The Sound of Freedom

[UpperWestside 6159]

13 hours ago, 'stache said:

That one doesn't seem to be all that coy about it, talking about Job right off the bat.

I saw it last week and it seemed to be pretty straightforward about the movie having a Christian theme. I left as soon as it ended though so I missed the buy more tickets cash grab/grift attempt. The guy playing the devil was actually really good in his role. Tying it to the Book of Job was, umm, interesting I guess? Just go do an actual movie about Job’s story. That would have been better.

Also every time I see Sean Astin in a movie or tv show I see a hobbit holding a football. 

[Willfully Horn 7998]

Okay, OP. I’m feeling nostalgic. I remember when this was the sound of freedom. Fourth of July. Full concert.

 

[Biff Tannen 45661]

6 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Also every time I see Sean Astin in a movie or tv show I see a hobbit holding a football. 

Ha!  Was he in this movie?  Has he gone maga regard also?

[BrickHorn 18215]

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

1.  Make provocative and demonstrably untrue statement.

2. Receive pushback.

3. Refuse to provide detailed support for provocative and demonstrably untrue statement, because "uninterested".

4. Deflect any further pushback with bloated verbiage that means nothing to anyone, then sit back and smugly know you owned the libs.

5.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

What a life of the party.

This thread should put an end to the idea that there is any substance whatsoever to Anastasis’s bothsides nonsense. It’s nothing but empty rhetoric. 

[UpperWestside 6159]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ha!  Was he in this movie?  Has he gone maga regard also?

He was in it with a featured role. He and the guy playing the devil are in another movie together as well. I have no idea if he’s gone full maga or not. Might just be some good paychecks for him in doing these movies. 

[Biff Tannen 45661]

3 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

He was in it with a featured role. He and the guy playing the devil are in another movie together as well. I have no idea if he’s gone full maga or not. Might just be some good paychecks for him in doing these movies. 

Judging by the way the LOTR cast regards him, I wouldn't be surprised if he's a nutjob.

[UpperWestside 6159]

52 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Judging by the way the LOTR cast regards him, I wouldn't be surprised if he's a nutjob.

A short search showed he is a Democrat who once campaigned for John Kerry and does not like maga, at all. 
 

His upbringing apparently made him really tolerant of all religions, but he is a Christian. I think the paycheck must be pretty good. He is married with three daughters I believe so you gotta feed them and keep the lights on. 
 

Maga co-opting their strange version of Christianity bugs me because we have an actual Christian right now who is the president. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by UpperWestside

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Also every time I see Sean Astin in a movie or tv show I see a hobbit holding a football. 

Gamgee! Gamgee! Gamgee!

 

 

[Macanudo 12974]

12 hours ago, safe sex said:

Just name one movie that is the equivalent.

Spaceballs?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

No, because I have him on ignore. 

[Goredho 17394]

I personally don't give a shit these movies are being made, or that actors are collecting a paycheck for them.  There is a market for evangelical infotainment.  There is nothing inherently wrong with someone serving that.  And there is nothing inherently wrong with someone making a living from them.

But I don't want to consume that.  And as far as causes go, I don't want to waste my time and money supporting the maker's mission.  So don't sell me Blade Runner then hand me a Proselytizing bible lesson and expect me to be happy with the transaction.  And after, don't try to directly recruit me and my kids to spread your word and expect me to give you a high net promoter score.

Since we're both-sidesing this, the liberal equivalent would be a trailer that made Brokeback Mountain out not to be a gay love story, but a western along the lines of Tombstone, and then at the end of the movie, made a direct appeal to the audience to spread pro-gay messages everywhere.

If your movie and ideas are worth a shit, they will spread without the need to ambush moviegoers or beg for them to become evangelists.

[Underdog 28544]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ha!  Was he in this movie?  Has he gone maga regard also?

GDit…. Not Rudy, too? 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

19 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I personally don't give a shit these movies are being made, or that actors are collecting a paycheck for them.  There is a market for evangelical infotainment.  There is nothing inherently wrong with someone serving that.  And there is nothing inherently wrong with someone making a living from them.

But I don't want to consume that.  And as far as causes go, I don't want to waste my time and money supporting the maker's mission.  So don't sell me Blade Runner then hand me a Proselytizing bible lesson and expect me to be happy with the transaction.  And after, don't try to directly recruit me and my kids to spread your word and expect me to give you a high net promoter score.

Since we're both-sidesing this, the liberal equivalent would be a trailer that made Brokeback Mountain out not to be a gay love story, but a western along the lines of Tombstone, and then at the end of the movie, made a direct appeal to the audience to spread pro-gay messages everywhere.

If your movie and ideas are worth a shit, they will spread without the need to ambush moviegoers or beg for them to become evangelists.

this. good post

[elfenix 34221]

 
Maga co-opting their strange version of Christianity bugs me because we have an actual Christian right now who is the president. 

i'm reminded of the time we discovered that catholic books were in the 'other religions' section of the christian book store in katy mills mall

[UpperWestside 6159]

21 minutes ago, Underdog said:

GDit…. Not Rudy, too? 

