Well, my view of Schaeffer is that he understands them very, very well and can explain their thinking and actions for those unfamiliar with how the fundamentalist thing works. I agree with him that we cannot waste time trying to disabuse them of their beliefs but we must move past them and recognize them for the kooks they are and be prepared to stop them when they make their inevitable power grab.

I've been following them and this issue almost all my life. My father was a very liberal minister who locked horns with them many times as I grew up so I became aware of their weird world view a long, long time ago. Far too many people fail to grasp just how delusional and "beyond crazy" these people are as Schaeffer puts it.

Ah, the unintended irony of a case-in-point.

Yup

"but the truth is what it is"

- What is exactly is the truth?

That "evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America" and/or that "You move past them"?

That's not the truth.

That's incendiary bullshit from a religious fundanmentalist in denial and worthy of Rush Limbaugh.

so you think we should be teaching intelligent design in the science classrooms of all our schools? want to teach them that it is a valid point that the light from the stars haven't travelled all those gazzillion years, rather it is a way for God to test our faith? The disregard for rationally agreed-upon truths because it doesn't jive with my book of faith is a rotting of the mind, and one of the primary reasons this country has failed to keep up with other countries in the fields of science.

There is no way you can reach them, so other than locking them up which I don't condone, we just have to do our best to move past them

I would add that it is not incendiary since there are enough states, Kansas Missouri Texas (which influences all textboos), where these wingnuts have major influence and decision making power on school boards. On the local level there are only too many examples of their attempts of to ban critical thinking and exposure to reality. These people are a threat to our educational system if nothing else.

Missouri is not one of the states that orders a set of books like Texas. That is done on a district by district basis.

No.

The real issue is that you CONSIDER these set of beliefs dangerous. You BELIVE them to be wrong.

And you (or Rachel Maddow) are using bogus poll and hacks like Schaeffer to make your BELIEFS appear to be the truth.

I disagree with religious fundamentalists, especially on issue that affect me personally, like DOMA and others. But my mother is a 7th Day Adventist and she has as much right to her beliefs and to organizing in their name as you have for your own.

No the beliefs aren't dangerous, no matter how delusional...acting on those beliefs are. When those borderline insane beliefs are attempted to be imposed on the rest of us it is a danger...especially when those who are trying to impose them, with religious fervor, believe they are on a mission from God. These nuts feel the rest of us need to believe what they do and will not stop until they succeed...that is the danger. Not the beliefs but the actions...

How so...they are free to believe what they want to. It is a free country...if they want to believe that God has taken the form of a Fruit Fly they can. They are trying to impose their beliefs on us by trying to get their nutty agenda into our public school systems and into the public sphere by politicians who think like them. Freedom of religion covers private life and freedom from religion is the way the government is supposed to operate. They are trying impose their beliefs by putting proselytizing politicians in place. They feel the should have the freedom to worsgip the way they want to but the rest of us shouldn't have any choice...we need to worship just like them.

How can anyone get past Rachel Maddow's supercilious wink-wink-nudge-nudge punim long enough to actually watch the show.

Tis a puzzle.

(Ecclesiastes 5:2-3) . . .Do not hurry yourself as regards your mouth; and as for your heart, let it not be hasty to bring forth a word before the [true] God. For the [true] God is in the heavens but you are on the earth. That is why your words should prove to be few. …..

Ironic indeed, that the first one to crawl out and ridicule would be you.

You made of clay, to suggest the potter has know say?
Your rebellious spirit stands out in contrast to the Meek ones that will possess the Earth. You ridicule me, because I have seen a course, a way to a life, without tears and ridicule and I want to share this knowledge with others?

I look forward to the time when the Most High of the Universe, spoils the plans of stupid Earthlings, who are intent on ruining the planet and causing misery to those who love Righteousness.

My Grand Creator promises a New heaven and a New Earth, filled with people who really care for one another. People who have already applied themselves, to correcting the errors prevalent in today’s World, in order to make life enjoyable now and into the future for all of Earths inhabitants.

A future free of hatred and ridiculers has already begun, change or be removed.

Let me ask your highness, what is your plan to end the suffering, oh powerful Orlando? Or is that all you have, is ridicule? Surely you must realize by now as did the Pharaoh of Egypt, you offer nothing of substance or any thing of value that would produce the changes necessary, to assure a life without tears, For ALL.

Ridicule and slavery to a system designed to inflict pain and suffering, is that what you promote?

When will you speak up, tell us your Grand design, to end human suffering? Allow me to show other readers, the depth of your understanding of things.

(Revelation 7:16-17) . . .They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, 17 because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes. . .
(Revelation 21:3-4) . . .“Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.. . .

There is a leader, who will shepherd them, and I’m sorry to disappoint you, or that it is YOU who will not accept his invitation, to come and in live in a New World, a new way of life, a New way of thinking.

Oleeb,

My only concern with your post is the blanket thrown over all fundamentalist Christians. Sweeping all under the same cover negates the facts cited in your post.

Yes, too many, under the guise and banner of being fundamentalist Christians, enjoin in the hateful and ignorant acts as cited. But, this is not all inclusive nor part of any teachings of true Christianity. I know many who do not endorse nor subscribe to the actions and words of these people.

We have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush as that only creates more divisiveness.

Thanks.

The problem that I see is that the right wing politicians have learned to mobilize the fundamentalists to the voting polls and occasionally to the streets in order to support their grasp for greater power and wealth.

It's hard to avoid the village idiot when someone is teaching him to hurt others who don't obey orders. It's not hard to wind the fundamentalists up, either. They feel threatened and rejected, not just ignored, so they are ready to lash out. All the right-wing leaders have to do is aim then at particular targets. That aiming process is just a matter of money and propaganda.

There is that cabal of mega-church leaders who have a weekly phone conference with right-wing politicians to set the targets and the message. I forget who runs that phone conference.

Really good post, Oleeb.

Agreed, but only if we are talking in the context of religious beliefs.

A pitiful puzzle.

Speaking of village idiots...it's as if the whole show concept is: condescending schoolmarm gives simplified lectures to an audience of idiots who know only that they want to have the label of liberal, but don't know what that means, and need to learn what to believe.

Truly you jest!!!

Well, if believing that makes you feel better about yourself, by all means, keep believing it.

The problem is, aside from the fact that the extreme ones cultivate a systematic approach that enables them to deny facts in order to sustain their beliefs against science (and the arts), they wish to in their mind return this country back to Christ. They are fundamentally against democracy and the separation of church and state. They desire the establishment of a theocracy.

Much of the problems with the Bush administration came from the fact that DC was swarming with Liberty University graduates.

That kind of annoys me too. I actually thought she was much better as a guest host on Countdown than on her own show (and for that matter better than Olbermann, especially now that he seems to have gone a bit off the deep end himself).

I do not want any christian fundamentalist running anything inside of our government. They have pretty much demonstrated time and again they're all one pile of grey matter short of a brain.

Some of this coming from just the sheer befuddlement that comes from listening to the birthers, etc. and others who continue to rant in spite of the facts. When one isn't a fundamentalist, it is hard to see the world through their eyes. As Rachel's questions to him indicate, there is a desire to somehow get through to these people and it just seems like it is impossible. It boils down to: should we even try and engage these people, is a civil and democratic dialogue even possible?

She does great interviews, though. When she does the voices, ugh, ugh. And has on the Ahna Marie-someone, the short-red-hairered girl who writes for Playboy? Ugh. But Rachel is smart, and it's entertainment with some smarts.

The difference is that Rachel doesn't pretend she is in some spin-free zone. She has her slant and is very clear about her politics. It is obvious that it is commentary mixed with news. Nothing wrong with that, on either side of the aisle. OReilly just needs to be honest about his spin.

The problem comes when the viewers don't seek a broad range of news sources. It becomes a problem as well if the only news ones gets is free of commentary. At some point we do have expect that we're all adults out here. There are definitely issues with the way the MSM operates, but Rachel's show in and of itself isn't part of the big problem.

Aunt Sam,

There are people that have founded religions based on the Jedi principles found in Star Wars.

When I can find an unambiguous means to differentiate between the "good" and the "bad" religions (or sects), some of your comments can be addressed. Until then, who's to say what's what? No one seems to have the preferred link to a deity that will settle this once and for all.

Bah! You're full of it (as usual). You've convinced me over time that you're really nothing but a crank and an oppositional attention seeker.

Your comment only plays on TPM where the faithful already agree. You are therefore preaching to the choir.

As you can see, religion comes in all shapes and sized.

I can only point out that yes, it isn't really a problem if they don't believe in evolution. The problem is that they are attempting to conflate science with blind faith by creating Intelligent Design.

One of my heroes is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. His work in the Paleontological field was extraordinary and he put forth a marvelous theory that blended evolution with creation. But this is not curriculum for a science class. It is a curriculum for theory and philosophy classes that come from the proper perspective.

I understand but "should we even try" already establishes an attitude going in. But again, all this "belief" nonsense is disingenious on Maddow's part because that's the last thing she's interested in. The underlying point was Obama Opposition = Crazies.

Honestly, I don't think that is a valid concern. You cannot paint the fundamentalists with too broad a brush. None of them are benign any longer. They are all part of the growing movement of idiocy and ignorance in the name of God and revenue for the huckster preachers who lead them. I'm sorry, but a fundamentalist is, in essense, an anti-itellectual malignancy in modern America.

I prefer Pastafarianism myself.

I myself am glad Schaeffer is speaking out.

The fundies have pretty much hijacked Christianity to the point where a lot of people think they ARE Christianity...That couldn't further from the truth.

There are a lot of us who abhor the mockery they are making of all we hold dear, but somewhere along the road the vocal fringe has shut out the rest of us, inserted themselves into politics and the rest of us have lost our voice. We, the more "normal" Christians, for lack of a better word, have no one in leadership speaking for us. So we slog along, trying to hold onto our faith throughout the abuse we take from those who paint us all with the same brush.

I hope more people like Schaeffer will speak out, and maybe we can get some common sense restored within the Christian community as a whole.

If an otherwise intellectually fine adult in this country continues to believe the world is 6000 years old, I think they're "crazy" (which is not the same as being clinically mentally ill). And when such a belief system, the one that is able to sustain that belief in this society, gets involved in politics, we do have an issue. Since there can be no middle ground for them, it would lead to an unraveling of their entire faith structure.

That's a perfect example of "concerned intolerance" and a desire to make everyone think the same, because creationism doesn't boil down to the age of the earth and to christianity alone. And again - this is completely irrelevant to the objective of Maddow's hackery.

What happened to the part about " your words should prove be few"?

Just sayin'

Lalo is a troll. I don't know why anyone bothers with him. He is exactly what this post is about. Not just christian looneys, but people that refuse to think past their own belief systems.

And by the way, Lalo does not understand that 'truth' is subjective. Two people have an auto accident, both tell the 'truth' but both stories are different. Facts are much more reliable. Car A hit car B. That is the 'truth'.

"to her beliefs AND to organizing"

What's particularly ironic is that the same can be said of all major western religions:

There are crazy Jews in Israel who are politically active.

There are crazy Muslims who shriek "jihad!"

It makes one wonder where the delineation is between devout and fanatic.

I think that as soon as one feels comfortable talking about a deity or their religious beliefs in any political conversation, then there is something wrong. Now, I will be skewered for saying that, I'm sure, but while one's religion may inform their sense of morality, if you can't talk politically without specific reference to that morality to justify your political goals, then a line has been crossed.

The last bit is from my point of view the intent behind the separation of church and state. Politically one cannot justify a policy, etc. solely based on reference to scripture, divine inspiration, etc.

Creationism has no merit because it's hypothesis is provably wrong (at least in terms of anything more specific than "God created this").

I pretty much agree, but the one place that I continue to have mixed feelings is that God has ALWAYS been involved in our government. Many of the traditions in our government (like swearing on the Bible before giving testimony in a trial, being sworn into office with a Bible)are deeply entrenched, and I'm not sure I want that to change.

IMHO that the framers wanted to keep religion out of the government is a myth. They wanted no one government sponsored religion, so you are free to worship however you want, or not at all...the government will not force a certain religion upon you. But they were, for the most part, Deists, and they would not have mentioned God or our "Creator" in the founding documents had they wanted Him to be kept out of the government completely.

What are his "issues"? Are they documented?

Some out creationism is outright demonstrably wrong (6000 year lifespan of universe, etc.). But intelligent design is metaphysics that is no more proveable than any other cosmology. The fact that many ID afficianodos confuse appearance with proof is a symptom of an intellectual disease. That is why ID should find its home in philosophy, where it belongs.

"I am speaking of the nature of existence."

I know. But the best way out of the fight between "your opinion" versus "their opinion" on the nature of existence is to stick to what the constitution says.

It's all a bit mysterious to me. I grew up in a family with no religion. They weren't atheists. Probably agnostics. I had friends (many of whom I still have decades afterwards) who were/are religious. But in the country and city I grew up in, talking about religion was kind of like talking about bowel problems - impolite unless you were talking with/to an expert. Here, and I now live in the South, it seems the vast majority wear their religion on their sleeves. When they ask you what church you go to, and you reply that you don't, a look that conflates both pity and disgust crosses their face - as if you were some bedraggled orphan that hasn't had a decent meal or a bath in years. I just don't see why a person's religion is anybody's business but their own and their spiritual guide's. And this absurd equation between spirituality and morality beats the hell out of me. And a sizable majority of atheists with whom I am familiar, including members of my family, has never even received so much as a speeding citation, let alone got into any form of trouble. I think we non-religious types get a bum rap. I'm looking forward to the day, and it may well never happen, that this country elects a President who is unafraid to say "You know what - my religion is my business."

I don't ridicule your belief. I ridicule your refusal to respect the beliefs of others.

I dunno. I also posted it at bikersrule.com and it killed.

To some ridiculers, it’s easy to look at the imposters and with a broad brush condemn even the faithful. Of course the ANTI Christ infiltrated the Church, to prey upon the congregation.

(Matthew 7:21-27) . . .Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness. (Luke 6:46-48) . . .“Why, then, do YOU call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say? 47 Everyone that comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show YOU whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug and went down deep and laid a foundation upon the rock-mass. Consequently, when a flood arose, the river dashed against that house, but was not strong enough to shake it, because of its being well built. . .”

This was in contrast to the man who built his house on the sand, when the tide was out.
Shifting sands of worldly-wise philosophies. Valueless, when faced with a testing environment.

To you ridiculers, upon what foundation do you rest your hope? Still hoping policies of politicians, or World leaders, will really solve our problems? Trusting men filled with deceit, and wicked desires? Oh! How’s that been working out for you?

I am not as credulous as some of the ridiculers appear to be.

Whereas those who have built their foundation upon doing the will of the Most High, have changed their mental attitudes and there hearts. Something No political rulership could ever legislate.

Just one simple example of applying the Bible in ones life would solve so many of todays problems.
(Matthew 7:12-15) . . .“All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean. 13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. 15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.

Hindu leader Mohandas K. Gandhi quote “I know of no one who has done more for humanity than Jesus. In fact, there is nothing wrong with Christianity.” However, he added: “The trouble is with you Christians. You do not begin to live up to your own teachings.
It would more beneficial for the members of TPM to respect the intellect of Gandhi, than the likes of those who would ridicule, True Christian faith. Ascertain for yourselves if the ridiculers so called wisdom is built upon the sand, and surely you would find, if you based your hope upon their judgment, you’d find a worthless foundation.
Who’s going to accept your excuse, when you’re swept away? Orlando told us, or that ridiculer told us not to believe.

