the rapture and anti-environmentalism

hi jim,

I saw this too, and honestly expected something a little more sensible from home boy. He's off as follows:

moyers:
ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

c:
This is an inaccurate definition. An ideology is just a held set of beliefs. It doesn't have to oppose the majority.

moyers:
James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

c:
strawman rhetoric. Picking an extreme case as representative of the norm. One can easily believe all sorts of things about the second coming without coming to such ridiculous policy conclusions.

moyers:
Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

c:
millions *may* believe? What kind of an ass-covering assertion is that to hang your whole argument on? Yes, millions believe in this version of the second coming, but millions haven't connected it to prerequisite environmental destruction. He's extrapolating a tenous generalization based on some extreme cases.

moyers:
the book of Revelations

c:
It's just one revelation. The book is called "Revelation."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Jim Andrews wrote:

> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852 is an article called "Welcome to
> Doomsday" by Bill Moyers. It concerns the anti-environmentalism of
> 'rapture'ists.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>

> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852 is an article called "Welcome to
> > Doomsday" by Bill Moyers. It concerns the anti-environmentalism of
> > 'rapture'ists.

> c:
> millions *may* believe? What kind of an ass-covering assertion
> is that to hang your whole argument on? Yes, millions believe in
> this version of the second coming, but millions haven't connected
> it to prerequisite environmental destruction. He's extrapolating
> a tenous generalization based on some extreme cases.

If one believes that the end of the world is (literally) near (not
figuratively as in 'the future is uncertain and the end is always near')
then the importance of not only environmentalism but many another
forward-looking view concerning the world or worldly things is simply moot,
is it not? If one holds that we are in end game of the worldly existence of
humanity, then one may well disregard things like environmentalism as
planning for a future which simply will not exist.

Regardless of whether environmental plundering is 'welcomed', it is not
particularly consequential if there isn't going to be a world much longer.

The Bush administration is not environmentally responsible. Whether it's
because environmental plundering is simply profitable, in the short term, or
for other reasons, I have no idea. But, certainly, if one believes that
there isn't going to be a world around for much longer, the importance of
environmentalism and other such forward-looking views is gravely diminished.

ja

> If one believes that the end of the world is (literally) near (not
> figuratively as in 'the future is uncertain and the end is always
> near')
> then the importance of not only environmentalism but many another
> forward-looking view concerning the world or worldly things is simply
> moot,
> is it not? If one holds that we are in end game of the worldly
> existence of
> humanity, then one may well disregard things like environmentalism as
> planning for a future which simply will not exist.

not so. the Bible says no one knows when the second coming is going to happen (not even Jesus), so be found obeying God as if you didn't know when it was going to happen.


> Regardless of whether environmental plundering is 'welcomed', it is
> not
> particularly consequential if there isn't going to be a world much
> longer.

not so. The Bible says one of the ways humans obey God is to steward his world wisely. Likewise, the Bible says my body is going to pass away and I'll get a new and glorified spiritual one, but I'm also Biblically responsible to keep fit ("physical training is of some value," Paul writes in 1 Timothy). I'm not to worship my body, but neither am I to let it go to pot.



> The Bush administration is not environmentally responsible. Whether
> it's
> because environmental plundering is simply profitable, in the short
> term, or
> for other reasons, I have no idea.

I do. He's from Texas, he's a republican, he supports big oil business, he has a bad track record on environmental issues. Take your pick.



> But, certainly, if one believes
> that
> there isn't going to be a world around for much longer, the importance
> of
> environmentalism and other such forward-looking views is gravely
> diminished.

Not true. Moyers wants very much for us to believe this, but he's taking one aspect of a religion and over-emphasizing it to the exclusion of other aspects much more relevant to the issue of environmentalism. Most Christians (even "fundamentalist" "dispensationalist" ones) view nature as God's handiwork. They don't worship nature as a deity, and they do see it as a renewable resource which we are responsible to steward, but very few are trying to trick Jesus into returning by trashing it. If they don't recycle, it's probably because they are lazy/uninformed like every other demographic, not due to some fundamental theological flaw.

It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and no one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some facile conclusions, and then declare whatever you like… (blacks are prone to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism). Politically correct people aren't allowed to say either of those things (and well they shouldn't be), but say anything you like about Christians and the general response is, "that may or may not be true, but I wouldn't put it past 'em."