No he hasn’t. Collecting a paycheck.

[Da Fino 2772]

15 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

What a bloviating way to admit you’re full of shit.

Cite the examples, Annie.

Saw VI clearly had an underlying message about healthcare reform. There are numerous examples of Jigsaw bemoaning the lack of morals wrt insurance companies and big business. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

2 hours ago, Da Fino said:

Saw VI clearly had an underlying message about healthcare reform. There are numerous examples of Jigsaw bemoaning the lack of morals wrt insurance companies and big business. 

and that right there is the true horror, amirite?

[Brisketexan 105043]

2 hours ago, Da Fino said:

Saw VI clearly had an underlying message about healthcare reform. There are numerous examples of Jigsaw bemoaning the lack of morals wrt insurance companies and big business. 

And lest we forget, "The Adventures of Buttman" was rather heavy-handed propaganda selling the message of how the capitalist wage-slave system exploits the working class.  And also, the message of how tight butts are awesome.

[jimmyjazz 45877]

Frankly, I thought "Black Swan" pushed the LGBTQ+ agenda far too much.  (Well, not the L part, that was awesome.)

[Biff Tannen 45661]

57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

(Well, not the L part, that was awesome.)

[chainsaw 9850]

People are upset that GTA6 is going to have a single mother protagonist

[956 Worldwide 34695]

20 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

1.  Make provocative and demonstrably untrue statement.

2. Receive pushback.

3. Refuse to provide detailed support for provocative and demonstrably untrue statement, because "uninterested".

4. Deflect any further pushback with bloated verbiage that means nothing to anyone, then sit back and smugly know you owned the libs.

5.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

What a life of the party.

TIL that many movies, tv shows, and books have social, political, and cultural subtexts; I’m devastated by the extent of these psyops and will exclusively consume Glenn Greenwald and The Gray Zone in self-defense. 

[DDD Dad 14323]

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

TIL that many movies, tv shows, and books have social, political, and cultural subtexts; I’m devastated by the extent of these psyops and will exclusively consume Glenn Greenwald and The Gray Zone in self-defense. 

I also would recommend Joe Rogan. 

[BevoAbyss 2058]

8 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Maga co-opting their strange version of Christianity

With all due respect. MAGA is not the strange anomaly amid a religion brimming with peace and charity. Times up for the apologia. Time's up for the unchallenged brainwash.

MAGA is doing what centuries/millennia of Christians have done. Oppress, maim, torture, burn, and kill the sinners, the non-believers, or anyone who gets in the way of their endless Crusades and holy wars. That strategy worked well to seize South, Central, and North America via a genocide that killed at least 10 million indigenous peoples. Christians told me that it was "God's Will" necessary to found America. If anything, Christianity is brimming with God-ordained violence. No wonder they give the Pentagon whatever it wants. Nukes are God's tools.

It always comes down to the three Cs -- colonize, conquer, convert. Only then are there a few moments of peace and love and charity for the converted and true believers. Soon enough there will another crusade and holy war.

No surprise, the current targets are women, doctors, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQIA+, educators, librarians, and the list is growing.

GTFO with this Christian peace and love BS. History clearly says otherwise. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by BevoAbyss
clarity.

[956 Worldwide 34695]

7 hours ago, Goredho said:

I personally don't give a shit these movies are being made, or that actors are collecting a paycheck for them.  There is a market for evangelical infotainment.  There is nothing inherently wrong with someone serving that.  And there is nothing inherently wrong with someone making a living from them.

But I don't want to consume that.  And as far as causes go, I don't want to waste my time and money supporting the maker's mission.  So don't sell me Blade Runner then hand me a Proselytizing bible lesson and expect me to be happy with the transaction.  And after, don't try to directly recruit me and my kids to spread your word and expect me to give you a high net promoter score.

Since we're both-sidesing this, the liberal equivalent would be a trailer that made Brokeback Mountain out not to be a gay love story, but a western along the lines of Tombstone, and then at the end of the movie, made a direct appeal to the audience to spread pro-gay messages everywhere.

If your movie and ideas are worth a shit, they will spread without the need to ambush moviegoers or beg for them to become evangelists.

As a kid there was one house in my neighborhood that left lights on and put out a pumpkin on Halloween. Then you’d ring the doorbell and get actual Jack Chick tracts. My family was Sunday AM, Sunday PM, and Wednesday night CoC people and my parents described them as “jerks.” 

[UpperWestside 6159]

You know what is always fun to read? That religion is the basis of all evil. Not that people who have no moral compass and instead co-opt a belief system to help them achieve their goals. It’s never that. Let’s get some history lessons on other religions. Let’s get some history lessons going now on people who wanted to conquer the world that had and still have no ethos based on ANY religion. 
 

