Christian right looks to rebound

[Achilles]

Link

BRANDON, Fla. - Headed into the 2008 election season, Christian conservatives are weary. Their movement has lost iconic leaders and the Republican presidential field is uninspiring. But they may have found hope in a trailer on the campus of Bell Shoals Baptist Church.

I found this part particularly interesting:

"I just feel the opposition is growing so strong, I need to grow stronger," said Klingman, 34, who drove two hours from the one-stoplight town of Hawthorne to join activists in this Tampa suburb.

Keep in mind that "opposition" = people that just want to live their lives with the same basic rights as everyone else and don't like being told how to think by conservatives. I find it disturbing that there is a group of people that think they are justified in opposing the efforts of others to stand up for their rights.

[Jae Onasi]

This group has a right to promote their views just like any other group. It's still a free country. Would you censor them because you don't agree with them?

[Achilles]

This group has a right to promote their views just like any other group.

Did someone say that they didn't?

 

It's still a free country.

Perhaps that message would be better served at one of these rallies.

 

Would you censor them because you don't agree with them?

*wonders where the censorship bent came from*

No, Jae, I try to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible, so no, I wouldn't seek to censor them in any way.

[Jae Onasi]

I find it disturbing that there is a group of people that think they are justified in opposing the efforts of others to stand up for their rights.

 

What would you suggest be done with them, then, since you're disturbed by what they're doing?

[Achilles]

What would you suggest be done with them, then, since you're disturbed by what they're doing?

Gee, there are so many options. Round them all up and ship them to forced labor camps, march them at gun point off a cliff, tie them to trees and smear them with honey....or I suppose I could just sit here and be disturbed by them. Is there a rule I don't know about that requires me to do anything when something disturbs me?

 

In a ideal world, we could all sit down to talk and reason this out, but ideology tends to make such interactions difficult. Dogmatic ideologies make them impossible. Is there some way I can cause them to abandon their dogmatic ideologies?

[Totenkopf]

Ain't "democracy" grand. I agree, I don't think there's pretty much anything you can do but stew. Unless, of course, you want to get involved beyond merely complaining in a forum that the world is not what you'd like it to be.

[Jae Onasi]

Gee, there are so many options. Round them all up and ship them to forced labor camps, march them at gun point off a cliff, tie them to trees and smear them with honey....or I suppose I could just sit here and be disturbed by them.

 

Is there a rule I don't know about that requires me to do anything when something disturbs me?

 

Oh, got it. Just another anti-Christian rant. Carry on.

[Achilles]

Oh, got it. Just another anti-Christian rant. Carry on.

I notice that you didn't answer the question. Surprising.

 

There was a second paragraph, Jae. Any commentary on that?

[mimartin]

Is there some way I can cause them to abandon their dogmatic ideologies?

No. Although I disagree that they are truly Christians. Seems to me that to be a Christian you need to follow the example set by Christ. I seem to remember Christ setting down and breaking bread with people that these people would surely condemn. Perhaps the addition of the word Conservatives to Christian changes the definition of what it means to be a Christian.

 

I have the same problem with these people that I have with other groups that try to force their belief structure on to others through legislation and the courts.

[Achilles]

No. Although I disagree that they are truly Christians.

It seems that many of these conversations end up trying to operationally define what it is to be a christian.

 

Seems to me that to be a Christian you need to follow the example set by Christ.

That would seem reasonable, as would 'striving to be christ-like' or, 'believing that jesus christ was the messiah'. Unfortunately each of these would seem to have varying degrees of commitment.

 

I seem to remember Christ setting down and breaking bread with people that these people would surely condemn.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I frequently hear the argument that jesus would heal the sick and then tell his flock to go forth and sin no more used to condemn these groups while at the same time appearing to accept them with open arms. I guess the question I would like answered is how much of jesus' message leaves us in a position to pass judgment on others (and in turn, how much conservatism "gets it wrong" vs "takes it too far", etc)?

 

Perhaps the addition of the word Conservatives to Christian changes the definition of what it means to be a Christian.

Perhaps.

 

I have the same problem with these people that I have with other groups that try to force their belief structure on to others through legislation and the courts.

In the interest of having a common frame of reference, could I ask you for examples?

 

Thanks for your post.

[mimartin]

I guess the question I would like answered is how much of jesus' message leaves us in a position to pass judgment on others[/Quote]In my personal opinion it tells me not to judge others at all. I’m a sinner and until I’m no longer a sinner (which will be never) I’m in no position to judge anyone. I also know my belief system is right for me, but I am not under the delusion that my belief system is correct. So for that matter these Conservative Christians may be correct, but they have no way of knowing that.

 

and in turn, how much conservatism "gets it wrong" vs "takes it too far", etc?

Good point. I’d lean towards the “takes it too far” side. I’ve actually seen my church kick someone out that they deemed undesirable. Instead of helping him through his problems they dismissed him from the help he was obliviously asking for by attending church in the first place.

 

In the interest of having a common frame of reference, could I ask you for examples?

The biggest one on the Christian agenda is abortion (which I happen to agree with them about, but I not willing to force my beliefs onto someone that has a different opinion). Another example is their attempt to circumvent the Constitution by disguising creationism as “intelligent design.”

 

At the same time, I have a problem with groups trying to change the name of Christmas. If someone wants to call it Xmas or Holiday season that is their right, just as it is my right to call it Christmas. If you don’t like it don’t celebrate it. I’m just as upset with the Christians wanting to change Halloween.

 

Personally I believe it should be us Christians trying to change the name of Christmas due the commercial mess it is today.

[Achilles]

In my personal opinion it tells me not to judge others at all. I’m a sinner and until I’m no longer a sinner (which will be never) I’m in no position to judge anyone. I also know my belief system is right for me, but I am not under the delusion that my belief system is correct. So for that matter these Conservative Christians may be correct, but they have no way of knowing that.

Well said. I applaud your open-mindedness.

 

Good point. I’d lean towards the “takes it too far” side. I’ve actually seen my church kick someone out that they deemed undesirable. Instead of helping him through his problems they dismissed him from the help he was obliviously asking for by attending church in the first place.

This reminds me of a debate I heard about recently regarding a sex-offender who tried to join a congregation. It was interesting to hear people struggling with the choice between their instincts and following (what they percieved to be) jesus' message. Link

 

The biggest one on the Christian agenda is abortion (which I happen to agree with them about, but I not willing to force my beliefs onto someone that has a different opinion). Another example is their attempt to circumvent the Constitution by disguising creationism as “intelligent design.”

Gotcha. Since these are primarily the efforts of conservative christians, I think we're on the same page.

 

At the same time, I have a problem with groups trying to change the name of Christmas. If someone wants to call it Xmas or Holiday season that is their right, just as it is my right to call it Christmas. If you don’t like it don’t celebrate it. I’m just as upset with the Christians wanting to change Halloween.

Interesting. I think I saw this as more of a "christians aren't the only ones celebrating a holiday" thing rather than a "let's change the name of christmas" thing.

 

Personally I believe it should be us Christians trying to change the name of Christmas due the commercial mess it is today.

I'm all for giving up religious holidays altogether

 

Take care.

[Rogue Nine]

I'm all for giving up religious holidays altogether

Well, fine. I'm expecting you in the office at 7:30AM sharp on December 25.

[Achilles]

Well, fine. I'm expecting you in the office at 7:30AM sharp on December 25.

You make it sound like I haven't done it before

 

Just so long as no one gets any funny ideas about screwing with turkey-day.

[Corinthian]

So, basically, you're angry because she opposes Gay marriage, and refers to people who want to uphold it as her opposition? That's kind of how it works, if someone opposes your goals, they are your opposition. As for her attempting to ban Gay Marriage, good. The less of that the better. Marriage is already screwed up enough what with the divorce rate, I'd like to at least keep a part of it more or less intact.

[mimartin]

This reminds me of a debate I heard about recently regarding a sex-offender who tried to join a congregation. It was interesting to hear people struggling with the choice between their instincts and following (what they percieved to be) jesus' message. Link [/Quote]

Have not seen that, I understand they have to weigh the concerns for the children with that of trying to help this man. To me they are trying to do what they perceive is right, while still protecting the young children.

 

At the church I’m a member of this would not even be an issue as he would have already been ran off. Sad to say I would have been leading the charge.

We kicked someone out for wearing women’s cloths to church. So I believe it is fair to say we would allow a sex-offender in our congregation. I’d admire this church for even considering it, but I hope and pray they do not come to regret it.

 

I'm all for giving up religious holidays altogether [/Quote] Not me, Christmas dinner makes it worth putting up with all the commercialization of the day. My mouth is watering for Pecan Pie just thinking about it.

 

Take care.

You too.

[Achilles]

So, basically, you're angry because she opposes Gay marriage, and refers to people who want to uphold it as her opposition?

I don't recall stating that I was angry. The term I used was "disturbed". To prevent further misunderstanding, I was using it in this context (root word: disturb):

 

2 a: to destroy the tranquillity or composure of <the noisy lawnmower disturbed their sleep>.

 

That's kind of how it works, if someone opposes your goals, they are your opposition.

No, I got that part. I think you missed my point though. Her goal is to oppose...we'll use gay marriage since you brought it up...gay marriage. What gives her the right to do so? As Jae pointed out earlier, it's a free country. There is no moral/ethical argument against it. Yes, she and others of similar thinking have the right to stand up and be heard in their opposition, but being a vocal majority does not make them right. And their sanctimonious attitudes fly directly in the face of their professed beliefs (ala mimartin's argument for christ's message being the foundation of christianity). When my choices are "wrong" or "hypocrite", I begin looking for a new ballgame.

 

As for her attempting to ban Gay Marriage, good. The less of that the better. Marriage is already screwed up enough what with the divorce rate, I'd like to at least keep a part of it more or less intact.

Perhaps you'd be interested in providing the rationale for your arguments in the gay marriage thread?

 

I’d admire this church for even considering it, but I hope and pray they do not come to regret it.

If we were to put religion aside and examine this from a strictly moral/ethical standpoint, would you say that they made the right choice? The mother at the end of the article states that she's concerned that Brugge might fantasize about her daughter during service. What short (or long) term impact do you think his presence might have on the children themselves?

 

Not me, Christmas dinner makes it worth putting up with all the commercialization of the day. My mouth is watering for Pecan Pie just thinking about it.

Funny how we reserve some things for special occations. Too bad we have to wait for them to come around.

[mimartin]

If we were to put religion aside and examine this from a strictly moral/ethical standpoint, would you say that they made the right choice?[/Quote]From the view point of say a community recreation complex, then no he would not be allow to enter the establishment. Then again, the local gym or pool is not in the so called business of saving someone immortal soul. Unlike private enterprise the church is considered (at least by Christians) to be in the business of teaching the word of god and redeeming the sinner, so there is a huge difference.

 

Even without the element of religion, is it right to keep someone that paid their debt to society out of this locations? Personally, I believe as a society that we should error on the side of the innocent child and not allow sexual predators around, but is that in reality right?

 

The mother at the end of the article states that she's concerned that Brugge might fantasize about her daughter during service. What short (or long) term impact do you think his presence might have on the children themselves?

Well if the child can actually read his mind then I sure there will be government work in her future. I don’t see where if he is fantasize about her daughter during the service how that can be a problem unless she can read his mind. If he is setting there drooling while staring at the little girl, then the accountability team assigned to observe him should escort him out and call the police. If the parents are still concern may I suggest attending the later service. If I was attending that church I would keep a close eye on my child, but parents really need to be doing that all the time.

[Totenkopf]

Well, fine. I'm expecting you in the office at 7:30AM sharp on December 25.

 

Don't forget......no holiday pay of any sort either.

[Achilles]

From the view point of say a community recreation complex, then no he would not be allow to enter the establishment. Then again, the local gym or pool is not in the so called business of saving someone immortal soul. Unlike private enterprise the church is considered (at least by Christians) to be in the business of teaching the word of god and redeeming the sinner, so there is a huge difference.

So the existence of the soul (and therefore god) would be the fulcrum between this coming down as a moral decision or an immoral decision? Seems to me that evidence for these things would be of paramount importance in a situation like this.

 

Even without the element of religion, is it right to keep someone that paid their debt to society out of this locations? Personally, I believe as a society that we should error on the side of the innocent child and not allow sexual predators around, but is that in reality right?

I have to give you credit for at least trying to answer the question here.

 

If someone has an illness, then I'm not sure how much "paying a debt to society" matters. Serving a sentence isn't going to cure the illness. Alcholics don't seek support at the local pub, they do so at AA meetings.

 

I think we have a moral obligation to help those that need help and seek it, but I think we have a larger moral obligation to the safety and welfare of our children. I think this scenario sets up a false dichotomy that won't really benefit anyone.

 

Well if the child can actually read his mind then I sure there will be government work in her future. I don’t see where if he is fantasize about her daughter during the service how that can be a problem unless she can read his mind. If he is setting there drooling while staring at the little girl, then the accountability team assigned to observe him should escort him out and call the police. If the parents are still concern may I suggest attending the later service. If I was attending that church I would keep a close eye on my child, but parents really need to be doing that all the time.

Children are amazingly perceptive. If mommy and daddy are nervous about going to church and everyone is nervous about "the new guy", then the kids are going to pick up on that. If they sense danger and no one explains what the danger is, then I think that would have some effect. Explaining the source of the danger would be the responsible thing for the parents to do, but I'm not sure that would do much to negate the potential negative impact on the children.

 

In summary, I disagree the telepathy is a prerequisite for problems. My 2 cents.

 

Thanks for your post.

[mimartin]

So the existence of the soul (and therefore god) would be the fulcrum between this coming down as a moral decision or an immoral decision?[/Quote] Yes.

Seems to me that evidence for these things would be of paramount importance in a situation like this.[/Quote] It is called faith and yes, it may seem rather antiquate and farfetched to you, but that is the belief of us Christians live life with. Excuse me I need to fold up my globe before the sun rotates out of view.

 

I have to give you credit for at least trying to answer the question here. [/Quote] I tried, but I do stand corrected, as you are correct, it is an illness and I was attempting to overly simplifying it. The real question is why are these people being released back into society without being cured of their illness? Would we release someone with Ebola back into society?

 

I think we have a larger moral obligation to the safety and welfare of our children.[/Quote] QFE

 

Children are amazingly perceptive. If mommy and daddy are nervous about going to church and everyone is nervous about "the new guy", then the kids are going to pick up on that. If they sense danger and no one explains what the danger is, then I think that would have some effect.[/Quote]I’m corrected again, but again I state that the parents could go to a later service. We also do not know all 17 of the condition the church is placing on him. Would this still be a issue if he had to set on the front row and/or in the balcony away from all the children?

 

Explaining the source of the danger would be the responsible thing for the parents to do, but I'm not sure that would do much to negate the potential negative impact on the children.[/Quote] But that would mean actually mean they would have to talk to their children about something concerning sex.

 

In summary, I disagree the telepathy is a prerequisite for problems..[/Quote]It wasn’t a very good attempt at humor either.

[Achilles]

Yes.

Where'd that moral relativism thread go again?

 

It is called faith

Not evidence

 

I’m corrected again, but again I state that the parents could go to a later service.

Or he could go to a later service.

 

We also do not know all 17 of the condition the church is placing on him.

That's true. I'm still stuck on the "potentially freaked out children" part though.

 

Would this still be a issue if he had to set on the front row and/or in the balcony away from all the children?

*shrugs* I'm picturing an alcoholic at a bar with pane of glass between him and an open beer.

 

But that would mean actually mean they would have to talk to their children about something concerning sex.

Potentially. At the very least it would mean having to alert their children to there being a dangerous man at the church. Wouldn't take long for them to equate church with danger. And parents forcing them to go to the dangerous place probably wouldn't be a good thing either.

 

As a fun aside: I bet a similar argument could be made for learning about hell. You're born bad and unless you can convince god that you're good, you burn in hell with satan forever and ever. Oh and he watches everything you do and can read your mind. Don't forget to eat your vegetables. See you next week.

[mimartin]

Not evidence

No it isn’t and I feel no burden to present the un-presentable as he must believe or else is really is there trolling for victims. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am just stating my POV.

 

Or he could go to a later service.[/Quote] No, he can not, unless the church changes the requirements of his attending the services as he is only allowed to be at the 7:30 am Sunday service. I’m not a regular, especially during football season, but when I do attend the early service with my mother there are not a lot of children there at that time. