.

[sibelian]

125. Either you change what you do, or the situation will continue.

If they mobilise, you mobilise. It's no use throwing your hands in the air and saying "but they oppose us, so we'll lose!" If Obama had taken that stance DADT would still be on the books.

[mike_c]

6. this leftist wants nothing to do with christianity....

Religion = insanity.

[sibelian]

126. The search for truth does not require allies, but politics does.

If you don't make common cause with those who seek the same goals as yourself you are choosing failure.

[cbayer]

7. Absolutely, but liberal/progressive christian groups need to

be more visible and vocal.

The press ignores them, despite increasing levels of activity. They appear to need some strong and loud leadership. The public is looking for an alternative to the insanity of the christian right, someone just needs to provide them with more options.

[jberryhill]

11. "some strong and loud leadership"

Humility would be much more visible if the humble took more pride in it.

[cbayer]

13. Not clear at all as to what you are saying here.

[jberryhill]

17. "strong and loud leadership" is their problem, not the solution

Saying that Christianity would do better with some "strong and loud leadership" strikes me as suggesting the women's rights movement would do better if they put some men in charge.

[cbayer]

19. The analogy doesn't fit at all. MLK ring a bell? Jesse Jackson? Coretta Scott King?

Christian leaders with liberal/progressive messages need to take back the name.

[jberryhill]

25. Malcolm X also rings a bell

As do these people:



There is nothing that being "Christian" brings to the table.

People used purported "Christian" positions to argue for, and against, equal rights for African Americans. Heck, people used purported "Christian" positions to argue for, and against, slavery.

What you end up with is people calling themselves "Christians" on either side of the political divide, while also claiming that the people on the other side are not "real Christians".

MLK is not considered to be a significant "Christian leader" by evangelicals. You think the people in Arizona and elsewhere who fought against honoring him with a holiday are adherents of some other faith?

[cbayer]

29. That's the basis of the whole argument.

There are many types of christians. There are those that use their religious beliefs to pursue civil rights and social justice, and those that use them to fight against those things. The first group needs to take it back. They lost it to Karl Rove and the neocons who unashamedly used the religious right to score political points (and quite successfully).

And yes, I do think they are adherents of some other faith. They may share the name, but their widely different interpretations of what it means make them very different groups.

[jberryhill]

34. You see these guys behind MLK?

No, they are not wearing those hats because they are McDonald's employees.

And they are not Christians.

Why do Christians have to take credit for everything?

[cbayer]

40. Yes, they were a part of the coalition. That's what progressive religious people do -

form coalitions with like minded people to achieve results.

Who's says christians are taking all the credit? I was just giving you examples of strong and loud christian leaders.

[jberryhill]

50. And they were a part of the anti-segregation coalition

In other words, the term "Christian" is not uniquely associated with one side or the other. Just as it has been with ANY other political conflict in the history of majority Christian societies.

Lincoln understood this point quite well:

These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.

[cbayer]

56. I don't disagree with anything you have said.

[jberryhill]

120. MLK was also an African American

What do you think contributed more to his belief in the correctness of equal rights for African Americans? Being a Christian? Or being an African American?

Because, by far, the majority of Christians in the south - i.e. WHITE Christians - opposed him.

Hence, whether one happened to be white or black was a more accurate correlate to supporting civil rights than whether one was a Christian or not.

[Freddie]

21. Liberal Christian here

We're "not really Christians" to the wingers and "idiots" to the atheists.
I was taught that a real Christian does not brag about their faith, but lives it. By loving their neighbor and doing what they can for "the least of these."
I think there's a lot of us out there but we don't wear it on our sleeves.

[cbayer]

23. I agree, which is why it's difficult to build activist organizations.

But it has been done and will continue, IMO.

[HappyMe]

9. Their narrow minded selfishness

and stupidity has ruined it. They holler their craziness the loudest.
For me, personally, I would rather just keep doing what I can to help others quietly.

[JohnnyLib2]

10. Here in the Bible Belt, I have to agree with JBerryHill's reply above.

There was a massive effort during GWB's first campaign to link "Christian", red, white and blue patriotism, and voting for him. Many church parking lots of all kinds were leafleted.... the whole branding has really taken hold..