That rant up above is something repeated ad nauseum every time this comes up. Maybe I missed it but did that ran include a reference to “The Invisible Man in the Sky” or the “Sky Daddy” as well? If not might want to update it for further rants. The absolute misery that envelops the lives of people here and elsewhere is incredibly sad. Enjoy the life you have and find a better outlet for your anger and disappointment than attempting to spread it onto others.

[jimmyjazz 45877]

16 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

You know what is always fun to read? That religion is the basis of all evil. Not that people who have no moral compass and instead co-opt a belief system to help them achieve their goals. It’s never that. Let’s get some history lessons on other religions. Let’s get some history lessons going now on people who wanted to conquer the world that had and still have no ethos based on ANY religion. 
 

That rant up above is something repeated ad nauseum every time this comes up. Maybe I missed it but did that ran include a reference to “The Invisible Man in the Sky” or the “Sky Daddy” as well? If not might want to update it for further rants. The absolute misery that envelops the lives of people here and elsewhere is incredibly sad. Enjoy the life you have and find a better outlet for your anger and disappointment than attempting to spread it onto others.

We went through this before -- he's our resident "let me tell you I'm an atheist" dickhead.  No ACTUAL perspective, just a gigantic broad brush that couldn't be more off the mark.  I'll continue to neg rep the asshole.

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

With all due respect. MAGA is not the strange anomaly amid a religion brimming with peace and charity. Times up for the apologia. Time's up for the unchallenged brainwash.

MAGA is doing what centuries/millennia of Christians have done. Oppress, maim, torture, burn, and kill the sinners, the non-believers, or anyone who gets in the way of their endless Crusades and holy wars. That strategy worked well to seize South, Central, and North America via a genocide that killed at least 10 million indigenous peoples. Christians told me that it was "God's Will" necessary to found America. If anything, Christianity is brimming with God-ordained violence. No wonder they give the Pentagon whatever it wants. Nukes are God's tools.

It always comes down to the three Cs -- colonize, conquer, convert. Only then are there a few moments of peace and love and charity for the converted and true believers. Soon enough there will another crusade and holy war.

No surprise, the current targets are women, doctors, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQIA+, educators, librarians, and the list is growing.

GTFO with this Christian peace and love BS. History clearly says otherwise. 

Be a bigger bigot.

[BevoAbyss 2058]

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No ACTUAL perspective,

Sure, whatever.

Try visiting some Native American art and history museums in the Southwest: you might find some books not on the approved reading list for Sunday School or the local megachurch. Heck, even try some libraries, before the unapproved history books are removed by Moms for Liberty. For your convenience, I provided a few. 

For a book specific to Texas, try The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by BevoAbyss
Typo.

[jimmyjazz 45877]

3 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Sure, whatever.

Try visiting some Native American art and history museums in the Southwest: you might find some books not on the approved reading list for Sunday School or the local megachurch. Heck, even try some libraries, before the unapproved history books are removed by Moms for Liberty. For your convenience, I provided a few. 

For a book specific to Texas, try The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land.

Ethnic cleansing in any form is horrific.  So are plenty of other crimes throughout history committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity.  That doesn't mean these acts are tenets of the faith or even supported by most Christians.  Such things are shameful.

[BevoAbyss 2058]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ethnic cleansing in any form is horrific.  So are plenty of other crimes throughout history committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity. 

Agree. Let's add in the 20th Century communists.

Here is my take, based on reading/viewing tons of stuff on totalitarianism (in all its forms), across four decades. 

The massive danger arrives when any one group believes: 

A) They are channeling the thoughts/desires/vision of an Omnipotent Force that created the universe (The Creator and theism in whatever form) and has a blueprint for life on Earth. As detailed in their sacred text. Ex: Bible. 

B) They are surfing the Tidal Wave of History, as did the communists/socialists in the Soviet Union, China under Mao, and elsewhere. They believed that Marx/Engels (etc.) laid out the blueprint, as detailed in their sacred text Ex: Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital, yeah I read a bunch of both. Yes, resident Leftists, this is a broad brush and there are many details.

When groups of people (A or B) think they are backed by Omnipotent Force or Tidal Wave of History, they then believe they have a mandate to remake society in the image of their vision/blueprint. 

-- For A and B, the evolutionary tribal instinct kicks into high gear and overwhelms their reason, humanity, empathy, compassion, etc.

-- The targets and "enemies" are whoever is designated as: the outsiders, non-belongers, non-conformists, non true believers, etc. Thus, blessed by the Creator or atop the Tidal Wave, both groups believe they can justify in their own mind the necessary coercion and violence to fulfill their utopia on Earth. 

Sadly, massive bloodshed and horror follows. Utopia becomes dystopia. Rinse and repeat across history.

I'm criticizing Christianity in Surly because we're in America at this MAGA moment in history.

-- Permitting religious freedom, and preventing establishment of a State religion (both as mandated in the First Amendment) is one way the Founders sought to prevent religious warfare in the future America they imagined. For the record, I support both freedom of religious belief and freedom of atheist belief, and support the Establishment Clause, the first line in the First Amendment -- which mandates a separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause is directly under attack in America now.

Side note: When I got accepted to UT for grad school, my mom was super proud because my dad was an alum. But she was also super afraid I would be become a communist/atheist or ... get this... a punk rocker! The horror! I later found out my cousin told her he saw me in Dallas bar with a girl with a mohawk!  LOL. The 80s, good times!  

Edited December 8, 2023 by BevoAbyss

[jimmyjazz 45877]

23 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

The massive danger arrives when any one group believes: 

A) They are channeling the thoughts/desires/vision of an Omnipotent Force that created the universe (The Creator and theism in whatever form) and has a blueprint for life on Earth. As detailed in their sacred text. Ex: Bible. 

B) They are surfing the Tidal Wave of History, as did the communists/socialists in the Soviet Union, China under Mao, and elsewhere. They believed that Marx/Engels (etc.) laid out the blueprint, as detailed in their sacred text Ex: Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital, yeah I read a bunch of both. Yes, resident Leftists, this is a broad brush and there are many details.

When groups of people (A or B) think they are backed by Omnipotent Force or Tidal Wave of History, they then believe they have a mandate to remake society in the image of their vision/blueprint. 

-- For A and B, the evolutionary tribal instinct kicks into high gear and overwhelms their reason, humanity, empathy, compassion, etc.

. . . and thus is not "Christian" behavior or perspective.  The teachings of Christ are all about humanity, empathy, compassion, etc.  (Not sure "reason" comes into it per se.)  Few meet that demand 24/7.  Human beings are flawed.  That said, one can be flawed, exhibiting the very human traits of ego, selfishness, greed, etc. but not support the power-mongering of MAGAts, etc. "in the name of Christ" (and which is wholly contrary to the teachings).

[chainsaw 9850]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and thus is not "Christian" behavior or perspective.  The teachings of Christ are all about humanity, empathy, compassion, etc.  (Not sure "reason" comes into it per se.)  Few meet that demand 24/7.  Human beings are flawed.  That said, one can be flawed, exhibiting the very human traits of ego, selfishness, greed, etc. but not support the power-mongering of MAGAts, etc. "in the name of Christ" (and which is wholly contrary to the teachings).

The heart of the issue is this: even when you apply the best window dressing, such as the teachings on empathy and compassion and the tenets of humanity and love, the bones of organized religion are the same. In this metaphor, the bones are irrational beliefs impervious to challenge.

Those bones are what enable flawed beings to not only rationalize, but take the next steps and carry out, horrific things. Of course, atheists can also exhibit irrational beliefs impervious to challenge, and of course, atheists have also rationalized and carried out horrific things, but if we look at history, their atrocity resume is like a pop warner volunteer coach's compared to Nick Saban's. Most of the atheists in history who have carried out horrific things were motivated not by their atheism but by some other set of irrational beliefs like Juche (which is another example of laudable, aspirational window dressing slapped onto the bones of a "trust me, bro" philosophy).

The lore of Christianity hasn't motivated enough people to do enough good things to outweigh the evils that the dogma and consolidated power of Christianity have enabled.

[956 Worldwide 34695]

Internet atheists joining the chat to remind everyone that the vast majority of people in recorded history were religious and therefore most bad things were done by religious people. Also the bad non-religious people were actually more like religious people, so count them in the same bucket. 
 

Truly crushing insight, everyone will wither before such pure logic and rationality. 

[jimmyjazz 45877]

15 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The lore of Christianity hasn't motivated enough people to do enough good things to outweigh the evils that the dogma and consolidated power of Christianity have enabled.

I don't know what the scorecard says.  I doubt you do, either.

[chainsaw 9850]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know what the scorecard says.  I doubt you do, either.

We're seriously going to pretend this is unanswerable?

Think of every genocide and ethnic cleansing that has ever happened, then look at historical evidence to determine what motivated the genocide. If an organized religion was the motivation, that's a score for organized religion. If it's atheism, that's a score for atheism. If it's something else, I'll stipulate that we can disregard it, but it's usually pretty easy to link imperialism and proselytization.

 

[chainsaw 9850]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Internet atheists joining the chat to remind everyone that the vast majority of people in recorded history were religious and therefore most bad things were done by religious people. Also the bad non-religious people were actually more like religious people, so count them in the same bucket. 
 

Truly crushing insight, everyone will wither before such pure logic and rationality. 

we get it dude, you're attached to your irrational beliefs. no need to act butthurt when people call irrational beliefs irrational.

[956 Worldwide 34695]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

we get it dude, you're attached to your irrational beliefs. no need to act butthurt when people call irrational beliefs irrational.

More fantastic insight, truly Reddit is a beacon of a better future. 

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know what the scorecard says.  I doubt you do, either.

It doesn’t matter because he’s stacked the deck anyway by announcing you only get to count the RIGHT kind of atheist and atheism.  

[jimmyjazz 45877]

10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

We're seriously going to pretend this is unanswerable?

