American Christianity Has Been Hijacked

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikah-meyer/american-christianity-has_b_7839704.html

Mikah Meyer
TBCMikah.com - author, ‘Life’s More Fun When You Talk to Strangers’

Posted: 07/21/2015 4:06 pm EDT Updated: 07/21/2015 4:59 pm EDT


Getty Images

Visualize 30,000 young people singing worship songs, dancing in the aisles, and praising Jesus. Might sound like something from an Evangelical or Pentecostal church. Yet these youth filling Detroit's Ford Field were not from a charismatic tradition, but from a denomination more known for pipe organs, vestments, and hot dish casseroles filled with tater tots: the Lutherans.

Wearing bright neon shirts representing every color of the rainbow, these youth came together this past week for the triennial ELCA National Youth Gathering. With them they brought a wave of hopefulness too strong to avoid. As a volunteer at the event, I couldn't seem to go anywhere without encountering this zeal. Every walk through downtown or along Detroit's riverfront greeted me with a multitude of teenagers raising their hands for a high-five or cheering in elation.

Even beyond the event's participants, local residents expressed a similar jubilee:

"Thank you for coming to Detroit!" passersby would smile and shout on the streets outside the General Motors Renaissance Center.

more at link

[Frustratedlady]

1. This is SO true. I have seen friends change in the last few years from...

compassionate people to whiny, selfish and paranoid individuals who find an enemy behind every lamp post. They are also Republicans, but fight their hatred toward others unlike them with quotes from their Bible. I think the influences that have changed them have come equally from the party and the church. I cannot believe the transformation in such a short time.

I believe part of the influence has come from Drudge, Beck and talk radio, but also from RW religious groups that spew this poison 24/7. They expose their ignorance through far out posts to social media and expound at length how this relates to the Bible. They are terrified of the takeover of our country by the black community, exposure to diseased LGBT and hate even thinking of allowing women to control their own bodies. They can't even fight back at those politicians who come out with their outrageous comments on women's issues. In other words, they are easily led and submissive to others. Those people are not the ones I knew 6-7 years ago. It is a total transformation and it is scary.

[cbayer]

4. They have been very loud and the press has loved them.

This has led to a lot of their success, but I think they are waning.

Perhaps their finding the religious left to be their new enemy will work for us by providing more positive coverage.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. No, it's not.

And anyone even passingly familiar with the history of Christianity in the United States should be able to see that. There has always been a vocal faction of Christians trying -- often successfully -- to legislate their religious values on the whole of society. William Jennings Bryan? Joseph Smith? The Temperance Movement? How on earth can anyone with a high school diploma say, with a straight face, that virulently religious social conservatism is some novel development cooked up by the GOP?

It boggles my mind.

[Frustratedlady]

13. Are you saying the GOP isn't using/hasn't used religion to get their followers upset?

I beg to differ.

As for my "high school diploma," I think I have a strong enough background in my educational training as well as my religious upbringing to make my own decisions of who/what has changed the attitudes of friends and relatives in the last 6 years. It is definitely GOP influenced and supported by a warped idea of what the Bible says.

I am sick to heart to see these people being led down the wrong path by the likes of Drudge, Cruz, Trump, Beck, Palin (in the past), et al., and only hope they live long enough to be de-programmed in their thinking. They are fed poison thoughts and have turned into individuals full of hate and paranoia.

The only way they will be happy is during the second coming when they soar above all we sinners who are left behind. They never had thoughts like these before.

Yeah, I know...Obama caused it.

Sheesh!

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. No. If I had said that, I would have written it out in plain English.

My point is fairly simple: socially conservative Christianity has always been a political force in the United States. They have not been "hijacked". The GOP is not in control of these people, and never has been. The Republicans are little more than parasites profiting from easily riled political capital.

As for my "high school diploma," I think I have a strong enough background in my educational training as well as my religious upbringing to make my own decisions of who/what has changed the attitudes of friends and relatives in the last 6 years.