Mankind is incapable, of producing the fruitage that the Spirit has, in making the people United in pure worship, in Truth. Have you not figured it out yet; that in order to have true peace and security, all must adhere to the same righteous principles; NO EXCEPTIONS; otherwise we only get what we have always gotten. A world so twisted, and full of strife and war, greed and selfishness, sickness and death.

Show me, you ridiculers, that you have a solution, better than what True Christianity promotes.

Tell me how you’re going to change people’s hearts, in time?

Well, Schaeffer's point was there isn't any way. They'll go nuts no matter how you do it, so you just do it and let them go nuts. Is he right? That's for each of us to decide.

I cited 2 examples right off the top of my head...I'm sure I could come up with more, but I think my point is made with 2. I'm just doing my usual wondering. :-)

Some ex-Congressman from Louisiana more recently, I think. I hadn't realized it was Haggard earlier. He was the guy evangelizing the U.S. Air Force Academy also, wasn't he? That has been one of the most dangerous activities they have conducted, and much too effective.

This is where we disagree. Your "obvious" points are really not accurate. That I was able to show so easily some of the obvious points are not what they appear to be should give one serious pause about any other "obvious" points.

What you and Schaffer are talking about is perhaps 10 million people in this country, only a segment of all conservative Christians.

Reaching to the Choir

Think all evangelicals are right-wingers? Don't believe everything you read. Just as many are politically moderate. Can Democrats win their votes? God only knows, it's worth a try.


Ayelish McGarvey, American Prospect, March 23, 2004

....Freestyle evangelicals -- the term was recently coined by Steven Waldman, editor of the interfaith Web site Beliefnet -- defy the conventional wisdom about fundamentalist Christians. They are mostly white suburbanites in the South, Midwest, and Northwest. Many attend nondenominational megachurches, and their children go to public schools. They number between 8 million and 10 million and comprise 30 percent to 40 percent of the total evangelical vote -- roughly the same number as the most hypertraditional evangelicals, the core of the Christian right.

The freestyles helped usher Jimmy Carter into office in 1976 and gave Bill Clinton 55 percent of their vote in both 1992 and 1996. But four years ago, dissatisfied with a party marred by presidential scandal, they changed course and voted for George W. Bush by a 10-point margin. "This amounted to a shift of almost a million votes. ... [M]ore importantly, it was concentrated in key states such as Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida," wrote John Green, a political scientist and the director of the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron.

Bush campaigned as a moderate with a "compassionate conservative" agenda that attracted Christian voters who firmly believe in the transformative effects of religious conversion. And like Clinton and Carter before him, Bush effortlessly laced his remarks with the parlance of the born-again....

Secular liberals have long misunderstood the kaleidoscopic diversity of American evangelicalism, thereby granting polarizing figures like Falwell, LaHaye, and James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, too much credit as spokesmen. The media do no better, commonly lumping all conservative Protestants together under the banner of the religious right. This often pejorative labeling blurs the lines between distinct -- and sometimes competing -- religious movements such as charismatic Christianity, Pentecostalism, and fundamentalism. Further, Smith's research reveals that nearly 70 percent of conservative Christians do not even identify with or support the Christian right....

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7373

P.S. A reminder. You started out your post with Jimmy Carter. Then you presented Schaeffer as expert who suggest the teabagger phenom et. al. is all about fundamentalist Christianity, because he grew up with it. Well, Jimmy Carter is a born again evangelical Christian, and he also grew up with fundamentalist Christianity, and he chose to blame it on racism.

I myself don't agree with either of them, I think it's mainly about fear of cultural change, but my opinion is neither here nor there.

What I do think people should consider is whether they are letting their fear of fearful right wingers get their perspective all out of whack, so much so that they alienate many who would normally not be adversaries, and eventually appear nearly as wacked out as those freaked-out right wingers.

Obama courted the megachurch crowd with Rick Warren and Sojourner's, and as of yet, I haven't seen him say he regrets it, nor do I see him blaming the teabagger movement on them. If I were you (and Ms. Maddow,) I'd look to people like Newt Gingrich for responsibility for this movement, you'd find better hunting there.

I personally am finding humor in your assumption that you are one of the True christians. In my town, there were nine churches two decades ago. The churches keep splintering and splintering, and there are now at least double that amount. In a valley of maybe 2,000 people. Each and every church and splinter church is adamant that their beliefs are The Truth and The Way.
My husband's family is full of Evangelical christians; they can barely speak to each other for the disrespect of each others religious beliefs.

"a crank and an oppositional attention seeker."

LOL. That should be lalo's handle.

There is also a long tradition of the left using the church to espouse political views like nuclear disarmament, apartheid, and simply choosing a candidate in an election. I was always uncomfortable with this practice, but so many of my friends were all about "by whatever means".

Places of worship can hold many roles, particularly in a homogenized community where they double as mini-town hall meetings.

As usual, specific standards are introduced by one political side or another who is against the outcome -- and only then complains about the methods.

Because no one can talk to God to verify, any side can invoke a deity to push an agenda. This is the fundamental problem -- any side can do it. The most trivial example of what a disaster happens when done is to look at Middle East politics.