Think of every genocide and ethnic cleansing that has ever happened, then look at historical evidence to determine what motivated the genocide. If an organized religion was the motivation, that's a score for organized religion. If it's atheism, that's a score for atheism. If it's something else, I'll stipulate that we can disregard it, but it's usually pretty easy to link imperialism and proselytization.

 

That's not even close to what I was saying.  You said "good things" by Christians, not "bad things" by atheists.  I mean, pick an argument and stick to it.

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

we get it dude, you're attached to your irrational beliefs. no need to act butthurt when people call irrational beliefs irrational.

And you're off your own point, again.

Maybe some of you atheists should have lookoed into a Jesuit education, because your reasoning sucks.

[BevoAbyss 2058]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

because your reasoning sucks.

Lulz.

I can't speak for all atheists, but:

-- Team Christianity abandons ALL reason, logic, facts at Genesis 1:1. The entire edifice is built on an evidence-free myth from the very beginning, as are all theisms.

-- Any ZERO evidence belief system inherently does cognitive violence to reason, logic, and evidence ... and will eventually do actual violence to other people. 

[chainsaw 9850]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not even close to what I was saying.

Protip: If you want to pretend you weren't talking about the scorecard, maybe don't use the word "scorecard."

If you go back and re-read what I'd said, I was talking about irrational beliefs. Stay with me here. Atheists can have irrational beliefs, but those beliefs can't possibly be theological in nature because atheists by definition lack a belief in God. Their irrational beliefs would relate to something other than a literal supernatural being, although in the case of Kim Il-Sung that might be a distinction without a difference.

How would you go about quantifying the "bad things" of religion vs the "good things" of religion?

[hobbes2702 13028]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe some of you atheists should have lookoed into a Jesuit education, because your reasoning sucks

I’m not getting into this fight. But this line is very funny considering the side of this argument you’re on.

[wildcat09 29338]

Freshman-intellect level atheism is boring and stupid and I think there can be good found in religious faith, but I do think it's wrong to say that right-wing evangelical Christians aren't "real" Christians.  They are real Christians. So are Methodists, so are Episcopalians, so are black southern Baptists. And pretending otherwise causes real harm. Here's a good piece on how and why:

Quote

With respect to the “fake Christian” tendency, dismissing anti-democratic and bigoted believers from “real” Christianity is a convenient deflection tactic that serves to absolve more liberal Christians from the necessary work of grappling seriously with the ways in which they benefit from, and are complicit in, historical and contemporary Christian hegemony and its attendant violence. Unfortunately, that hegemony is still so strong in the US that the equation of “Christian” with “good” is a habit of mind that many find hard to break. In many cases, devotion to what Lee Leviter has dubbed “the myth of Christian innocence” is a matter of such deep-seated emotional investment that even progressive Christians become defensive and passive-aggressive when called, however mildly, on how their linguistic reinforcement of Christian supremacy harms religious minorities and the nonreligious.

Even scholars who frequently provide important and insightful analysis of evangelicalism seem at times unable to keep themselves from editorializing with prescriptive theology. More and less nuanced commentators alike have a habit of opining that white evangelicals’ majority anti-immigrant and anti-refugee stance contradicts Jesus’s statement about welcoming the stranger in Matthew 25 instead of considering how illiberal evangelicals interpret the Bible to support their nationalist politics. The Bible, after all, is multivalent and internally contradictory. To be sure, it contains passages that call for showing hospitality to strangers. It also contains passages that stir up fear of outsiders and internal enemies, including in the gospels, where Jesus talks about the coming apocalyptic future.

In fact, most of Matthew 24 and 25 consist of apocalyptic warnings, and there is no immediate contextual reason to interpret Jesus’s brief mention of welcoming the stranger as collective, rather than individual. I point this out not to support anti-refugee views—it is my strong conviction that, after twenty years of failure to stabilize Afghanistan in the aftermath of the US invasion, our country owes assistance and asylum to Afghans who fear for their future. I derive that conclusion from a secular approach to ethics.

No, I bring this up to highlight precisely that the Bible is not straightforward, that communally mediated interpretation is what shapes the political theology of particular Christian groups as opposed to some imagined “objective” approach to the Bible. In reporting on particular groups’ political influence, then, one should refrain from debating their theology (you aren’t going to convince them, but you will reinforce Christian supremacism by de facto accepting that Christian theology should be applied to American policymaking). Instead, where relevant, it would be most helpful for journalists to point out how the theology of a given group shapes its politics. 

Evangelicals have a habit of imagining themselves as beleaguered and persecuted, living in “the last days,” and it is precisely this apocalyptic emphasis, easily derived from a particular reading of the New Testament, that fuels the “paranoid style” of thinking that defines the American right-wing. To be sure, the bigotry and paranoia may be prior, but reading them into biblical texts isn’t difficult, and doing so allows authoritarian Christians to use the Bible as a powerful justification for continuing their bigotry and paranoia.