[CabCurious]

20. This goes back to the early 90s and the culture wars

Actually, in the 80s, the evangelicals on the right started to organize.

In the 90s, the coalesced and started a strong campaign under the culture wars umbrella. From Newt to the CCoalition, they went after Clinton and coined the derogatory label "liberal" as the enemy.

Why does the left keep allowing this ground to be taken?

The flag is not Republican.
Morality is not Republican.
Family Values are not Republican.

The best way to counter this is to get back to the core words that they wave around.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. I'm not sure what you mean by "get back to the core words". Also, the so-called "values voter" is

not anywhere near as powerful as the right wing likes to pretend.

The fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans are pro-choice. The majority of Americans support equal rights for LGBT citizens. The majority of Americans want government out of their bedrooms and bodies, etc.

"Morality" is not letting insurance companies kick sick children off of insurance policies. It's not wagging your finger at people to not have sex.

[Major Nikon]

12. Don't want it

Just sayin'

[ananda]

14. Why should it matter?

nt

[CabCurious]

18. Think about the Civil Rights Movement?

It was entirely grounded in Christian rhetoric and empathetic ploys.

Listen to MLK.

[jberryhill]

30. "entirely grounded in Christian rhetoric"

Yeah... fuck Malcolm X. Is that your point?

And in the true "invasion of the body snatchers" fashion, Christians come along with the Zamboni of history, smooth out the wrinkles, and claim it was all about them.

And all those Jews who were involved in the civil rights movement? Well, heck, they don't understand their own religion in the first place - which is the point of Christianity.

[kwassa]

70. and what is your point?

You are doing your very best to minimize the Christian background and beliefs of many of the civil rights activists.

Why?

[jberryhill]

73. To "minimize"

I'm sorry, but perhaps you should read the post to which I was responding. Note the word "entirely" in it.

So, in your view, disagreeing with the absurd statement that civil rights is "entirely grounded" in Christianity is some sort of attempt to "minimize" the fact that some civil rights leaders were Christian?

I see.

Do you "minimize" the fact that segregationists were more uniformly "Christian" than those on the other side?

Practically all of the white supremacists call themselves that too.

It is a label which does not in the least correlate with political views.

[kwassa]

110. I think you are trying very hard to minimize the role of Chrisitianity in the Civil Rights movement.

It wasn't entirely Christian, of course, but most of it was. There were certainly many Jews supporting the movement. Malcolm X and the NOI were there as a threat, but played a relatively minor role.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference took the central role. Most of the organizational strength came from black churches. That is just history. Christianity was the source of their beliefs, and the source of their inspiration.

You might think the brand is dead, and while it certainly might be dead for you, it is not dead for many millions of others.

Yes, the segregationists also claimed to be Christian, too, but when their behavior is such a contradiction to the teachings of Christ it is hardly plausible.

[jberryhill]

111. Oh, okay, we'll just count on you to point out the "real Christians"

And the black churches which now oppose equal rights for gays have quit being Christian. When did this happen?

Southern Baptists, as a body, exist because of segregation. To deny they are Christian is to deny reality. But your definition of "Christian" seems to be "agrees with my politics."

Okay, are ANY of the following Christians:

1. People who claim their Christian God opposes gay marriage.

2. People who claim their Christian God wants abortion to be categorically illegal in the United States.

3. People who claim their Christian God supports war under any circumstances.

Are ANY of the people in those categories Christians? If so, which ones? Are any of the people in those groups categorically NOT Christians? If so, which ones?

I gather that you agree that Southern Baptists are not Christians, most Catholic bishops are not Christians, and the Pope is certainly not a Christian. Is that correct?

I was responding to a post which claimed the civil rights movement was - and I quote - "ENTIRELY" Christian. That is a bullshit statement along with the similar right wing "Christian nation" bullshit.

Some Christians supported equal rights. MOST others did not. That is self evident because we have always been a majority Christian country.