> It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and
> no one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some
> facile conclusions, and then declare whatever you like… (blacks
> are prone to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism).
> Politically correct people aren't allowed to say either of those
> things (and well they shouldn't be), but say anything you like
> about Christians and the general response is, "that may or may
> not be true, but I wouldn't put it past 'em."

Moyers is not criticizing Christianity at large, Curt. For instance, in
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852 he says:

"…as Blaine Harden reported recently in The Washington Post, some
evangelicals are beginning to "go for the green." Last October the National
Association of Evangelicals adopted an "Evangelical Call to Civic
Responsibility," affirming that "God-given dominion is a sacred
responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation
of which we are a part." The declaration acknowledged that for the sake of
clean air, clean water, and adequate resources, the government "has an
obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental
degradation.""

He also wishes to distinguish conventional Christian teaching from what he
wishes to criticize:

"There are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is literally true,
word for word. Some of them

> not so. the Bible says no one knows when the second coming is going
> to happen (not even Jesus), so be found obeying God as if you didn't
> know when it was going to happen.

quite a strange discussion for Rhizome, but not that it hasn't been
here before.
as one of the few people, other than Curt, identifying myself as a
Christian here, i'm also weary of the ease with which criticism is
attached to the notion of "Christianity" itself. i read the Moyers
article mentioned a while back… even posted pretty much the same
piece here http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread748&text0198.
like Jim, i didn't see this as an attack on "Christianity" - mostly
because i've read/heard Moyers discuss religion before, and his
position has never been anti-faith.
i've also seen Pat Robertson's 700 club and it's not too difficult to
make the connections between the political interests represented there
and the Bush Administration (i've mentioned this before, but how do you
make sense of a financial "news" segment that tells you how to prepare
your stock portfolio for the rapture?). It seems a mix of economic,
social and religious mythology that Moyers is taking aim at. The
eco-destructive tendencies of the W Administration isn't exclusively
the domain of profit or spiritual motives.
It's not that "Christianity" asks/orders this of these people - the
same texts and foundational beliefs ground liberation theology and many
protestant and catholic efforts at achieving environmental justice
(they've been the strongest coalitions, in fact). But to say that the
tendencies Moyers is pointing to have nothing to do with a particular
religious mythology seems mistaken. The people Moyers mentions are also
involved in other efforts to follow some kind of prophesy, like
ferrying Jewish migrants to Israel, not for the safety of the migrants,
but for their own narrativized reasons.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml
This is not the kind of "preparedness" Curt mentions above, but an
active playing out of prophetic narratives. And one that undeniably
causes a whole lot of suffering.
This is why Moyers' criticism is needed, IMHO, because it is not
attacking "Christianity," but attempting to discuss the contradictions
between a faith and the policies that are being sold through
identification with that faith that are specific to the US context.
many of my critiques of the Bush Admin (and its historical precedents)
are, in fact, rooted in my particular faith. so, i have a vested
interest in trying to dismantle their particular use of religion.

>
> It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and no
> one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some facile
> conclusions, and then declare whatever you like… (blacks are prone
> to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism). Politically correct
> people aren't allowed to say either of those things (and well they
> shouldn't be), but say anything you like about Christians and the
> general response is, "that may or may not be true, but I wouldn't put
> it past 'em."

Sensitivity is in order here curt, but come on… Christianity hardly
suffers from the same oppressions that either blacks or muslims do in
the US. but critics should take note of the ability of a small group of
Christians (that seem to be using the religion to its most effective
political ends) to use the apparent "widespread" attacks on their faith
to shore up support - not unlike the disgruntled white male syndrome.
The critics need to drop the polemics that seem to see only one shade
of "Christian" and make some coalitions.

Hi Ryan,

The Christian political Zionism to which you allude does actually exist as a contemporary movement and warrants legitimate scrutiny.

But Moyers is constructing his own personal straw man here. The dude he quotes talking on the senate floor is a rank loon. I live among people who hold the exact eschatological view Moyers is describing, and have never heard anyone teach or preach or say anything even vaguely resembling the idea that environmental destruction hastens the second coming. Moyers' entire argument hangs on this dubiously timid assertion: "Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists *may* believe…" That's just cheap rhetoric and bad journalism. Moyers is cautioning against a spectre of his own devising.


ryan griffis wrote:

But to say that the
> tendencies Moyers is pointing to have nothing to do with a particular
> religious mythology seems mistaken. The people Moyers mentions are
> also
> involved in other efforts to follow some kind of prophesy, like
> ferrying Jewish migrants to Israel, not for the safety of the
> migrants,
> but for their own narrativized reasons.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml
> This is not the kind of "preparedness" Curt mentions above, but an
> active playing out of prophetic narratives. And one that undeniably
> causes a whole lot of suffering.

On Mar 20, 2005, at 7:12 PM, ryan griffis wrote:

>> It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and no
>> one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some facile
>> conclusions, and then declare whatever you like… (blacks are prone
>> to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism). Politically correct
>> people aren't allowed to say either of those things (and well they
>> shouldn't be), but say anything you like about Christians and the
>> general response is, "that may or may not be true, but I wouldn't put
>> it past 'em."
>
> Sensitivity is in order here curt, but come on… Christianity hardly
> suffers from the same oppressions that either blacks or muslims do in
> the US. but critics should take note of the ability of a small group
> of Christians (that seem to be using the religion to its most
> effective political ends) to use the apparent "widespread" attacks on
> their faith to shore up support - not unlike the disgruntled white
> male syndrome. The critics need to drop the polemics that seem to see
> only one shade of "Christian" and make some coalitions.

I suppose in some ways it depends on your social frame of reference. My
mother, who is not particularly political or conservative, but is
fairly devoutly Christian, has trotted out the line about Christians
being oppressed, which I find kind of unusual, but then, I'm probably
the only athiest she knows. On the other hand, many of my friends my
age expressed dismay when I told them a few years ago that my dad was
getting baptized. I viewed as a mostly positive development, but a lot
of my friends grew in repressive environments, and a number of them are
gay, which isn't going to make them all gung-ho about religion either.
Here in NYC, I don't know many people who I'd consider devout in any
form, really, except for a friend of mine who's Muslim and tells me the
words "Insh'alla" (sp?) are never far from her lips.

So. In a country that's increasingly socially polarized, it's easy to
find somebody who doesn't know any Christians, and it's easy to find
somebody who doesn't know anybody who's not Christian.

As a general line of argument I have to say that I find the idea of
Christians being oppressed–at least in the U.S.–a sort of repugnant
one borne out of backlash, sort of on par with people talking about
white males being an endangered species. But what Curt says is true, in
the certain social circles I travel in, and I suppose Curt travels in
as well. In conversations with friends and associates who are variously
hackers, queers, academics, artists, etc., I find myself defending
Christianity most of the time. The time I find myself attacking
Christianity is when I'm home for Christmas. ;)

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

Hi Francis,

"Oppression" is surely too strong a word in relation to contemporary US Christians (although in Sudan and China it's spot on). "Prejudice" may be a more accurate word – judgment based on hunch/bias vs. knowledge.

majority/minority; white/black; rich/poor – all that is a bogey. You don't have to be in a minority for someone to be prejudiced against you. You don't have to be non-white for someone to be prejudiced against you. You don't have to be poor for someone to be prejudiced against you. You simply have to have someone make a prejudgment of you not based on fact or logic.

There is this notion that a little prejudice against the current majority is just the thing to even out the imbalance of power. Creepy.

peace,
curt



Francis Hwang wrote:

> I suppose in some ways it depends on your social frame of reference.
> My
> mother, who is not particularly political or conservative, but is
> fairly devoutly Christian, has trotted out the line about Christians
> being oppressed, which I find kind of unusual, but then, I'm probably
> the only athiest she knows. On the other hand, many of my friends my
> age expressed dismay when I told them a few years ago that my dad was
> getting baptized. I viewed as a mostly positive development, but a
> lot
> of my friends grew in repressive environments, and a number of them
> are
> gay, which isn't going to make them all gung-ho about religion
> either.
> Here in NYC, I don't know many people who I'd consider devout in any
> form, really, except for a friend of mine who's Muslim and tells me
> the
> words "Insh'alla" (sp?) are never far from her lips.
>
> So. In a country that's increasingly socially polarized, it's easy to
> find somebody who doesn't know any Christians, and it's easy to find
> somebody who doesn't know anybody who's not Christian.
>
> As a general line of argument I have to say that I find the idea of
> Christians being oppressed–at least in the U.S.–a sort of repugnant
> one borne out of backlash, sort of on par with people talking about
> white males being an endangered species. But what Curt says is true,
> in
> the certain social circles I travel in, and I suppose Curt travels in
> as well. In conversations with friends and associates who are
> variously
> hackers, queers, academics, artists, etc., I find myself defending
> Christianity most of the time. The time I find myself attacking
> Christianity is when I'm home for Christmas. ;)

