The End of Christian America?

[hyphenate]

Submitted by NewsSystem on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 12:28 Right Wing Watch

In recent days there have appeared two pieces that have generated a lot of attention suggesting that the Religious Right days as a political and cultural force are coming to an end.

The first was Kathleen Parker’s column covering the recent skirmish between right-wing radio host Steve Deace and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family about James Dobson's and Focus on the Family’s support of John McCain’s presidential campaign. In this fight, Parker sees evidence that “the Christian right finished as a political entity”: Deace's point was that established Christian activist groups too often settle for lesser evils in exchange for electing Republicans. He cited as examples Dobson's support of Mitt Romney and John McCain, neither of whom is pro-life or pro-family enough from Deace's perspective.

Compromise may be the grease of politics, but it has no place in Christian orthodoxy, according to Deace.

Put another way, Christians may have no place in the political fray of dealmaking. That doesn't mean one disengages from political life, but it might mean that the church shouldn't be a branch of the Republican Party. It might mean trading fame and fortune (green rooms and fundraisers) for humility and charity.

Deace's radio show may be beneath the radar of most Americans and even most Christians, but he is not alone in his thinking. I was alerted to the Deace-Minnery interview by E. Ray Moore -- founder of the South Carolina-based Exodus Mandate, an initiative to encourage Christian education and home schooling. Moore, who considers himself a member of the Christian right, thinks the movement is imploding.

"It's hard to admit defeat, but this one was self-inflicted," he wrote in an e-mail. "Yes, Dr. Dobson and the pro-family or Christian right political movement is a failure; it would have made me sad to say this in the past, but they have done it to themselves."

Read the rest: http://www.tips-q.com/news/msm/801547-end-christian-america

[Neo Atheist]

1. until we have a president who doesn't like to invoke the name of god

I won't hold my breath.

[YOY]

2. Depends on your definition of "Christian"

The rights definition and mine aren't the same. Maybe it's cause I actually read the damn book and suffered all it's inconsitancies but got it's message beyond the magical crapola and parables.

[laconicsax]

3. Please enlighten us. What makes a true Christian?

:shrug:

[YOY]

5. Following the golden rule in my opinion. Loving your enemy as they would love you.

Just following the basic tenants and not the magical fluff.

Your definition may vary.

Nice snark btw. The kind that assumes that one cannot develop an personal opinion about a poorly universally defined term.

[moggie]

6. But you don't need to be Christian to follow those

There has to be more to being Christian than those basic tenets, otherwise a lot of non-Christians are Christian, IYSWIM. Also, "Loving your enemy as they would love you"? But my enemy doesn't love me!

[YOY]

7. DOH! First thing in the morning Typo!

Meh...you know what I meant.

[laconicsax]

9. I said nothing about personal opinion.

You said you had a definition of what makes someone Christian. Since Christians constantly trot out the the 'not a real Christian' epithet and its variations to separate themselves from objectionable actions, I thought it might be interesting to see how broadly or narrowly you defined other people's beliefs.

It looks like you have such a broad definition that people who self-identify as belonging to other faiths or even no faith are caught up in it.

[hyphenate]

11. as far as I'm concerned

A true Christian is someone who believes quietly, worships without pointing to themselves, recognizes that not everyone believes, but doesn't preach to anyone. Someone who respects the opinions of others and has found that his/her opinion is just one of many, and not the only game in town.

The minute someone opens their mouth and assumes that everyone has to be like them, you start seeing the arrogance and negativity associated with the Xtian right.

[YOY]

14. Only if they want to be I guess.

n.t.

[rrneck]

10. The same thing

that makes a true choclate cake. You can buy one or make your own.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I like religioustolerance.org's definition of Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm">We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be a follower of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ).

[skepticscott]

12. So under their definition

if you don't pray, they will refuse to accept you as a Christian. How magnanimous of them.

[ZombieHorde]

15. I don't view it as quite that strict, but Christians usually pray.

Just like Buddhists with meditation.

[Why Syzygy]

16. Why would you want to claim Christianity and reject prayer? nt

[skepticscott]

17. I wouldn't claim Christianity at all

as for why someone else would claim Christianity and reject prayer, that's pretty much their own business, isn't it? Who has any more right or wisdom to judge whether they qualify than anyone else?

[Why Syzygy]

18. So your quibble

with the link between prayer and Christian was just to quibble (and pass judgment), even though you have no stake whatsoever. mmkay

[skepticscott]

19. Uh, unless I'm mistaken

It's religioustolerance.org that's passing judgement on who does and does not qualify as a Christian, even though THEY have no stake in that whatsoever. And yes, I am expressing disapproval of that. Are you saying that people with no personal stake in an issue have no right to express an opinion about it? Nahhhhhh....that can't be what you're saying, 'cause that'd be idiotic.

[Why Syzygy]

20. They certainly do have a stake

since the whole purpose of their site is to examine religions and associated topics.
I'm guessing you exercise your right to disapprove of just about everything.
What's idiotic is a perverse need to state objections to things that have no meaning for someone.
The KKK has a "right" to assemble and object to people they disapprove of. Go for it! :freak:

[skepticscott]

21. Is that a "stake"?

Explain to me how it hurts or helps them if certain people are or are not included under the mantle of Christianity? And yes, I do exercise my right to disapprove when I simply feel that something is wrong. I don't reserve my disapproval for situations involving my own self-interest. I don't think any religion is true, but I would object strongly to any attempts by government to declare some religions "true" and others false and prohibited. Problem with that? I'm not gay, so should I just sit by and say nothing about discrimination against gays, since it doesn't affect me directly?

And why stop at invoking the KKK? Why not just go all in, and bring the Nazis into it?

[Why Syzygy]

22. You should go to the site and check it out for yourself.

Clearly under-informed. eom

[sakabatou]

4. Sure most of the people in the US are Christian

but the US has never been a Christian nation.

*points to Treaty of Tripoli*

[skepticscott]

13. I tend to regard with suspicion

Any book, article or column entitled "The End/Death of (fill in the blank)" Whether it's the End of History, the End of Science, the Death of God, the Death of Liberalism, The End of Conservatism, or dozens of others, titles like these are just ways to suck attention, and the substance behind them is rarely enough to justify the hype.

[anonymous171]

23. That's what happens when you combine a religion with a political movement.

Good riddance.