You think you do, but here you are trotting out anecdotal evidence, arguments from omniscience, and a heaping side of post hoc ergo propter hoc... so you obviously don't.

[trotsky]

2. No it hasn't.

It's been a religion of the oppressors just as much (if not more than) one of the oppressed. There is no "true meaning" of religion, right cbayer?

[skepticscott]

3. And conservative Xstians claim just the opposite

that Christianity has been corrupted by liberals with a pro-LGBT agenda that goes directly against biblical condemnations (despite the sophistry of liberal apologists). And as you have often proclaimed, cbayer, one point of view is no more valid than another.

BTW, isn't this article just more of the kind of proselytizing you claim to abhor? What's up with that?

[MellowDem]

5. It's been exposed...

As a terrible belief system that has plenty of support to offer for bigoted, terrible policies.

[cbayer]

6. I think that is true of the religious right, which is why

they find liberal christians so frightening and are targeting them as the enemy. It is the the religious left that has the best opportunity to expose them for what they really are.

[skepticscott]

7. So why do you advocate anti-theism

by "liberal" and "progressive" Xstians, but decry it when it comes from atheists?

[MellowDem]

8. I think the secular left...

has the best chance of doing that. The religious left is held back by the weakness of religion as a belief system. The most they can say to the religious right as religious people is that their interpretation differs. And given a lot of the terrible stuff the Abrahamic texts endorses, the religious right has more solid footing under that style of argument on a number of topics over the religious left. It's insulting to say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, IMHO.

The best arguments are already the secular arguments against the Christian Right, that is why the religious left is so silent, they don't add much to the conversation, and in fact, their identification and support, even worship of a God that says some seriously conservative things in those texts provides legitimacy to the religious right.

The best argument, IMHO, against the religious right is that the foundation of their terrible beliefs, their religion, is wrong and bad reasoning. I think that's why people are becoming more and more non-religious rather than joining the religious left, the religious left offers nothing new and tacitly endorses the religious right.

[cbayer]

9. As you are a member of the secular left, I see where you are coming from.

But i tend to think that some of the hostility found in some areas of the secular left are a real drawback. When you see all of religion as weak, terrible, silent, conservative and giving legitimacy to the religious right, they are unlikely to ever hear anything you say.

OTOH, the religious left can very clearly make the counter argument that religious beliefs can be strong proponents for liberal and progressive causes and that they differ significantly from the interpretations that the religious right has made.

Again, the overt hostility towards religion is a huge drawback and the inability to see that the liberal/progressive religious groups offer much that is new and in no way endorse the religious right so damages your cause up front that you can never recover.

I'm going with the progressive/liberal religious groups on this. You can take the same position that the religious right is taking and see them as just another enemy.

[MellowDem]

12. The religious left...

needs to account for the fact that their identification with such heinous texts which are truly at odds with progressivism will always be a stumbling block. Some on the religious left, of non-Abrahamic belief, don't have this obstacle, but as a whole, they're dominated by the Abramic faith in the U.S.

Pointing this out isn't over hostility to religion, it's a fair criticism IMHO.

I don't see all of religion as conservative, just the texts of most of the religions that those on the left adhere to, and that's a very serious problem.

People realize they don't need to identify as Christians to cherry pick what they like from the Bible and ignore the heinous stuff, and that it's easier and more consistent not to, especially when trying to take positions against the religious right.

I don't think of the religious left as the enemy, just a misguided and sometimes disingenuous ally, one that does, in many ways, give credence to the religious right by their own religiosity. Not because it's intentional, but because of the nature of religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

14. I could not disagree with your psition more.

I post lots of articles here about the good things that individuals and groups on the progressive/liberal religious side are doing. There are articles on this page that discuss the texts and how translation/context is routinely ignored.

There are some who don't want to see it and need to have an identifiable enemy in order to feel comfortable in their own position, whether it be religious or anti- religious. I do not believe that those people have any interest in questioning their own dogmatic beliefs. Too risky.

[MellowDem]

15. You haven't really stated any of your reasoning...

Just what your positions are.