> majority/minority; white/black; rich/poor – all that is a bogey. You
> don't have to be in a minority for someone to be prejudiced against
> you. You don't have to be non-white for someone to be prejudiced
> against you. You don't have to be poor for someone to be prejudiced
> against you. You simply have to have someone make a prejudgment of
> you not based on fact or logic.

sure, but it's the material results of such prejudice that matter. (i
know, i know - materialism again) do i care if someone thinks i'm
stupid because i'm from the south, sometimes. if i get my ass kicked or
denied a job/healthcare/access to services, i definitely care - all the
time. i don't see how that's a bogey. saying it is, IMHO, is merely a
reflection of the privilege that allows it to be so inconsequential.
the implications of prejudice for a rich white protestant and a poor
catholic immigrant of color (pick your point of origin, and mix the
religions around if you like) are not the same, at least in the
material world we all inhabit at the moment.
don't get me wrong… i'm not denying the reality of prejudice against
Christianity - like Francis, i find myself defending my own beliefs
when they get aligned with things that i'm diametrically opposed to.
and i'm not saying that a little prejudice is needed to balance things
out. but, for the same reasons that i don't want to be aligned with the
christians that seem to be enjoying a great deal of political power at
the moment (and not just because they happen to be in power), i also
don't think we should say "Hey, give them some slack because they're
'Christian' and they feel persecuted." If part of the problem (as one
may see it) is a result of their specific use of religion, i think it's
a valid target.
but as i said before, i think the criticism has to move away from the
"it's because they're 'Christian'" (and i agree with Curt that the
"millions of Christians" statement by Moyers establishes a dangerously
sweeping tone that removes focus from the intended targets) and engage
the problem from both constructive and critical positions. As i keep
mentioning (it seems like) there are many "Christian" movements that
have other perspectives and ideas that the "secular left" (whatever you
take that to mean) could sure as hell benefit from alliances with.

Hi Curt,

I'd agree with you that Christians in the U.S. aren't oppressed, but
can at times be pre-judged depending on how you're talking to. I'd also
say that it's not really okay, which is why I find myself trying to be
a voice of moderation whenever I'm in conversations where somebody
else–an ex-goth hacker who was demonized in high school for wearing
all black, a gay man from Texas who has been cast out of his household
by his fundamentalist parents–makes sloppy generalizations calling all
Christians narrow-minded hate-mongers. Most of my family is Christian,
and they're loving, open-minded people, and I'm happy for their faith.

But that being said, when it comes to being prejudged as a Christian,
what else do you expect? People get prejudged all the time. I get
prejudged in plenty of ways: Some people think I'm amoral because I'm
an atheist, some people think I'm automatically good at math and
computers because I'm Asian, some people think I'm gay because I care
about my appearance. One key difference here is that some sorts of
prejudgments are far more harmful than others, and Christians in this
country don't usually have to worry as much about what happens because
of prejudice against them. Even with New York being as smugly godless
as it is, I bet most white Christian fundamentalists here wouldn't
trade places with, say, Amadou Diallo. Or the four boys sent to jail
for "wilding" the Central Park jogger. So you complain that Christians
are being shit on? Get in line.

Besides, Christianity is different from race, gender, and even sexual
orientation in that it is a chosen ethic, not something born into.
People decide to become Christians, so arguably we can infer some level
of conscious belief from that designation than we can't from the fact
that somebody is a Jew or a white male.

And based on my own experiences, if I had to infer something, what
would I infer? Other than with my family, the vast majority of my
experiences with Christianity have been profoundly negative. There were
the Christian parents who forced a high school humanities teacher to
replace a multicultural class unit on the world's religions with one
focusing almost exclusively on Christianity. There were the Christian
parents who helped force one of my favorite university professors out
of school for talking openly in his painting classes about his life as
a gay man. There were the Christian fundamentalists who yelled at some
of my friends as they stepped through the doors of Planned Parenthood.
There was the Christian cult that took one friend, a woman who had been
psychologically shattered by child sexual abuse, and turned her into a
scripture-quoting zombie for a few months, before she snapped out of
it. There was the woman who stalked me incessantly for years, sending
me long rambling emails quoting scripture in a way that suggested she
was confusing me with Jesus Christ. There was the Seventh Day Adventist
minister who ran his Manhattan congregation like they were a bunch of
Unitarians, even hosting a conference about how devout Christians could
relate to the secular world in a way that was genuine and
open–offering me a glimmer of hope for his church until his church
elders got wind of what he was doing and transferred him out.