[kwassa]

138. I don't have the power to decree someone Christian or not.

There are certainly those who I personally think contradict the very teachings of Christ, and yet claim to be Christian. I wish I did have the power, I would straighten things out in no time!

and many relatively devout Christians look the incredibly long and complicated book that the Bible and come up with different beliefs, of course.

and there are many different definitions of exactly what a Christian is, as well. The question is handled well on religioustolerance.org.

I think an evolution is going on in black churches right now in regards to gay marriage, and is not unlike the slow shift of opinion in favor of it that is happening nationally. More and more black pastors are coming out in favor of gay marriage all the time.

[jberryhill]

149. Behold this picture of evolution

[jberryhill]

118. And, by the way...

When you say that "most of the organizational strength [of the civil rights movement] came from black churches" do you seriously believe this fact to be a result primarily of them being churches? Or do you think that being black had anything to do with it?

Because if we are looking for a correlation, it's apparent that the overwhelmingly more numerous WHITE churches in the south were on the other side.

[kwassa]

137. The church was the center of the black community in the South.

There were no other organizations that blacks could participate in. They were excluded from all political positions. The white community had access to all kinds of things as community organizers, so the role of the white churches was relatively minor. Most of the segregationist activity came from white politicians, and their enforcers, the local police force, or Klan or similar organizations.

[CabCurious]

133. Listen to MLK's speeches

And please don't suggest that Malcolm X's role was equivalent.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Yeah, id like an answer there, too.

What about the Jews who were at the forefront of the Civil rights movement? Who died in Mississippi?

For that matter, what about the Atheists?

[jberryhill]

91. They don't count

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I'd like you to read this

The murders of James Chaney, a 21-year-old black man from nearby Meridian, Mississippi; Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old white Jewish anthropology student from New York; and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old white Jewish CORE organizer and former social worker also from New York,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders

It wasn't just a Christian effort, but a multi faith LIBERAL effort.

[Sherman A1]

135. Agreed

I see no real benefit myself, but others may and I respect their right to do so.

[nichomachus]

15. The Christian "brand" has been pretty sordid from the beginning

Christians over the centuries haven't been able to decide who they enjoy killing most -- non-Christians or each other. Put three Christians in a room for two days and you'll end up with four battling sects, usually fighting over something as important as a comma.

[sadbear]

26. I think you guys should start calling yourselves something else.

[MattBaggins]

27. I don't want the term

I am happy as an atheist thank you very much.

[sibelian]

28. Yes, easily. The most difficult thing is starting something. Christianity is a left-wing religion.

I think there's a chilling effect that emanates off fundies - really it can just be ignored. Once you get over the initial difficulty of your own perceptions of the difficulty of a problem, the way forward often becomes much clearer.

[sadbear]

32. Christianity is supposed to be a left-wing religion.

But it isn't anymore.

[sibelian]

38. Ideas don't change because people use the name of the idea for something else.

A billionaire banker can call his business Marxism but that does not mean that it *is* Marxism.

[sadbear]

39. They've defined christianity better than you have.

It now belongs to them. It is what they say it is.

[sibelian]

41. Of course it isn't what they say it is. It's what it *is*.

"They" have no definition of it all.

[sadbear]

42. Yes, to you, it is what it is.

But not to everyone else. That's the thing: you're in the minority and don't get much of a say. The majority has spoken, and the majority of christianity is right-wing.

[sibelian]

45. Well, then everyone else is wrong.

the majority can think what it likes, christianity remains itself, there's no "to me" about it.

[jberryhill]

48. And what was it for 18 centuries before the US came along?

Show me the liberal society which Jesus inspired. And, let's make it simple and go from Christ to 1000 A.D.

Can you show me, in a thousand years post-Jesus Christ, how this liberalism was demonstrated in human society?

Or did we only recently come to some kind of "correct" understanding of what Christianity is about. If so, could you tell me when that happened?

[sibelian]

52. If altruism doesn't interest you...

I'm afraid it's not really my problem.

[jberryhill]

62. Lol, was that an intentionally ironic statement?

Isn't altruism all about making other people's problems your own?

[sibelian]

122. Why are you asking me?

[demosincebirth]

95. It's been hyjacked by the right. The new teatament is an early socialist reading.

[RagAss]

31. Good luck with that. They took Jesus out of Christianity centuries ago.......

When the "Gospel of Thomas" was burned by the church.

[JaneQPublic]

33. The Left did in the 1960s

Remember the "Jesus Freaks" of that era?

I think it's possible for the Left to reclaim the identity as being Christian, but it won't be easy.
The news media are fond of putting people in pigeonholes and then developing their reporting around those labels, so they don't have to bother with nuance.

That said, you made a very good case that Jesus was, indeed, a Liberal.

[handmade34]

36. we could start here

http://stateofbelief.com/


Welton Gaddy: one of the many fine people that can do it if anybody can...





and the Episcopal Church

"Episcopal Church becomes biggest US church to bless gay unions" http://www.episcopalchurch.org/

I have lots to say on the topic and no real time to write it all down... though it is for sure... the brand is extremely tainted

[Freddie]

102. I'd be Episcopalian

If I weren't already Lutheran. Awesome.
If the topic ever comes up I just say, "I'm a Christian but not one of *those* Christians."

[arely staircase]

142. +1 nt

[LWolf]

49. I have two opposing responses to that question.

1. Why? Why would I, as a member of the left in the U.S., which is, in reality, not all that far to the left, WANT it?

2. On the other hand, it would be nice if the term "Christian" actually meant someone who exhibited some of the characteristics actually credited to Jesus or other christ figures. The world would be a better place if followers of Jesus actually followed him and tried to live according to the teachings attributed to him.

[CabCurious]

134. I have 2 answers for your great questions

1. Why?

Listen to any speech by MLK. It's completely grounded in moral codes deeply engrained in the West. To a large degree, the power of the civil rights was because of Christian principles. It was like throwing a mirror up to Americans to take a hard look into.

Jesus spoke against the rich. He spoke against heartless apathy about suffering humans. That's allegedly at the "core" of the right-wing's "values" so why not remind them of what their messiah actually said?

Jesus' words can help those people step away from the heartless, fragmented ideological anchors of the Right.

2. Yes. The important thing is making it clear to the ENTIRE public that "Christian" can mean progressive. It can mean empathetic. It can mean socially-minded. It can even justify "welfare" and criticisms of capitalism.

[jberryhill]

51. Am I correct in assuming that we certainly don't mean to include "Catholics"

Go ahead, say this guy is not "Christian":



If you do that, you'll have to wrestle him for the hat.

[Live and Learn]

53. Would Jesus wear that hat? nt

[jberryhill]

64. I have no idea

[RC]

60. Yeah, but..., but..., but...,

He's not a Jesus Christian. The hierarchy doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. There is no Liberal there. No equality. Money is Power. You can buy your way into their Heaven. A "Kill them all and let God sort them out" sort of Christian.
The masses and the hierarchy are two different things. The Followers and the Leaders have a different set of goals. Christ would not recognize this "Christian" Church by its leaders.

[Comrade Grumpy]

79. You might want to talk to some of the Catholic nuns.

You will find some orders remarkably progressive, such as the Benedictines.

And don't forget Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers. The workers are still going at it.

Religion is responsible for a lot of bad stuff, but also a lot of good stuff.

[jberryhill]

90. The conclusion being...

That whether something issuing from "religion" is "good stuff" or "bad stuff" can only be evaluated in a framework other than a religious one.

Clearly, since you assert that religion can be responsible for either "good stuff" or "bad stuff", you cannot use religion to determine whether it is, in fact, "good" or "bad" stuff.

And this is what galls me about this species of discussion. The measuring stick against which we determine whether some religion-motivated thing is "good" or "bad" is thoroughly humanistic. So, look, let's skip the religious part and get right down to humanistic "good stuff". It would seem to be a more direct route.

But, seriously, regardless of the views of a handful of nuns in the US, are we going to seriously debate whether the Pope is, or is not, properly deemed a "Christian"?

[valerief]

55. Good lord, why would anyone want to? nt

[sibelian]

58. Because the original idelogical spine of Christianity was altruism.

As is the ideological spine of liberalism.

Abandoning a supporting structure for the principles of altruism on the rather trivial grounds that it's key tenets are based in the supernatural, thence to throw ones arms in the air at the hypocrisy of the abandonded ideology's very pragmatic usurpers looks very much like shooting oneself in the foot. It's doesn't matter whether or not God exists, what matters is that people believe that human beings deserve better from one another. If common cause cannot be made towards this goal between its adherent factions otherwise seperated by trivial differences in the philosophical underpinnings of their value-systems then one can only assume that their value-systems aren't as important to them as one might be led to believe.

[valerief]

63. Fuck Christianity. Why not take back altruism? nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. That attitude won't get you far in what is a predominantly Christian nation.

I'm not a believer myself, but I have come to respect other people's religious beliefs. I have real problems with some of the right-wing evangelicals, though.

I used to criticize "the Christians" until my mother pointed out that she was one. A nice Episcopalian lady who serves on her church board and does charitable deeds and all that good stuff. So now, I criticize "the fundies," that's who I'm really unhappy with, anyway.

[valerief]

104. I'm not criticizing the Xtians, but if the prize is altruism why bother with Xtianity?

BTW, most people are atheists and don't go to church or temple. They just say they have a religion so bully people won't jump down their throats. I know. I used to be one of them (not a bully but a "I'm a Catholic" person, when I'd been atheist since childhood).

[sibelian]

124. Because the original ideological spine of Christianity is altruism.

That's why.

[valerief]

127. So altruism was there first. Why isn't altruism good enough? nt

[sibelian]

145. Ask humanity.

They seem to prefer to have reasons to be nice. It's of very little consequence to me what the reasons are. Why is it of such colossal importance to you?

[sibelian]

123. Take back altruism? From whom?

And how are you going to get it "back" without allying yourself with the rest of the world who also wants it back?

[valerief]

128. I'm not the OP. I'm just using the OP's language. nt

[sibelian]

147. Well, you buy or you don't I assume.

Christianity *can* be taken back because it's been appropriated. Altruism hasn't.

[Skidmore]

59. I think the left would serve the nation better by not associating itself

with any religion in particular. Core principles of moral behavior towards others can be found within all religions in one form or another, and no religion is superior. We do not need to be a "Christian nation." We need the respect found in a free society to choose to embrace and practice whatever religion you want or to not adhere to one at all.

We can insist that our society be founded in humanistic philosophy--minus the insistence that it carry a label or that one specific group is entitled to force all others to their belief system. That is not freedom, but oppression.

[jberryhill]

66. +1 brazillion

[DerekG]

71. Strange that you have Jimmy Carter as an avatar

That guy was quite vocal about his faith, both while in office and as a citizen. (Almost like the test run to Reagan.)

[jberryhill]

76. So was George W. Bush

I guess if one is simple minded, one cannot draw a distinction between a politician and their religious beliefs.

Jimmy Carter's religion, I assure you, has nothing to do with the fact I believe he was a good president.

But you appear to believe that because I am not interested in swapping one set of people whose God tells them how to vote for another group of people whose God tells them how to vote, as some sort of general religious hostility.

I don't care what your religion is. Keep it the fuck out of politics.

If you cared at all for what this Jesus actually said, he was quite clear on the subject of his kingdom not being of this world. But everybody wants to use the cross as a political rallying point instead of a spiritual one.

The proposition of the OP is to "take back" the word Christian, as if it rightfully belonged to one political camp or another. It never did.

I think Muhammad Ali was a great boxer. Is that supposed to make me some cheerleader for Islam?

[DerekG]

78. Jimmy Carter was and is a walking Jesus billboard.

I'm just curious why someone like yourself, who at the very least is not a friend to religion, would revere a chief executive known for setting a precedent in spouting pious platitudes. (I'm at a loss to think of a post-war president who reflected such an evangelical personage.)

Oh, and I'm an agnostic; as such, I don't have a metaphysical dog in this fight.

[MNBrewer]

85. I don't think Carter would support theocratizing the country, however.

His faith is personal, and is manifested in his politics; compare to being political, and NOT being manifested personally.

[DerekG]

88. You're right, he wouldn't.

Nevertheless, Carter projected a certain religiosity and employed a distinctive language that was fairly uncommon for a chief executive back at that junture in history. This isn't so much a sticking point with me, but the poster to whom I responded is generally dismissive toward religion.

[MNBrewer]

108. I'm generally dismissive of religion, myself

However, I have immense respect for Pres. Carter, who has been motivated to do good for others, despite his being a Christian.

[kwassa]

112. It isn't despite being a Christian, it is because he is a Christian.

Carter draws his moral beliefs and behavior from his studies of the Bible. You might find that unnecessary, but I suspect he would find it essential.

[jberryhill]

113. So did Jerry Falwell

You seem not to recognize that two people, claiming to draw their morals from the same book, come to radically different sets of beliefs.

Rationally, this means they are both engaged in a process of projection. Their beliefs are not coming out of that book. Of they want to believe otherwise, that's fine by me.

But asking anyone for an objective opinion about how their mind works is... beyond silly. Yes, if asked what they believe, they will certainly tell you. But rationally they cannot be deriving their political philosophy from the same book.

[kwassa]

139. I disagree. It is not projection, it is selection.

The Bible runs about 1,300 pages in the last copy I looked at, depending on print size, page size, etc.

With the massive amount of stories, people select what they think is important and ignore what they don't. I think the essential parts of the Bible are the core of Christ's messages. Others focus on the judgementalism of the Old Testament, on punishment and retribution, heaven and hell, and paying for sins. Everyone interprets; it is inescapable. It is the complexity of the Bible itself that creates this problem. The problem is that some of those that interpret, which include ALL of us, don't recognize that their interpretation is subjective, but believe their subjective response as factually true.

[jberryhill]

87. So was George W Bush

You really don't get it, do you?

Whethe someone goes on about Jesus has historically ZERO correlation with whether I agree with them politically.

If a politician wants to carry on about Jesus, it doesn't have anything to do with what I think of their policies.

JFK was a Catholic, and so is that asshole Donahue (I forget the name of his organization). The conclusion is that being a Catholic is not a reliable predictor of whether or not I am likely to agree with that person's political views.

I admire Muhammad Ali. He was a Muslim. I am not so fond of, say, Osama Bin Laden. So that too is not a reliable predictor of whether someone is or is not an asshole.

Yes, both Jimmy Carter and Rick Perry are Christians. Your problem seems to be that the label has any "correct" set of political views attached to it.

Now, up thread, someone says the civil rights movement is "entirely grounded" in Christian rhetoric. That is bullshit. First of all, it is a typical Christian eliminationist viewpoint in which only those ideas labelled "Christian" matter, and pisses on the work of many non-Christians. Segregationist thinking was more thoroughly based in "Christian" rhetoric as well.

I care no more about Jimmy Carter's religious pronouncements than his hair color, dietary preferences, favorite color or any other personal characteristics that have no bearing on my assessment of his character or performance as president.

[DerekG]

92. But do you think Carter's pronounced religiosity changed political discourse for the worse?

I mean, once that genie's out of the bottle...

[jberryhill]

93. It very well may have

Come to think of it. Post-Carter it seems we did get into this freaking inquisition every four years about whether and which of the candidates did or did not sufficiently believe in what flavored Jesus.

You ask a really good question there.

[CabCurious]

96. It's about principles and values, not "associating" the left with 1 religion nt

[Skidmore]

107. There is no need to take back the word "Christian."

I don't know how you do not end up associating the left with one religion when you must talk about principles and values by identifying them as "Christian" and not human.

[CabCurious]

132. Yes, precisely because the far-right don't deserve the label

They engage in nationalist hatred, bigotry, greed, and cold disregard of humanity in the name of Christianity.

Your religious beliefs aside, that's not in anybody's interest.

[AngryOldDem]

61. No.

And why would it? The term now has such a negative connotation that the Right may as well put a trademark symbol next to it.

Just live the principles of Matthew 25 without feeling the need to label yourself or others. It's worked well for me for years. "By their deeds ye shall know them."

[Taverner]

65. They can and should

Christianity was traditionally part of the left in the US for years. William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day and Edward Bellamy were all Socialists

[white_wolf]

67. I'd love to see a return to Liberation Theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[white_wolf]

68. In all honestly though I think leftism will be more popular in non traditional religions.

I posted a thread about this in the religion group, but I thought I'd give a quick overview here. Religious leftism will likely find its outlet in newer less traditional religions such as Wicca and other neo-pagan faiths. Just check out Reclaiming's (A branch of Wicca) 5 Point Agenda written by the group's founder. It its far more leftist than anything the Democratic Party has put out: http://www.reclaiming.org/about/directions/fivepoint-agenda.html

Even Buddhism seems to be more attractive to the left in the western world, despite how ancient it is. Whether that is due to the nature of Buddhism itself or simply the fact that is is non-traditional and attracts more open minded people because of that I don't know.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. "Christian" (and "Christianity") = bait and switch

[Snoozin]

72. I have to agree...

Jesus was a liberal.

[Marrah_G]

74. I would rather be associated with progressive thinkers then with a religion

Not to say that there aren't progressive christians, I would just rather be associated with thier ideology then with their theology.

[Blue_In_AK]

77. I prefer "Jesusonian" n/t

[randome]

83. We don't want it.

Progressives need to stand for fairness and equality. Period. We should not have to endure a litany of everyone's one and true religion and play 'whack-a-mole' in reverse.

Stand up for fairness and equality. They will come.

[MNBrewer]

84. When, in the entire history of Christianity

has there ever been a time, when, on average, the group of people who call themselves Christian have been an admirable lot? My answer is "never". Christians promoted and opposed slavery, promoted and opposed woman's suffrage, promote and oppose the right to reproductive choice, promote and oppose GLBT equality. On average, Jesus would do as he says in Rev. 3:16 "spew thee out of my mouth". If to be a Christian means everything, it means nothing. I imagine some tender Christian will alert this post as bigotry. Too bad. Truth hurts, I guess. Christianity, as a brand, is lost.

[demosincebirth]

94. Thats a w-i-d-e brush you have there. Try St Anthonys or Glide Memorial church in SF or St Vincent

de Paul center in Oakland. Try googling them, might surprise you.

[MNBrewer]

109. It is purposefully "wide brush".

The concept that religion... ANY religion... on the whole does more good than harm is a demonstrable falsehood. The good is very localized while the harm is widespread.

[demosincebirth]

119. I guess you didn't check them out, so your point is moot. It's spurious.

A-dios.

[MNBrewer]

140. The moot point is checking them out

No matter the good they do, the harm done globally by their co-religionists is vastly greater.

[sibelian]

146. "Let's re-emphasise the altrusitic components of Christianity!"

"No, let's ignore them!"

[rrneck]

86. No.

Here's your competition.

[DevonRex]

97. Liberal Christians can certainly make their

voices heard. The passages you cited are great examples. Pointing out that Jesus never mentioned gays is another way. So yes I think it's possible.

[Iggo]

98. Don't want it.

[Alduin]

100. Good god, I hope not.

[jberryhill]

101. Let's take back Zoroastrianism first

[arely staircase]

103. the problem

or virtue of liberal churches like my ownis that they concentrate on doing good works like building homes or digging Wells or feeding people and the sermons we hear are about the importance of that. Lines full of people worked up about hell and damnation and eating fried chicken to to show they hate gays is much more likely to get media attention.

[just1voice]

115. Can the people spot corporate hacks?

Some sure can.

[spanone]

116. nobody owns the term...asshole republicans hijacked and use it.

[moobu2]

129. They can have it.

[Zalatix]

130. We can and we SHOULD. K&R!

[patrice]

131. I don't care what we call it. What matters is what people do and theocracy will accomplish the

opposite of that, because it would be based on an institution rather than on the behavioral choices of free individuals who choose personal commitment to the good, which is, incidentally, what the life of Lord Jesus models for us.

[lib2DaBone]

143. The brand is damaged....

"Christian" is now associated with nutjobs, the Baptist Church that burns Korans , Michelle Bachman who wants to put anyone with a mid-east name in jail.

The name "Christian: has been hijacked.

There are so many real Christians that are doing a great job of helping the needy.. but the need is so great and the resources so small....