It's unfortunate that this argument is being framed in terms of "good" vs "bad" Christians. Really the framing is the dangers of invoking a deity into political discussions.

It's not about whether religion is good or bad, it's about faith based politics...and that is something that Obama certainly does believe in. (Many on the left have tended to ignore this.)

Here is some more irony of "the good old days": Antisemitism is as American as slavery and apple pie. Particularly in the 19th century.

Here is a little story about General Grant. In the middle of a Civil War with a great moral purpose (which he believed in -- he was also probably one of the best US Presidents in terms of his dealings with Native Americans); here in the middle of this situation... is Antisemitism.

Tribalism is part of the human condition and therefore will always inform our politics. There are very few who can see their way outside the tribe.

That includes political parties with their rigid dogma as well. (Yes, Virginia, the left has it's rigid dogma too!)

(Proverbs 1:22) 22 “How long will YOU inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and [how long] must YOU ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and [how long] will YOU stupid ones keep hating knowledge. . .

The more knowledge one gains, it becomes a safeguard, so you will not be easily ensnared in false teachings or false promises.

Then go out and gain knowledge. Knowledge doesn't come from memorizing one book. Knowledge comes through experience, experimentation, questioning, testing the waters, and failing. To claim that all knowledge that is important comes from a single book is to claim that the universe isn't limitless and beautiful but simple and trite.

oleeb:

You have mixed your metaphors totally to the detriment of pushing forward the agenda you seek.

You are trying to make this a referendum on fundamentalism. It's a poor technique and one the left will lose. It alienates and divides.

And worse, you can't tell me where "conservationism" ends and "fundamentalism" begins. Go back to whence the Civil Rights movement sprang and was supported. Remind me that many of those people weren't deep believers.

"Odds with modernity?" Is this from the same group that "doesn't get" Twitter?

I and others have commented here on other approaches that really get at the issue -- not the side issue you keep pushing.

No one here is your enemy, the "destroyer of your faith". Everyone here has their own point of view and often says it. If a point of view is a destroyer of your faith, then your faith is shaky, correct? If you seem so set in your thinking, so willing to manufacture and "us vs. them" mentality, then you may want to think about why you bothered to comment here at all. I'm guessing that the blog title annoyed you and got your attention. Fine. Then argue your points and show where oleeb went wrong.

But in this venue, as in many others, preaching is not going to be effective.

FYI: the commenter known as Resistance brought up the "true christians" vs. "the not true" or whatever. That is where my comments came from along that line.
I was a Carter fan, after some reluctance: Where's this dang peanut farmer come from??" I knew zero about almost anything of his foreign policy, except for the Daily Count of the Iranian Hostages. We had no tv or radio back then, only saw any at friends' dinner potlucks. But i grew to trust him and love Rosalyn, which was a big leap for my little southern-bigoted heart.

We have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back.

But isn't that what Christians have been doing since Christianity started? The Bible makes it clear that Jesus will return. How can you be a Christian and then imply that Jesus' second coming is a ridiculous thing to believe in?

Granted, you can argue that some emphasize that aspect too much and put too much emphasis on eschatology to the exclusion of other things, but Mr. Schaeffer appears more or less to be ridiculing the very ide of Christ's return.

They look forward to Armageddon. Good news is bad news to them.

Well - very few Evangelicals that I know seem to be trying to promote policies that they associate with the bad aspects of the End Times - e.g. trying to help create a World Government, trying to support policies that will make the government more intolerant of Christianity.

When we talk about the Left Behind series of books that I talk about in my book Crazy for God, what we're really talking about is a group of people who are resentful because they know they've been left behind. By modernity, by science, by education by art, by literature.

Well, it's one hting if he is just talking about evolution. But he seems pretty clearly to be saying that Christians should "get with the times" and accept modernity - or more to the point, he seems to be saying that Christianity needs to adapt to the culture in order to become more acceptable to the world.

That is not a Christian position. We can debate whether or not it is a correct position, but the idea that Christianity must adapt to please the world is definitely not a Christian idea.

The fact that large numbers of non-Christians (I am going to assume that a lage number of the commenters on this post do not identify as Christians) are basically endorsing Schaeffer does not exactly inspire confidence.

It seems like the secularists are cheering Schaeffer on because he wants Christians to be more like them. I'm rather curious as to how being more like the secularists should be considered a Christian goal.

My comment was not aimed at you at all, more to oleeb for the general framing of things. It's little wonder that the entire thread ended up with this prism given it's start.

I didn't say anything about the Pledge of Allegiance, you did, and yes, I know about the "under God" and "In God We Trust" which is why I didn't mention them...

I had a friend who went to Brigham Young U, and she said that all students had to take some courses in Mormonism. Her roommate didn't like that much. On and examination, her roommate was asked "Who is the Angel Moroni?" She answered "An Italian immigrant."

wot

Well, there was my third wife (the hooker) who was gay before me (and after, I guess.)

Thenk there was the lead singer at Meow Mix with the T-shirt "That's MR dyke to you.

Then there was the run of three different girls in a row, one in San Mateo, two in *Santa Cruz, who were otherwise interested but for whom the dealbreaker was my disinclination to be pegged. (This may mark one as a hopeless fuddy-duddy in the Bay Area but that's how I roll.)

