Euromutt

Justice Earl Warren? As in "the Warren Commission"? As in "that study in obfuscation in cooking up an utterly icredible version of the assassination of JFK"? Yeah, I remember the name: was he corrupt or just stupid? What a marvellous example of an upstanding Christian(!)

OK, none of you are going to like this reply, but what exactly was factually incorrect about Bowles' article? While she may be wrong about this being a conspiracy (I can't see the future to tell if she will be proven correct or not), I think that the recent history of culture in America is indeed a slide toward smut and profanity, and yes, a demonization of Christianity. Religion, and in particular Christianity, has been stripped from the public square. The closest anyone came to responding to the article was DougI's sarcastic rejoinders. Some of you have been honest enough to say that Christianity should be demonized, but few have been candid enough to admit and praise this slide, which I believe can be attributed to the moral relativism which is endemic to liberalism, the idea that there is no truth, there is only "your truth" and "my truth".
For myself, I would like to see a civil, cordial debate on the history of church-state separation.

Toto

What was correct about it? We don't know that Fineman ever made the quote she claims, we know that most of the left is not heathen but just a different kind of Christian or Jew. Where is the "unified chorus" she is talking about? Who is the celebrity serial killer she is talking about? This article is just a rant from a particular point of view.



If you watch TV, you are probably seeing more smut and profanity. But where is this demonization of Christianity?

I would say that any slide towards smut and profanity is due to market capitalism. Producers produce what the public wants. Are you a socialist?



Religion is all over the place. It just doesn't get government funding. That's how it should be.



You made a few giant leaps there. Who said Christianity should be demonized? Christianity has enough faults, but most are not listed on this thread.

And not all of us here are moral relativists or liberals.

That's what we like to do here, but Linda Bowles' article was not cordial or civil. You can check the archives for some of our previous discussions on American history.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

fromtheright

a/k/a Gene
I was registered as fromstarboard/Gene but had mistakenly double-registered, and have had that ID deleted.
Thanks for your response.
OK, so maybe no one said directly that Christianity should be demonized. The note was rather that it be quarantined as a virus. Not much difference.
Also, re-read my statement about moral relativism--it was in reference to America's moral slide, not anyone in the discussion forum. I am aware that not all atheists are moral relativists, but the only ones I know, out of my ignorance, who aren't are followers of Ayn Rand.
Yes, religion is all over the place, there are churches on lots of corners but the culture in which we live is increasingly hostile to Christrianity and that should be obvious to anyone who will look. Yes, as DougI said, it is a free market, and as you said, what we see in entertainment is a market response, but it is also part of the lament of Christian conservatives that the American public has so coarsened as to welcome such trash. No, before, someone looks to twist that statement, I don't wish for government to censor this, only that many of us wish that America would return to a system of morality that rejects the garbage, and that "Hollywood" would police itself as guardians of public morality, rather than acting like enemies of it.
You haven't read in my posting that government should fund religion (which is why I disagree with "faith-based initiatives" for the reason that religion will suffer by that mix), but baccalaureate services are attacked, Ten Commandments are pulled off walls, prayers at high school football games are banned. These things are happening and I think that our society and culture suffer in the process. That does not mean that me or other conservatives wish to go back to Plessy v. Ferguson or other such wild accusations as some of those above have posted.
I am brand new to this forum (and I hope not unwelcome, I enjoy the exchange)--could you point me in one of the forums to the historical debate you mentioned? And I'm curious if it is really debate.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Daggah

Yes, Christians have it so hard these days. Sure!

You know, the Bible itself contains quite a lot of bloodshed. Would you have it that America return to a system of more stringent morals and subsequently toss out the Bible, too?

All of these things because these things are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Prayer at high school football games is not banned...enforced, public prayer is. The Ten Commandments are unconstitutional when displayed on public land via public government endorsement. I don't know what you're referring to with the other, so I won't comment.

Yes, bringing back prayer and a set of half-ridiculous, half-self-evident moral codes that don't even include bans of such actions as rape will magically make everything better. Where's the logic behind this?

Toto

Fromtheright a/k/a Gene a/k/a fromstarboard:

We do welcome Christians here, to get some variety in opinions. Christians usually agree with the general idea of separation of church and state.

For an example of some of our past discussions, look at this thread, which has been archived. It was a long discussion initiated by a Christian:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000357&p=" target="_blank">George Washington was a Christian</a>

It got a little contentious, but stayed within the bounds of decency, as I recall.

As for your idea that the culture is hostile to Christianity - I think the culture rejects the intolerant brand of Christianity that Jerry Falwell represents, and I applaud that. And I think that the culture has rejected the sexual repressiveness of the nineteenth century - but many of the people rejecting that consider themselves Christians.

Do you consider sexual repression to be part of Christianity?

Surveys continue to show that most people in this country believe in God, consider themselves Christian, and don't want their sons/daughters/sisters to marry an atheist. Admitting that you are an atheist is considered a kiss of death for a politician. Christian ministers are routinely given access to the media. Football players routinely pray in public. Christian holidays are national holidays.

When was the last time you heard an avowed atheist on national television? What major celbrities have made a point about speaking out for atheism?