There was the minister of my parent's church, saying at the last
Christmas mass that the suicide bombings in Iraq are a sign of what
happens to the value of life in a society that does not know Christ.
(Apparently, it is more Christian to drop bombs on somebody from a
plane than to strap that bomb to your own body.) There is a Christian
in the Supreme Court writing opinions saying that this country was
founded on Christian faith. There are Christians in the U.S. Congress
who are so eager to keep Terry Schiavo on a feeding tube that they
subpoenaed her, leading me to wonder if we will actually be subjected
to the ghoulish spectacle of a woman whose brain has largely been
replaced with spinal fluid being carted to Washington D.C. and placed
in front of Congressmen who will watch her in silence, waiting out the
clock.

Now. If I didn't have many Christians who I love in respect in my
family, I would be forced to conclude this about contemporary
Christianity: That everything good and hopeful about it has been
hollowed out, that all that is left is a shell of an religion grafted
to a political machine. That those who seek solace in Christian faith
are invariably weak or small-minded or simply psychotic, and they would
accept the uncritical belief in a spiritual mystery over the burdens of
rational knowledge and personal introspection. That their political
agenda is even more of a danger to the United States than that of the
terrorists of Al Qaeda, because while such terrorists may seek to kill
our bodies and disrupt our economy, contemporary Christians seek
instead to rewrite history, replace democracy with theocracy, and turn
back the Enlightenment.

Would I be wrong, Curt?

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +
On Mar 21, 2005, at 3:29 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Francis,
>
> "Oppression" is surely too strong a word in relation to contemporary
> US Christians (although in Sudan and China it's spot on). "Prejudice"
> may be a more accurate word – judgment based on hunch/bias vs.
> knowledge.
>
> majority/minority; white/black; rich/poor – all that is a bogey. You
> don't have to be in a minority for someone to be prejudiced against
> you. You don't have to be non-white for someone to be prejudiced
> against you. You don't have to be poor for someone to be prejudiced
> against you. You simply have to have someone make a prejudgment of
> you not based on fact or logic.
>
> There is this notion that a little prejudice against the current
> majority is just the thing to even out the imbalance of power.
> Creepy.
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
>
> Francis Hwang wrote:
>
>> I suppose in some ways it depends on your social frame of reference.
>> My
>> mother, who is not particularly political or conservative, but is
>> fairly devoutly Christian, has trotted out the line about Christians
>> being oppressed, which I find kind of unusual, but then, I'm probably
>> the only athiest she knows. On the other hand, many of my friends my
>> age expressed dismay when I told them a few years ago that my dad was
>> getting baptized. I viewed as a mostly positive development, but a
>> lot
>> of my friends grew in repressive environments, and a number of them
>> are
>> gay, which isn't going to make them all gung-ho about religion
>> either.
>> Here in NYC, I don't know many people who I'd consider devout in any
>> form, really, except for a friend of mine who's Muslim and tells me
>> the
>> words "Insh'alla" (sp?) are never far from her lips.
>>
>> So. In a country that's increasingly socially polarized, it's easy to
>> find somebody who doesn't know any Christians, and it's easy to find
>> somebody who doesn't know anybody who's not Christian.
>>
>> As a general line of argument I have to say that I find the idea of
>> Christians being oppressed–at least in the U.S.–a sort of repugnant
>> one borne out of backlash, sort of on par with people talking about
>> white males being an endangered species. But what Curt says is true,
>> in
>> the certain social circles I travel in, and I suppose Curt travels in
>> as well. In conversations with friends and associates who are
>> variously
>> hackers, queers, academics, artists, etc., I find myself defending
>> Christianity most of the time. The time I find myself attacking
>> Christianity is when I'm home for Christmas. ;)
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hi Francis,

You'd be right about some Christians and wrong about other Christians. Most of the "orthodox" Christians alive in the world today are actually African Anglicans or South American Pentacostals. Contemporary Protestant Christianity in America has a lot to answer for. It's often badly exercised Christianity. But Christianity is also being exercised properly all over the place (even in the US) with the standard miraculous results.

