Rusting Car Bumper

Incorrect. Christian ideas find themselves in pop culture. We have TV shopws with pseudo Christian supernaturalism and Christian Rock and Pop is mor epopular than it ever has been.

Actually not. The trend now is giant mega churches that don't take hard doctrinal lines. They say "god is great and happy and good and oh isn't it great to love god" but they don't have crucifixes and they have a lot less of the downer stuff. Some of these churches are gigantic. I mean thousands of members and some are over 10000 members.

DC

User

Not really. Turn on T.V., watch any shows, and tell me that Christianity is strongly in the mainstream? Hell no. Look at the Top 40 and tell me that Christian values are even vaguely represented in the mainstream? Unless someone wants to make a case for P.Diddy, Ja Rule, etc. having an off and on relationship with Jesus, there is very little representation of Christian values in mainstream music.

I'm not talking about "pseudo Christian supernaturalism" (whatever that is). Any Christian Rock/Pop or T.V. shows are drowned in a sea of entertainment that does not reflect traditional Bible values.

Yeah that was what I was saying...my quote was supposed to be "and many Christian churches are going easy on the fire-n-brimstone talk."

Grumpy

It's more complicated than that, since Baptists are Puritans. Or at least, Baptists are what Puritans turned into. But not all of them. What we had was a family squabble, which are the worst fights of all.

Uh, maybe later.

DamagedGoods

I can't speak for other areas of the country, but in my part of Virginia I am seeing quite a few new storefront churches popping up. I recognize the names of many of them as being associated with super-fundy cultlike groups. While these churches are usually small, I think there are quite a lot of them scattered about, and my impression is that the total membership in such groups is on the rise.

As far as mainstream churches go, I think you're right. I have several religious acquaintances, and I occasionally catch wind of concern about how things are lax in a lot of churches nowadays. Of course, that could just be a bunch of grumpy folks that are becoming concerned with virtue now that they're getting too old to have fun.

I really don't know how dangerous the "fundy underground" is. I hope that their general nature keeps most of them busy worried about things other than political change (like convincing themselves that they're the only True Christians�, or making money to give to their leaders).

Koyaanisqatsi

And how, exactly, did he measure this? What, exactly, is a "real Christian" and who is authorized to determine such a thing for the rest of them (other than your god, of course)?

The laws do not, but our "government" most assuredly does. Every President that we have had in the past century, at least, have all been Christians who, at least claim to believe in the Christian god. Our current President has even initiated (unconstitionally, IMO) "faith-based initiatives" that have thus far heavily favored Christian organizations; giving them millions of taxpayer dollars with no oversight regulation (that can't be easily subverted by the many loopholes in the so-called "initiatives"). This is a serious affront to the concept of separation of church and state if on nothing other than a prima facie level.

Not to mention the fact that these millions of dollars are not subject to taxation, thus it effectively amounts to our government saying, "On behalf of all Americans, here's a tax free gift of millions of taxpayer dollars to do with as you please, just because you are a 'faith-based' organization. Hopefully, you'll only use the funds as you claimed you would, but if you don't, there's jack-all we can (or will) do about it."

Can you imagine the outcry if our government gave millions of tax free, taxpayer dollars to atheist organizations to do with as they pleased, solely because they are non faith-based institutions?



It would never reach the floor, which, of course, proves the point that this is an unconstitutional abuse of Presidential power for the sole purpose of fostering (aka, favoring) religion. That it obfuscates this by stating the monies are to be distributed to all religions (though I haven't seen any American Muslims getting their chunk, yet) is laughable, since the overwhelming majority of official church instiutions in this country are Christian based. It is the effective equivalent (all legal rhetoric aside) of officially promoting Christianity.

That's not the issue, of course. The issue is that no Church should be favored by the State; that no Church should be officially recognized by the State. But what is a Church (as legally, officially recognized), but a faith-based institution?

That Bush tried (and has thus far succeeded due to no majority challenge and legal semantics) to take advantage of such a perceived loophole through executive power demonstrates both an appalling lack of upholding Founding Father intentions as well as a deliberate attempt to funnel free money (out of our pockets) to primarily Christian institutions. The problem is, it's not a loophole if you simply replace "Church" with "faith-based institution," so that congress shall make no law favoring "faith-based institutions."

The intent of Jefferson, et al, in establishing separation of church and state can therefore be modernized to reflect this sleazy semantics ploy by simpy saying that our Founding Fathers intention was to establih separation of faith-based insitutions and non-faith based institutions.

What "proof" would you suggest, considering, especially, that your teacher has declared that only 2% of the population are "true" Christians?

For "proof," you would have to read all of the Founding Fathers' complete works and sayings and then take their word for it when they mention anything to do with their Christian beliefs.

That one of them (his name escapes me; I can only remember him as Reverend Witherspoon from New Jersey, but don't quote me on it) was officially declared the first congressional Reverend, however, immediately betrays the Christian influence, yes?

Hopefully not what Christians mean by "soon."