So when Christians complain about hostility to Christianity, atheists can't take them seriously.

But I think you, like the late Steve Allen, are just upset with the increasing sleaze of modern entertainment, which is something conservatives have been complaining about since roughly 500 B.C.

gravitybow

fromtheright, I see you're already taking (mis)cues from Ms. Bowles who said: Perhaps the greatest challenge facing America today is whether people of faith will allow themselves to be quarantined.


So whose note are you referring to? Mine?
If you reread what I wrote, I clearly poohed the notion that there was any such thing as a quarantine.

4th Generation Atheist then chimed in, also stating that if quarantine were the goal, it would have already been done a long time ago. Well, it wasn't, now was it?

Thor Q. Mada's note is easily rendered tongue-in-cheek by his incredulous rejoinder Why didn't I think of this myself??, as if he had never heard these woeful laments a la Bowles before.

The silly idea of quarantine came from Bowles, which we rightly ridiculed.

Now, if you want to read some real demonizing, why don't you refresh your memory about who some of those godly, from-the-right millionaire evangelists, who influence their flocks of millions, who incessantly appear in print, on the radio, on television, blamed for the 9-11 attacks?

(edited for format)

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

fromtheright

Toto,
Thanks for the welcome.
I'm new to this forum so I'll give this "Quote" feature a shot:

Yes, I do agree with the "general idea of separation of church and state." But that is not to say that I agree that state and morality should be separated. Thank you for pointing me to the George Washington was a Christian forum, which I read but one item that I was disappointed to see that its originator didn't include was the paragraph from Washington's Farewell Address re religion and morality:
No, I don't introduce that paragraph as part of that debate or as evidence that Washington was a Christian (by the way, I would love to see further evidence that David Barton's work is fraudulent as I have my own arguments with some of it, though I agree with what I think is his general thrust, which is that Christian influences on the Founding were much stronger than given credit for my much of what passes for history), only to posit that he knew that morality separated from religion is a mistake, and because I know it would give you secularists fits.

Toto, I think the culture is more than simply intolerant of the Falwell's of this country. To see it ridicule Christian (or call them fundamentalist, if you will) notions of decency, of marital fidelity is more than a reaction to Falwell. No, I don't see sexual repression to be part of Christianity. I do see sexual purity outside of marriage as part of it, though. And while I would not be foolish enough to say that American society has been purist in that regard, it has never so thoroughly rejected the notion as it has in recent decades. And your more sarcastic secular friends can spare me the examples of the moral failings of Jimmy Swaggart, et al. Individuals can be found everywhere who fail to reach a standard but that does not mean the standard is meaningless. Today, though, I think we all see more than ever efforts to pull down those standards.

Many of those same surveys would show an increasing disregard for traditional standards of sexual morality. Football players so far are still allowed to pray in public but woe unto the community who allow high school students to pray over a loudspeaker before a football game, however, innocuous or bleached of Christian references such prayers may be.

Perhaps not speaking out for atheism but many who do not hesitate to ridicule Christianity or mock its values. And those who do so are now held up as taking the "honorable" position, the decent position, and, yes, the politically correct position.

Toto, the fact that you apparently don't hesitate to label it sleaze tells me (let me know if I'm wrong) that you don't think it healthy; in fact, the word is rather connotative of being unhealthy. Yes, conservatives complain about the increasing sleaze of modern entertainment, because we think it unhealthy for society. Does that make us fools? I would argue that those who defend sleaze despite its being unhealthy to society are the fools. And let me again beat those idiots to the punch who would put words in my mouth that I am saying such sleaze should be censored by government; no, I am not (though I don't think that is beyond debate), my point is simply that society has rather slipped its earlier self-imposed bounds.

Toto

You seem to equate religion with morality. I don't. We have an entire forum devoted to the question of morality without religion. And I do not equate morality with an obsession with sexual purity, inside or outside of marriage.

Please give an example of someone mocking Christianity or Christian values. I like to keep track.

I mentioned Steve Allen because he was basically not religious, but was part of an attack on too much sex and violence in the media. So I don't think that is a Christian issue, although some Christian groups may be trying to use it.

I haven't read Barton's book - perhaps that should be my next project.

fromtheright

That wasn't me speaking, it was George Washington (well maybe Hamilton or Madison's according to historians)'s words. Fortunately, though, I do think that most Americans at least still give lip service to that notion.

Come now, Toto, just spend an evening watching network television, or a few sitcoms. I won't belabor you with examples you can easily glean in an evening watching TV trash. I would point you to a source that you'll probably get a chuckle out of me referencing, though, which is the American Family Association newsletter which details each month such disparaging of Christian values.

"[P]art of an attack on too much sex and violence in the media"? Was it wrong for him to "attack" "too much sex and violence in the media", assuming that he was correct in his perception or viewpoint that it is too much? And to say that because some secularists agree that it is an issue means that it is not a Christian issue is simply fallacious. Some secularists and some Christians can agree that it is an issue, and it can be an issue for each for different reasons, as in the case of femininists and fundamentalist Christians opposing pornography.

Oh, he has several books, audios, and videos. For a more balanced presentation of the conservative side of that debate I recommend Robert Cord's, The Separation of Church and State.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>