peace,
curt

Francis Hwang wrote:

> Now. If I didn't have many Christians who I love in respect in my
> family, I would be forced to conclude this about contemporary
> Christianity: That everything good and hopeful about it has been
> hollowed out, that all that is left is a shell of an religion grafted
> to a political machine. That those who seek solace in Christian faith
> are invariably weak or small-minded or simply psychotic, and they
> would
> accept the uncritical belief in a spiritual mystery over the burdens
> of
> rational knowledge and personal introspection. That their political
> agenda is even more of a danger to the United States than that of the
> terrorists of Al Qaeda, because while such terrorists may seek to
> kill
> our bodies and disrupt our economy, contemporary Christians seek
> instead to rewrite history, replace democracy with theocracy, and
> turn
> back the Enlightenment.
>
> Would I be wrong, Curt?

> But Christianity is also being exercised properly all over the place
> (even in the US) with the standard miraculous results.
>

standard?

Isn't this the story of christianity, or mythology, however you want to
put it.
We believe in the story of the action more than the reality? The
prejudice of others is a healthy one in reference to religion, because
so much of it is the 'story', not the reality.
The standard story works, like all mythologies as good propaganda.

What's the final judgement of the standard miraculous result?

Standard miraculous results of Christianity in <place> = standard
democratic result in, say, …Iraq?, in America?
its the story of these institutions that deserves prejudice, because of
the history.

Hi Nick,

Biblical Christianity occurs individual to individual, day to day, largely off the media radar. They tried to get Jesus to lead a political revolt and he would have none of it. I agree with you that the effects of one's faith should be real. They need not be limited to the material or political realm (because reality extends beyond matter and politics), but they should definitely include physical healing and physical miracles.

You know me. You're welcome to come to church with me and the fam some Sunday or come feed the homeless with us some Saturday or come to our home group some Sunday night. Send me an email if you like.

peace,
curt

p.s. i like your showreel. you are insane.


nick owens wrote:

> > But Christianity is also being exercised properly all over the
> place
> > (even in the US) with the standard miraculous results.
> >
>
> standard?
>
> Isn't this the story of christianity, or mythology, however you want
> to
> put it.
> We believe in the story of the action more than the reality? The
> prejudice of others is a healthy one in reference to religion,
> because
> so much of it is the 'story', not the reality.
> The standard story works, like all mythologies as good propaganda.
>
> What's the final judgement of the standard miraculous result?
>
> Standard miraculous results of Christianity in <place> = standard
> democratic result in, say, …Iraq?, in America?
> its the story of these institutions that deserves prejudice, because
> of
> the history.
>

True enough. And I suppose it's one paradox about this issue, that
those who are most moderate about their faith are those who tend to be
more quiet about it.

But then, when other people are loudly hijacking a thing that you
yourself stand for, what is your moral and social responsibility to
stand up and be counted as a moderate? I'm willing to believe that
there are plenty of good-hearted, sensible Christians in the U.S. But
if their faith is being hijacked politically to spread an agenda of
fear and ignorance, to what extent are they responsible for standing
up? I know there are some Christians who are doing so–heck, the Roman
Catholic church has just started making moves about being
anti-death-penalty–but it feels to me like many are not.

When the priest at my parent's church said those things about Iraqis,
that was the thing that upset me the most. What he said about
Iraqis–that suicide bombings happen there because they value life
differently there–struck me as the sort of comfortable middle-class
lie that people tell themselves to give themselves a reason not to get
involved. The priest seems like a nice, well-meaning guy, but I start
to wonder: The United States is a country at war. In Iraq, scores of
people are dying everyday because of what we've done. Shouldn't
somebody who's devoted his life to serving God's will be able to take
the risk to speak out? Shouldn't we be able to expect some measure of
moral courage from, of all places, a church?

This isn't just a problem with only Christianity, of course. I wonder
if Muslims have a similar responsibility to spend more energy to
counter the fundamentalist strains in their midst. And although I don't
have to deal with this in my own religious backyard, I've got similar
issues, in a much smaller way, when it comes to the nascent scene of
Ruby programmers. I just suggested that for next year, the national
conference be held in a city in Canada (Vancouver? Montreal?) so that
non-U.S.-citizens who are skittish about getting entered into a
biometric database at the border can come. The average Rubyist, on one
level, is quite like the average Christian: They both want to live
their lives and celebrate certain modest activities, free of the burden
of political participation. But shouldn't we be taking on that burden
anyway?

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +
On Mar 21, 2005, at 10:01 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Francis,
>
> You'd be right about some Christians and wrong about other Christians.
> Most of the "orthodox" Christians alive in the world today are
> actually African Anglicans or South American Pentacostals.
> Contemporary Protestant Christianity in America has a lot to answer
> for. It's often badly exercised Christianity. But Christianity is
> also being exercised properly all over the place (even in the US) with
> the standard miraculous results.
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> Francis Hwang wrote:
>
>> Now. If I didn't have many Christians who I love in respect in my
>> family, I would be forced to conclude this about contemporary
>> Christianity: That everything good and hopeful about it has been
>> hollowed out, that all that is left is a shell of an religion grafted
>> to a political machine. That those who seek solace in Christian faith
>> are invariably weak or small-minded or simply psychotic, and they
>> would
>> accept the uncritical belief in a spiritual mystery over the burdens
>> of
>> rational knowledge and personal introspection. That their political
>> agenda is even more of a danger to the United States than that of the
>> terrorists of Al Qaeda, because while such terrorists may seek to
>> kill
>> our bodies and disrupt our economy, contemporary Christians seek
>> instead to rewrite history, replace democracy with theocracy, and
>> turn
>> back the Enlightenment.
>>
>> Would I be wrong, Curt?
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hi Francis,

I'm probably not what you'd call a moderate Christian. I walk up to strangers on the street and pray with them. You and I disagree about most of the issues you mention (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, Christian intention of US founding fathers). The point is, there's a way to love and respect people with whom you disagree.

As far as being the defender of orthodox Christianity versus contemporary misunderstandings and oversimplifications of it, no thanks. It's taken me two days to refute 1 Bill Moyers overstatement.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew13:9-17

peace,
curt


Francis Hwang wrote:

> True enough. And I suppose it's one paradox about this issue, that
> those who are most moderate about their faith are those who tend to
> be
> more quiet about it.
>
> But then, when other people are loudly hijacking a thing that you
> yourself stand for, what is your moral and social responsibility to
> stand up and be counted as a moderate? I'm willing to believe that
> there are plenty of good-hearted, sensible Christians in the U.S. But
> if their faith is being hijacked politically to spread an agenda of
> fear and ignorance, to what extent are they responsible for standing
> up? I know there are some Christians who are doing so–heck, the
> Roman
> Catholic church has just started making moves about being
> anti-death-penalty–but it feels to me like many are not.
>
> When the priest at my parent's church said those things about Iraqis,
> that was the thing that upset me the most. What he said about
> Iraqis–that suicide bombings happen there because they value life
> differently there–struck me as the sort of comfortable middle-class
> lie that people tell themselves to give themselves a reason not to
> get
> involved. The priest seems like a nice, well-meaning guy, but I start
> to wonder: The United States is a country at war. In Iraq, scores of
> people are dying everyday because of what we've done. Shouldn't
> somebody who's devoted his life to serving God's will be able to take
> the risk to speak out? Shouldn't we be able to expect some measure of
> moral courage from, of all places, a church?
>
> This isn't just a problem with only Christianity, of course. I wonder
> if Muslims have a similar responsibility to spend more energy to
> counter the fundamentalist strains in their midst. And although I
> don't
> have to deal with this in my own religious backyard, I've got similar
> issues, in a much smaller way, when it comes to the nascent scene of
> Ruby programmers. I just suggested that for next year, the national
> conference be held in a city in Canada (Vancouver? Montreal?) so that
> non-U.S.-citizens who are skittish about getting entered into a
> biometric database at the border can come. The average Rubyist, on
> one
> level, is quite like the average Christian: They both want to live
> their lives and celebrate certain modest activities, free of the
> burden
> of political participation. But shouldn't we be taking on that burden
> anyway?

francis, curt, etc…

> But then, when other people are loudly hijacking a thing that you
> yourself stand for, what is your moral and social responsibility to
> stand up and be counted as a moderate?