I could go on...

*Of course...

When those who share similar beliefs organize with the intent to transform the U.S. into a theocratic nation, that group deserves ongoing, meticulous scrutiny.

That Monica Goodling held a position with clout enough to influence the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and judges indicates those of her ilk had made significant inroads into the very heart of our government.

The exposure of the machinations behind the U.S. attorney firings revealed an inherent vulnerability to our system.

If it just came down to people believing, not believing, or not caring about the existence of supernatural elements and relegating same to philosophical discussions, there would be no cause for concern. However, the aspirations of dominionists, et al. are hardly benign. They may seem a needling nuisance at present, but with so much insular behavior of late, the potential exists for them to gain support. These are dicey times indeed.

I've come to rely on my local paper for news. Newspapers seem to be held to a higher standard than other media. Hopefully cable news drivel will be a passing fad.

I did address the attitude of many in this country.

It becomes too easy for some on the liberal left to shrug off and to label any and all preachers, as the village idiot.

Comments given by Mr. Schaeffer
“Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. And we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country: it's called fundamentalist Christianity,

Our country’s problems are not going to be laid at the feet of TRUE Christians. Our villages are in trouble because many have left the healthful teachings of the Bible.

Some on the left, the liberal fringe, have become the enemy of the people, because it does not look to counter the religious right specifically, it only looks to denigrate people of Christian faith, Republican Christians as well as Democratic Christians.

People like Mr Shaeffer make no distinction between True Christians and false Christians. Calling Fundamentalist Christians, Village idiots, promotes hatred and abuse.

How long before a left wing lunatic such as Stalin, decides to outlaw ALL Christian groups? Because it has been determined they are idiots and they undermine and are subversive to your Values.

When critical decisions about such matters as healthcare and the psuedo- Christians make affordability the issue, rather than WWJD, people like Sheaffer and some on the left would say, who cares WJWD.

Because of that hatred or dislike for things considered to Preachy or why bring up Christian values, this country does not move towards Social progression, Social progression based upon Christian Values.

The liberal wing of the party undermines the ability to draw all Christians to do what is right, because the real motivation of the liberal wing is to destroy Christian influence.

Are you too blind to see, comments suggesting “Sane people move past these Christians”, and you think that draws reasoned Christians, to not feel they are under assault?

First they came for the Jew, but I was not a Jew, then they came for the trade unionist, but I didn’t care I was not one of them.
Then they attacked the fundamentalist Christian, but I was not one of them. Then they came for me and no one was left to defend me.

Wake up, without the help of Democratic Christians you will fail,

You beat back the rightwing Fundamentalist, by knowing the fundamental things of they’re faith.
But the liberals will not allow a discussion of what would Jesus do, because the liberals could care less what Jesus would do.

Mr Shaeffer exposes his intentions towards Christians when he comments “It's a serious thing we all have to face but the Democrats and sane Americans just have to move past these people and say, go wait on the hilltop for the end.”

What? Ignore Christians, tell them to get away, Oh, but he did make some kind of distinction, calling them Fundamentalist Christians, suggesting they are the problem. The real problem lies with a stupid electorate wondering who or what is a fundamentalist Christian?

Lets round them all up and we don’t need them, to go to the hills, we’ll just transport them to Siberia. No need to ignore them, just exterminate the village idiots.

If you think this is far fetched read your history books, about the persecution of Christians in our common era.

If you were a Christian you would know, if your not, you don't care.

No, I never said I was a true Christian.

I said those who listen and obey are True Christians.

there are some criteria for the moniker, "christian."
These are rather obvious, and easy to locate. The fundie right people fail on all basic levels.
It's ridiculous to call them 'christians,

That is the truth. Well said Bwakfat
It deserves repeating.

Use the sword against the fundie right.

(Hebrews 4:12-13) . . ."For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow,

and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting. . ."

Using the sword they use against others, exposes the rights heart condition. Showing they're intentions are not Christian.

"Go back to whence the Civil Rights movement sprang and was supported. Remind me that many of those people weren't deep believers."

Their arguments for civil rights weren't based on religion. They were based on the constitution. Big difference.

"..but the idea that Christianity must adapt to please the world is definitely not a Christian idea."

Indeed it is not. But to suggest that they haven't is to ignore humanities progress over the past 1000 years or so. People, Christians included, have continued to inspire, question and advance culture in spite of the dogma that was designed to prevent it. I would have so much more respect for Christianity if it at least pretended to embrace objectivity to acknowledge those who had the guts to be contrary. But the doctrine doesn’t even conced a little bit that skepticism plays a role in making us better people. Skepticism and courageous free-thinkers brought us out of the Dark ages -- not obedience and certainty. And yet, these unquestioning traits are held in high esteem and flourish in the guise of faith.

You see, it's not really about whether Christians are righteous people or ignorant people. Nor is it about whether fundamentalists have a wide range of political affiliation. It's about recognizing that the slow painful plod of humanity evolves us into better people. We suffer and stagger through generations with our best guesses and gradually become more enlightened by even better guesses. Religious doctrine would have us suppose that this work had actually already been done for us -- laid bare by a benevolent deity. What a depressing assessment of our achievements – and of man's potential.

People who think this way are dangerous, especially when they claim special priviledge in a moral sense. Their unwaivering faith obviates new evidence that does not reaffirm their predefined convictions, especially those that might endanger the life ever-lasting. You must be either fearful or completely surrendered. This kind of philosophy doesn't prepare you to live; it prepares you to die.

"The fact that large numbers of non-Christians (I am going to assume that a lage number of the commenters on this post do not identify as Christians) are basically endorsing Schaeffer does not exactly inspire confidence."

I would "endorse" Schaeffer in as much as his opinions comport with evidence and observation. I am of the opinion that anyone who would eschew inquiry and investigation and ignore the obvious, because the results may be at odds with "truth" as they already know it, is unfit to make decisions that impact my life. They fear me (an atheist) because in their view, I don't have a reliable compass (it does it's best to point towards magnetic north). I fear them because their compass always points directly north - it's stuck on the true north.

Never heard of him and that is the problem. None of the "big name" Christians seem to be willing to step up to the plate and tell the people who are acting so badly to just stop...for the love of Christ, just stop.

There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates a bible and, in fact, that's the reason the "(or affirm)" words are there. You don't have to swear to a deity if you don't want to. People do so the religious folks in the country (who are in the majority) are appeased.

Often Presidents aren't believers at all, but make a show of it. Reagan, for example, hardly ever went to church until becoming the President.

There is also nothing in the law that says you need to use a Bible when testifying. That was simply traditional English procedure centuries before the US was even formed. And the Quakers challenged even that. Today, you can simply affirm your oath without a bible at all and not have to bother any deity.

Please stop telling me (and others as you are so often wont to do) what I'm trying to do or achieve. I posted this. It is about Fundamentalist Christianity and says so in the title of the post for God's sake. Surprisingly, that is what the post is concerned with.

"But isn't that what Christians have been doing since Christianity started? The Bible makes it clear that Jesus will return. How can you be a Christian and then imply that Jesus' second coming is a ridiculous thing to believe in?"

Very easily if you understand that the Bible is a book of parables (which it is) and not literal truths not to mention that some parts of the Bible are merely a product of the times in which they were written and were intended to help attract the simple minds of ages past with simple and attractive concepts. This has been understood for a long, long time. The Jefferson Bible is one good example of how this interpretation of Christianity has been understood.

"I would have so much more respect for Christianity if it at least pretended to embrace objectivity to acknowledge those who had the guts to be contrary."

There are a whole lot more such Christians than you apparently seem to think there are. Most of the mainstream (non-fundamentalist) Protestant denominations do embrace intellectual inquiry, science, and so on. These churches are committed to adapting Christian principles to a changing world and do not have a problem integrating the advancement of human knowledge and their religious convictions.

I understand precisely what you're saying here Bwak and it's important to say too!

One must remember that fundamentalism is flatly anti-intellectual, that it is ruled by the idea that every single word in the Bible is literally true as understood in the here and now in the English language and that every word is inerrant and immutable. On it's face that means that in the face of scientific advancement, of the growing Biblical archeological scholarship and in the face of our own moral advancement we must cleave to the social mores and strictures of two thousand years ago in all respects and must ignore things our eyes and ears and our own intellectual and social development inform us are true and right. To adapt, to learn, to grow intellectually and otherwise is to deny the first and most important fundamentalist belief and that is in the inerrancy of the Bible and that everything in it is literally true.

The fundamentalists do not focus on the reponsibilities and duties of a Christian but instead they focus on gaining more believers to adhere to their dogma, "saving" themselves, and slavishly devoting themselves to the idea that because they are saved everything else is fine.

Their alleged ministers are uneducated bufoons and simpletons and in truth many if not most of them are con men no different the Elmer Gantry, trained in a time tested sales pitch that comforts those who find the world a daunting and confusing place, who fear death and it provides an ever expanding base for the enrichment of the preacher and his family---thus the mega churches. The only challenge presented to the fundamentalists by their preachers is to exceed last year's fundraising goal.

NCSteve,

Very interesting analysis, especially the part about the infidelity and divorce rates. My question would be, does these affairs occur only with others of their own religious persuasions within their own 'cult' so to speak? If not, then I would imagine that some amount of pillow talk with rational minds with sinful bodies that makes such talk a requirement for continued access and upkeep is in order. Perhaps their dependence on booty could be their undoing?

Or could it be that all of these unfaithful deluded types only cavort with non believers when they pay for it? I have no doubt that a vast majority frequent brothels, but could their dalliances in sin be exclusive to this domain?

The best way to understand a group is to see what they think a mile is when they are given an inch.

Religions, governments and large corporations all operate on a common notion of a hierarchy where those at the top enjoy a lifestyle quite apart from those who reside at lower echelons of the hierarchy. Those at the bottom typically live in squalor.

Each share another thing in common. Quite typically they are contributors to violence, with those at the bottom being victims of the violence. And in all cases the sole purpose of the violence is to assure that the power structure remains intact. Being at the top invariably brings a false sense of entitlement. Simply put, there is nothing modest about holding power over others. It is a fundamentally flawed societal scheme based upon inequality.

To claim that this branch of Christianity is anti-intellectual is not an ad hominem attack. It is basic underpinning of their paradigm. One cannot embrace intellectualism and also maintain a view that the universe is 6000 years old. It is not saying that they are not intelligent (which would be an ad hominem attack). I've met PhDs who believe this, etc.

Moreover, if one is to believe anything, liberalism included, one has to to believe that, yes, certain notions have superiority over others. Equality of all is a superior belief over inequality, social justice over injustice, etc.

In your attempt to state how you, unlike the rest of us, don't see yourself as the center of the universe, you are advocating that we should just let the Ayran Nation be, since they too have their beliefs. Who are we to counter them.

It is not a matter of whether we as a community should take a stand and say where the line of proper is, but where that line is. In that regards progressives and fundamentalists are the same. What differs is the paradigm through which we see the world and the line.

And like so many, the ones atop of the rightwing religious-political structure sustain a paradigm in which those at the bottom embrace and support this power structure. Nothing is more stable than a power structure in which the oppressed rejoice in their oppression, or at the very least believe it be ordained so.

I wholeheartedly agree with Schaeffer. I've long despised fundamentalists of any stripe, but in particular, the Christian fundamentalists. There is a terrific book called "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bawer that makes this case as well, besides giving historic data about how fundamentalism entered this country and rose to power. All religion is anathema to me, but I reserve a particular hatred for the hateful Christian fundies. My experiences with such people are part of the reason I gave up on faith and learned to love truth and facts.

"Those at the bottom typically live in squalor."

And it has been the responsibility of Christianity to convince those at the bottom to accept and revel in their squalor. Because they will eventually be rewarded. What's a few decades of suffering obediently when measured against eternal bliss.

Very easily if you understand that the Bible is a book of parables (which it is) and not literal truths not to mention that some parts of the Bible are merely a product of the times in which they were written and were intended to help attract the simple minds of ages past with simple and attractive concepts. This has been understood for a long, long time.

What you are describing is secualr humanism, not Christianity. If you believe in that, fine, but don't try and act as if you arre more authentically Christian than those who believe in a literal resurrection and a literal second coming.

What bothers me here is that secular humanists are not content to simpyl disagree with other religions; no, they must try and redefine all theistic religions so that the supposedly "authentic" version is secular humanism with a religious veneer, and so that any theistic version is considered heresy, and the supposedly "authentic" version gets swallowed up.

It seems to me that people liek Frank Schaeffer are being used mroe or less a pawns. At first, you praise them for their good sense in resisting fundamentalism, but eventually, if they become the culturally dominant form of Christianity, you will leave them and then praise those who call themselves Christian but who deny the existence of God. Your goal is to gut Christianity, and Schaeffer is useful only as long as their are aspects of Christianity that are commonly believed but that he attacks. As sson as his version of Christianity gets accepted, you'll move on and endorse someone further to the secular side, who attacks Schaeffer for his "ridiculous" belief that God actually exists.

Until all "Christians" are secular humanists, you won't be satisfied that any version of Christianity is "reasonable."

More likely, the Dukes of Hazzard.

Those who are knowledgeable about Christianity know precisely what I'm referring to. You are not one of them. You comment about matters of which you know little or nothing. Bad habit of yours.

This has often been true. On the other hand there is liberation theology which flies in the face of that and is embraced by many Christians far and wide of all denominations. Remember, Rev. Wright was excoriated for being an advocate of liberation theology. Many believe that Jesus' message is essentially revolutionary and that the Pauline emphasis on obdience to authority and acceptance of one's lot is simply not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

Here's to hoping that many becomes most then.

It's because of people like you, the progressive wing of the Democratic party cannot put forward social ideas; because the progressives have intellectually stunted types as yourself.

Instead of the United States enacting legislation that cares for one another as any so called Christian should know or could be shown, they might have considered joining forces with the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But you give them good reasons why they’ll find their champion with the Right Wing.

The reason so clear to them, the Social Democrats have an alliance with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, calling them idiots.

You stand in the way of Social progress, because of your attitude.
If you’re calling yourself a Democrat, even I am ashamed to be associated with you or Mr Shaeffer.

You don’t run away or ignore the Christian right, you engage them using their own Bibles if necessary, to set the matter straight as to how Christians should have deeds of godly devotion.

Deeds that include Healthcare, caring for the homeless, or food for the needy to name a few Christian qualities.

But you would not be on any list to be intellectually capable of using the tools necessary to change their hearts or their minds.
you denigrate them and they're Holy Book.

That's why I am glad there are Christians like yourself, Resistance, that seem to be ideally suited to reform fundamentalists that act un-Christian like by engaging them "with their own Bibles if necessary" in your own words.

Although you can't expect all progressives, especially those that are not Christian, to share your knowledge and love of scripture and Christian theology to have your capabilities. It would seem you appear to be uniquely qualified to be one of the few able to lead by example in engaging fundamentalists and reforming their worldview. Perhaps God chose you for this purpose. If this is as it appears to be, then I am truly glad and appreciative of your passion to tackle a portion of our populace that can appear so obstinate and intransigent as to be alien to most progressives who are unable to relate in any rudimentary way with fundamental Christianity.

I thank you for applying your rarefied talents for the betterment of your countrymen and the rest of the world at large. Just as Jesus would do.