And you seem to be very intentionally ignoring mine and implying that I have this position because I want "an identifiable enemy". If you want a discussion, you could at the least address what I say and not make up straw man arguments.

I don't deny that people on the religious left do good things, but that's irrelevant to my point. Context and interpretation are routinely ignored, depending on what people want to cherry pick from the Bible. And given the nature of religious beliefs, many of those interpretations can't be said to be factually wrong, and differences are chalked up as "agree to disagree", which is why the religious left doesn't have much to add in responding to the religious right.

And even looking at interpretations/context and going with what interpretation seems the most likely given a fair reading, there's a lot of heinous stuff in there.

I'm afraid that the religious left will remain fairly irrelevant until they address that fact, but they really can't, as it is what makes them religious in the first place.

[cbayer]

16. This discussion is endlessly circular with you.

It would not matter what I said. If you have the position that merely being religious makes one fairly irrelevant, there is no where to go from there.

It's always the same and it's dogmatic. There is no discussion.

I hope for you that someday you will see that there are more commonalities than differences, and that coalitions can be powerful, but I am not hopeful.

Nice seeing you around. Have a good rest of your day.

[MellowDem]

20. I think you're being disingenuous...

By not engaging in any points, but instead drawing bright lines and claiming that you simply can't have a discussion because I said something you disagree with, and you don't even get it right. I didn't say being religious makes a person irrelevant, just that it makes them fairly irrelevant in responding to the religious right. And I've gave my reasons. If you can't address that, it's on you.

After all, that's what the OP article is generally is about, how Christianity has been hijacked by some outsiders, and if only progressives take it back over and concentrate on the cherry picked good parts of the Bible it will be alright, and I'm generally disagreeing with it, and I gave legitimate reasons you still refuse to acknowledge or address. It seems pretty disrespectful of you.

[trotsky]

21. FWIW, you made yourself perfectly clear.

It's a pattern that repeats itself over and over with certain individuals. You did just fine - let others read and judge for themselves.

[Angry Dragon]

17. You have to be secular to live in the world of mankind

[cbayer]

18. You can be both secular and religious.

But in this case, the person I was responding to was using the word secular to refer specifically religious. This is an annoying, but common, use of the word and since I knew what he meant, I went with it.

[AlbertCat]

22. You can be both secular and religious.

Only with a special meaning:

Secular
1. Denoting attitudes, activities or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

2.Christian church (of clergy)Not subject to or bound by religious rule: not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.


******

The other 3 definitions have, like the Christian one, specific applications.... ones for economics, astronomy and the Ancient Roman Games.

So, no.... generally you cannot be secular and religious.

Words have real meanings.... so you don't have to make them up!... even if the correct meaning annoys you.

[cbayer]

25. Disagree. You can be both religious and a secularist who supports

separation of church/state and organizations that have no religious or spiritual basis.

It is sloppy to use secularist to describe non-believers and it is inaccurate.

Is it really necessary for you to make everything personal with me? Is it not possilbe to have a discussion or disagreement without turning it into an insult?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Not without a specific qualifier you can't.

You could be politically secular, and still personally religious. Sure.

No qualifiers, and your statement shatters like a plate thrown at a wall.

[mr blur]

26. No. No, you can't.

You can claim to change from one to the other but you can't be both. It's very simple. Really.

[trotsky]

27. Keep in mind, mr blur...

that individual also thinks that even if you don't believe in any gods, you aren't necessarily an atheist.

Isn't it fun to just make up what you want words to mean?

[trotsky]

10. Exactly.

The only demands being made seem to be on the non-religious, that we need to 'get on board' and support liberal religious infusion for the progressive agenda, lest we be branded "vermin" or "theophobes."

Newsflash: the non-religious are growing like never before. This fact has been posted by the OP repeatedly in the past. I'm not sure why she wants to possibly alienate this large and growing group by forcing them to bring religion into things.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Oh, another squishy, fuzzy, crock of pro-religion shit, totally devoid of any historical

Facts/awareness of u.s. History.