i agree with where francis is coming from regarding confronting those
that use "Christianity" to oppress others, but i don't think it's an
issue of being moderate. what does it mean to be "moderate"? you sit
somewhere in the middle between wanting to kill people and wanting to
save them? i don't think i want to even exist on the same spectrum as
the Falwell's, Robertson's and Bush's. this problem goes beyond the
religious discussion. i don't understand the concept of a "political
moderate" that exists between the "right" and the "left" - 2 completely
arbitrary political labels that represent how to act in the world. how
can there be a middle ground between violence and non-violence? Between
oppression and liberation? i think this kind of logic allows it to seem
necessary to say things like "we need a balance of opinions represented
in our political process," even when one of the "sides" wants to deny
the right of speech to anyone else. how is the denial of marriage
rights to anyone something that should even be considered? why is that
a legitimate perspective for the political process?
how can we listen to Bush requesting our laws to "err on the side of
life" seriously. how many people has he put to death, both in Texas and
abroad? there's certainly more at work here than a fucked up
interpretation of "Christianity."
to get back to moyers, i think this is his point - the influence of a
small, yet very powerful, group's desires and fears on a larger
political process in a highly opaque manner that exhibits some huge
contradictions in how we imagine our social and political imaginary. i
don't know that there's room for moderation here.
how about human rights fundamentalism?

Hi Curt,

I'm probably using my words imprecisely, again. I don't know you that
well, but you seem like a moderate to me. Mostly when I say "moderate"
I'm thinking about what criteria a person uses to arrive at ethical &
political decisions, and how willing they are to admit to their own
ambivalences or change their minds publically or offer respect and
consideration to those with whom they disagree. As opposed to
fundamentalism, which obviously can take on many stripes: Christian,
Muslim, Marxist, etc., etc. Ultimately what's at stake is the ability
to deal with the basic fact that life and society are often
complicated, and that any simple way of seeing the world is probably a
lie.

Thanks for being open to this discussion in a place like this.

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +
On Mar 22, 2005, at 3:33 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Francis,
>
> I'm probably not what you'd call a moderate Christian. I walk up to
> strangers on the street and pray with them. You and I disagree about
> most of the issues you mention (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage,
> Christian intention of US founding fathers). The point is, there's a
> way to love and respect people with whom you disagree.
>
> As far as being the defender of orthodox Christianity versus
> contemporary misunderstandings and oversimplifications of it, no
> thanks. It's taken me two days to refute 1 Bill Moyers overstatement.
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew13:9-17
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
> Francis Hwang wrote:
>
>> True enough. And I suppose it's one paradox about this issue, that
>> those who are most moderate about their faith are those who tend to
>> be
>> more quiet about it.
>>
>> But then, when other people are loudly hijacking a thing that you
>> yourself stand for, what is your moral and social responsibility to
>> stand up and be counted as a moderate? I'm willing to believe that
>> there are plenty of good-hearted, sensible Christians in the U.S. But
>> if their faith is being hijacked politically to spread an agenda of
>> fear and ignorance, to what extent are they responsible for standing
>> up? I know there are some Christians who are doing so–heck, the
>> Roman
>> Catholic church has just started making moves about being
>> anti-death-penalty–but it feels to me like many are not.
>>
>> When the priest at my parent's church said those things about Iraqis,
>> that was the thing that upset me the most. What he said about
>> Iraqis–that suicide bombings happen there because they value life
>> differently there–struck me as the sort of comfortable middle-class
>> lie that people tell themselves to give themselves a reason not to
>> get
>> involved. The priest seems like a nice, well-meaning guy, but I start
>> to wonder: The United States is a country at war. In Iraq, scores of
>> people are dying everyday because of what we've done. Shouldn't
>> somebody who's devoted his life to serving God's will be able to take
>> the risk to speak out? Shouldn't we be able to expect some measure of
>> moral courage from, of all places, a church?
>>
>> This isn't just a problem with only Christianity, of course. I wonder
>> if Muslims have a similar responsibility to spend more energy to
>> counter the fundamentalist strains in their midst. And although I
>> don't
>> have to deal with this in my own religious backyard, I've got similar
>> issues, in a much smaller way, when it comes to the nascent scene of
>> Ruby programmers. I just suggested that for next year, the national
>> conference be held in a city in Canada (Vancouver? Montreal?) so that
>> non-U.S.-citizens who are skittish about getting entered into a
>> biometric database at the border can come. The average Rubyist, on
>> one
>> level, is quite like the average Christian: They both want to live
>> their lives and celebrate certain modest activities, free of the
>> burden
>> of political participation. But shouldn't we be taking on that burden
>> anyway?
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>