I would also disagree with this assessment. Mainstream pop-culture--outside of the 1950's--has rarely if ever affirmed any cult beliefs (unless going way back in time is relevant to your point). The most political today's pop-culture ever goes is to reflect current events and does not (almost by definition), go beyond the most superficial, topical concerns of individuals in general and not insitutions in specific, so I would argue your point is moot

Unless you meant "mainstream pop-christian culture" is rejecting traditional doctrine, in which case, all you're saying is that there is disagreement within the christian cult sects as to which one best reflects that doctrine.

Perhaps if you clarify what you mean by "traditional Christian doctrine?" Do you mean Catholocism?

Not that I've seen on certain late night TV channels , but, again, this would be a choice of the institutions, most likely because they recognize that the fire-and-brimstone hardline isn't working anymore to maintain cult membership the way it did in more ignorant times.

That there are more "reformed" Christians, however, is even more detrimental, IMO, since it means that apologists are hard at work coming up with ever more convoluted "spin" control. The other night I was watching the Reverend Creflo Dollar (I kid you not) change Luke 14 (where Jesus declares one must hate one's father and mother and brother, etc., etc.) into Jesus declaring one must not love one's father and mother and brother, etc., etc., more than they love their god. He literally turned "hate" into "love." Why? Because no one today is going to accept a "savior" who states you have to hate all of your loved ones (and own life also) or you can't be his disciple. Yet, that is precisely what Jesus allegedly said.

Only an apologist (aka, "spin doctor") could so pervert such bile and, as a result, arguably many cult members who would have considered such a doctrine anathema and awakened from their cult indoctrination are instead appeased in the false belief that their cult leader knows what Jesus meant to say.

Indeed, this very tactic has, arguably, prolonged Christianity far longer than it should have lasted, IMO. Hence the some 22,000 various Christian cult sects throughout America/the World.

Or force it. Which was effectively done some twenty years ago under Reagan (so you're a little off in your "slowly" seeping observation) and remains incredibly influential today (the so-called "Silent Majority," which was rarely silent and hardly a majority). It is these same people, headed primarily by the likes of Pat Robertson, who, through their political weight in the last election (i.e., they told their sheep who to bleat for...sorry, "vote" for), directly resulting in Bush's first official action to be the "faith-based initiatives."

Aka, political payback at the direct cost of the clear intent of our Founding Fathers.

What you're perhaps missing is that "mainstream acceptance" is not necessary for undue political influence to occur in favor of primarily Christian institutions. It's only the voters who count (unless you're a Democrat or Black, if the last election--read: coup--is any indication), so going after the "mainstream" isn't exactly a major concern.

That should tell you volumes about the inherent fraud in the "traditional" doctrines themselves. The very exsitence of apologists, for example, demonstrates this far better than I could.

Actually, it's more like a tug-o-war between some 22,000 "forces," many of which are being (and have been) unified under one false umbrella; the misnomer that there is some sort of evil atheist conspiracy (we call it the EAC) to undermine "traditional" Christian values (the apologist catch phrase of the day).

Check out any official government statistics on the percentages of atheists and agnostics as compared to faith-based institutions (read: cult members) and you'll find that we are in the pitiful minority (some five to ten percent).

You should also reflect upon the fact that there may be many non "traditional" Christians as well as non-theists within the industry that produces "mainstream, pop-culture," but scratch that surface and you'll find a CEO or President of the company who is a theist of some kind, but worships money more than fostering cult beliefs.

It's been tried many times (Touched By An Angel leaps to mind), but it's hardly surprising that only the most superficial (aka, "lowest common denominator") survives. When you're trying to appease some 22,000 variations on the same theme, pleasing all of the people all of the time gets incredibly complicated.

McNamara

Excellent post, I enjoyed reading that. I see the same trends in society, both in my everyday life (i.e. Christians protesting outside a local bar) and in the various news sources I read. It scares me, to tell you the truth. I hope things begin to change for the better after this next presidential election.

Radcliffe Emerson

I read somewhere when the American Revolution occurred, less than TWO percent of the people in the colonies were members of any church.
Certainly more than that probably attended churches, but the number that were listed as official members of any church were extremely low.

User

I think I was a bit off when I said that the fundie underground was slowly seeping into mainstream culture. The more I think about it, it appears like there was a quick flood starting with Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" and carrying over today through the Bush Administration.

This all appeared to happen pretty suddenly. A hyper overreaction to the sixties/seventies? Were Christian bands/T.V. shows always in the mainstream? I have this idea that religion was much more commonplace and uncontested in the first half of the twentieth century. Then starting in the sixties religion became less and less commonplace with Falwell's b/s revival in the late seventies.

Traditional Christian morals (abstinence, sexism, homophobia, etc.) are not in the vast majority of entertainment. How many films out right nwo have graphic sex scenes, ultra-graphic violence, and foul language? How many films in the 50s and earlier had these things?

Radcliffe Emerson

Movie-wise that may be true. Early films did not show graphic violence, it was simulated.
Love was usually just kissing.

Silent Acorns

If I recall correctly, the Puritains left England because they were persecuted by the King, and went to Holland where the state was more tolerant of religious diversity. But they found that Holland was too tolerent for their tastes so they decide to go somewhere where they could be the bosses.