Meanwhile, despite some improvement in major media outlets’ coverage of evangelicals and the broader Christian Right over the last year or so, sanitization and defense of evangelicals’ anti-pluralist, anti-democratic tendencies is still common. This month, the Los Angeles Review of Books printed the most bizarre take on evangelicals I’ve seen since InterVarsity Christian Fellowship leader R. York Moore claimed that evangelicals were intellectually serious, decent citizens not interested in conspiracy theories or grabbing worldly power—in the 1980s and 1990s. You know, at the very height of the culture wars and the evangelical purity culture craze.

But if you think that’s funny, wait till you hear what Jim Hinch thinks. A senior editor for the “inspirational” magazine Guideposts, which was founded by Donald Trump’s childhood pastor Norman Vincent Peale, Hinch would have us believe that it’s the pandemic that’s radicalized evangelicals. Taking popular California megachurch Pastor John MacArthur as his paradigmatic example, Hinch takes at face value Grace Church’s claim that MacArthur stays out of politics. It’s on that basis that Hinch claims MacArthur was apolitical until Covid-19 came along and the pastor was asked to observe some reasonable public health measures, which he not only refused to do, but over which he also sued Los Angeles County. “The tragedy of MacArthur and other evangelicals’ pandemic denialism,” Hinch laments, is that “the evangelical prioritization of growth and power that motivated MacArthur has robbed the United States of an important source of social cohesion in a time of crisis.” Never mind that evangelical subculture has been a source of division in America since well before 2020.

It’s after spending some time on MacArthur, however, that Hinch gets to what seems to be the crux of the matter for him—criticizing those of us writing pieces critical of evangelical Christian nationalism. “[A] publishing genre has emerged that could be called The (Evangelical) Plot Against the United States,” he testily snarks, arguing that journalists and commentators who are critical of white evangelical illiberalism have simply fallen to “groupthink.” Hinch does agree that the “sudden” radicalization of evangelicals is the result of long-term historical forces, it’s just that, he believes, most critics of evangelicalism are focused on the wrong ones. It’s not white supremacism or patriarchy we should be worrying our little heads about, you see. No, no. It’s the tragic corporatization of evangelical churches that really matters.

According to Hinch, ordinary evangelicals aren’t people moved by deep-seated cultural grievances tied to the ugliest elements of American history. Heavens no. They’re simply regular folks who go to church because, just like you and me, they need relief from “the challenges of elder caregiving, fraying marriages, struggles with addiction, worries about children, lost jobs, grief, regret, and overall stress.”

Per Hinch:

Christians go to church for help with everyday troubles such as these. And it is here, I believe, that a deeper explanation lies both for evangelicals’ anti-social pandemic behavior and for their larger pattern of divisive, anti-government attitudes. In recent decades, motivated by a combination of evangelistic zeal and everyday human ambition, evangelicals have embraced an explicitly business-oriented approach to ministry that has remade Christianity in the image of corporate America.

To be sure, the megachurch model has exploded in popularity since the 1980s. But evangelicals’ “divisive, anti-government attitudes” both predate and transcend the rise of the megachurch. The sentence Conspiracy theories and political extremism have filled the gap left by churches’ preoccupation with market share and media reach could only be written by someone who knows nothing (or pretends to know nothing) about evangelicalism during the Cold War. Meanwhile, Hinch writes that, “Since the megachurch movement took off in the 1990s, the percentage of Americans identifying as evangelical has declined from nearly a third to just over a fifth,” suggesting direct causality. But of course, correlation isn’t causation. And sociologists have long since established that it’s actually the evangelical culture wars and the association of American Christianity with the political Right that caused the rapid decline in religious affiliation over this period, which directly undermines Hinch’s sloppy argument.

But are megachurches in fact less equipped to meet their members’ everyday “spiritual needs” than smaller, less growth-focused churches, as Hinch claims? That question seems to me to be a highly subjective one, but even Hinch himself argues from his anecdotal observations that, regardless of their size, “a focus on one-on-one ministry and a commitment to local communities” are what have helped churches weather the pandemic. However, Hinch fails to shore up his larger argument when he points to the famous Saddleback megachurch’s model of using “small fellowship groups” to “provide the kind of personal contact and accountability otherwise lacking in large, anonymous megachurch services” as if this is a novel approach. After all, anyone who is or has been evangelical could tell you that small groups have been a staple of evangelical churches for decades.

In short, Hinch’s article is a 4466-word-long exercise in rhetorical sleight-of-hand by a man who clearly holds critics of evangelical subculture in contempt and who sees religion as an inherently pro-social force. (It is not.) Hinch himself is an Episcopalian, which I suppose gives him just enough distance from evangelicalism to make his “centrist,” “contrarian” approach to the subject of evangelical politics perfectly comfortable for him. He writes about evangelicals often, and his latest piece in LARB is far from his first overly rosy assessment of evangelical subculture. In 2016, for example, Hinch penned a contribution to the perennial (and perennially false) “the evangelical youth will be making evangelicalism normal any day now” subgenre.

I grew up with Guideposts in the home, as I’m sure many evangelicals and exvangelicals (whose voices Hinch entirely ignores) did. It’s a magazine for believers who are in love with believing, and that’s what Hinch seems to have in spades—that great (obnoxious) American faith in faith itself. Yet nowhere in his new piece does Hinch attempt to interrogate how his own biases might color his view of the evangelicals he so clearly sympathizes with.

At the end of the day, the cry of “fake Christians” and the sanitization of evangelical subculture are two sides of the same coin. Neither approach helps us understand white evangelicalism on anything but a surface level. And unless we’re willing to dive deeper, we’ll inevitably fall into reinforcing Christian supremacism, which is still the American cultural default.

Another piece from the same person:

Quote

One of those unspoken social rules I’ve never been very good at observing is that new years are supposed to be greeted with optimism, and this year is no different. Here we are at the beginning of 2022, one year after a violent right-wing insurrection aimed at overturning the legitimate results of the US presidential election, and I just don’t see much reason to be optimistic about the immediate future of American democracy.

As Religion Dispatches recently concluded: “Whether the first anniversary of [the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol] will bring further violence is unknown, but what is knowable is that, without accountability, there will be no peace.” As the article explains, contrasting the charges and sentences handed out to individual rioters with the lack of consequences for the architects of the insurrection – not least Donald Trump himself – shows how the US is failing on the issue of accountability.

But it’s not just that we’re failing to hold wealthy, powerful and politically well-connected criminals (such as Trump, Steve Bannon and Roger Stone) accountable for inciting a mob to disrupt what should have been a routine peaceful transfer of power. As a society, we are also failing to fully investigate and confront the root causes of the epidemic of both political and religious violence, of which the 6 January insurrection is the most disturbing expression to date.

To be sure, many commentators have noted the prevalence of Christian prayers, symbols, songs and rhetoric in the events of 6 January. These took place after a Jericho March event, where many of the same actors invoked the notion of divinely ordained conquest in their efforts to “stop the steal”.

But journalists and commentators, particularly in the legacy media, are failing us in their refusal to push past their pro-Christian biases and take these political actions seriously as Christianity. Not as a perversion of Christianity, but as a very real, powerful and broad expression of the faith, with deep historical roots, which has been present in one form or another since at least the fourth century, when Christianity became deeply entangled with Roman imperial power.

This is the Christianity of divine authority and violent apocalyptic ‘justice’, of Christ as ruler, of European colonialism and American white supremacy. And this Christianity is not less authentic than turn-the-other-cheek Christianity just because we find it less congenial.

As I have argued many times, the dismissal of authoritarian Christianity as ‘fake’ Christianity only serves to reinforce Christian hegemony by perpetuating the equation of ‘Christian’ with ‘good’ in the common imagination, an equation we don’t make for members of any other religious or non-religious demographic. Muslims, for example, are often demonised, while atheists face social stigma in vast swathes of the US.

In equating ‘Christian’ with ‘good’, commentators elide the real issue: that Christian supremacy and privilege are every bit as real as (for instance) white privilege and male privilege, and are part of the unjust social hierarchies that still pervade our society and need to be dismantled for equity to be achieved.

To be sure, Christian privilege isn’t distributed evenly among all Christians. Those who benefit most are white Protestants, and, unsurprisingly, it is white Protestants – above all, evangelicals – who make up the backbone of the Christian nationalist extremist movement in the States.

Hard truths that are repressed will only fester and re-emerge in yet more virulent forms, and that is why facing them head on is crucial. Which means that media framing matters a great deal.

To illustrate the current prevailing framing – and what’s wrong with it – take Jennifer Rubin’s recent Washington Post column, entitled ‘Trump idolatry has undermined religious faith’. In it, Rubin laments “the damage the MAGA movement has wrought to religious values” (italics in original).

In other words, she relegates authoritarian attitudes, racist and anti-immigrant sentiment and a willingness to destroy democracy in order to hold on to power, to a position outside the category of “religious values” – even though she has already (correctly) referred to Trump’s Christian nationalist base as moved by an “apocalyptic vision”.

Later in the piece, she doubles down, referring to “the MAGA crowd’s very unreligious cruelty toward immigrants”, as if religion was always pro-social, pro-immigrant and pro-democracy. In fact, there are no such things as universal “religious values” – nor are the “traditional religious values” she refers to later in the same paragraph universal.

The category of ‘religious values’ must always be understood contextually, and what the vast majority of white evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) value is the power to implement their theocratic agenda. Christianity can be (and often is) anti-pluralist.

It is also true that different religious values within the same religious community may become operationalised in different circumstances, and that they may be in conflict with one another. Rubin disingenuously interprets Donald Trump Jr’s statement that turning the other cheek has “gotten us nothing” as a total rejection of “the teachings of Jesus” by Trump supporters.

But the Bible – including the New Testament – leaves plenty of room for apocalyptic judgement and violence, for a future time when the ‘enemies of God’ receive their punishment. That cruel, punitive vision of ‘divine justice’ is also a ‘religious value’ – a specifically Christian value that one must recognise, alongside turning the other cheek.

Rubin worries that if our current trajectory continues, “we will wind up with a country rooted in neither democratic principles nor religious values. That would be a mean, violent and intolerant future few of us would want to experience.”

I agree that we are headed for a country unmoored from democratic principles, but to equate those principles with the meaninglessly broad category of ‘religious values’, or to see the latter as an essential pillar of American democracy, is pernicious nonsense.

And if the US’s elite pundits and media gatekeepers refuse to see that some religious values, rather than helping to make things better, can actually be a problem for democracy, they’ll be doing their part to keep the country on the road to an authoritarian future.

More moderate Christians need to stop pretending that these freaks aren't true Christians. They are, in fact, part of a branch of Christianity that has been hugely influential and powerful in this country for its entire existence.

[jimmyjazz 45877]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Protip: If you want to pretend you weren't talking about the scorecard, maybe don't use the word "scorecard."

If you go back and re-read what I'd said, I was talking about irrational beliefs. Stay with me here. Atheists can have irrational beliefs, but those beliefs can't possibly be theological in nature because atheists by definition lack a belief in God. Their irrational beliefs would relate to something other than a literal supernatural being, although in the case of Kim Il-Sung that might be a distinction without a difference.

How would you go about quantifying the "bad things" of religion vs the "good things" of religion?

Jesus Christ (LOL).

Protip:  when you make this statement, and someone talks about the scorecard, maybe LOOK AT WHAT YOU FUCKING WROTE.

Quote

The lore of Christianity hasn't motivated enough people to do enough good things to outweigh the evils that the dogma and consolidated power of Christianity have enabled.

The "scorecard" I alluded to was good acts by Christians versus bad acts by Christians, NOT bad acts by Christians versus bad acts by atheists.

I mean, come on.  I'm not arguing against atheism, other religions besides Christianity, any of it.  Believe what works for you.  I'm arguing that the bad acts committed by Christians over history fall outside the teachings of Christ, and that furthermore, plenty of people live good, wholesome lives of service to their fellow man as Christians.  (The same can be said about plenty of atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, the list goes on.)

[956 Worldwide 34695]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Protip: If you want to pretend you weren't talking about the scorecard, maybe don't use the word "scorecard."

 

How would you go about quantifying the "bad things" of religion vs the "good things" of religion?

I mean, you started us down this road with this statement:

Quote

The lore of Christianity hasn't motivated enough people to do enough good things to outweigh the evils that the dogma and consolidated power of Christianity have enabled.

Making a statement like “the bad things outweigh the good” and then announcing that neither “bad” or good” can be quantified at all isn’t even faulty logic. It’s just gibberish. 
 

[jimmyjazz 45877]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

but I do think it's wrong to say that right-wing evangelical Christians aren't "real" Christians.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say that.

[wildcat09 29338]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and thus is not "Christian" behavior or perspective.  The teachings of Christ are all about humanity, empathy, compassion, etc.  (Not sure "reason" comes into it per se.)  Few meet that demand 24/7.  Human beings are flawed.  That said, one can be flawed, exhibiting the very human traits of ego, selfishness, greed, etc. but not support the power-mongering of MAGAts, etc. "in the name of Christ" (and which is wholly contrary to the teachings).

Jimmy, this right here is pretty much you saying that. 

[hobbes2702 13028]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ (LOL).

Protip:  when you make this statement, and someone talks about the scorecard, maybe LOOK AT WHAT YOU FUCKING WROTE.

The "scorecard" I alluded to was good acts by Christians versus bad acts by Christians, NOT bad acts by Christians versus bad acts by atheists.

I mean, come on.  I'm not arguing against atheism, other religions besides Christianity, any of it.  Believe what works for you.  I'm arguing that the bad acts committed by Christians over history fall outside the teachings of Christ, and that furthermore, plenty of people live good, wholesome lives of service to their fellow man as Christians.  (The same can be said about plenty of atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, the list goes on.)

I generally believe organized religion to be a bad thing for society but obviously that isn’t indicative of everyone who participates in said org. 
 

It’s been 15 years since I’ve read my Bible so forgive if this sounds antagonistic. I don’t mean it to be and I have a legit question about the bad acts. I just wonder if they really do fall outside the teachings of the religion. Obviously they fall outside of Christ’s teachings but they seem pretty inline with the Old Testament. 

[DDD Dad 14323]

14 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

We went through this before -- he's our resident "let me tell you I'm an atheist" dickhead. 

Is that like someone who does CrossFit?

[hobbes2702 13028]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Is that like someone who does CrossFit?

Great now Fitlump is gonna show up and ask us to look at her fake tits

[chainsaw 9850]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

bad acts committed by Christians over history fall outside the teachings of Christ

Those "teachings" are window dressing. I'm not addressing or talking about those. Every belief system has window dressing. I can't agree with you that those bad acts wash away due to the fact that they're (in your opinion) "outside" the teachings. They count.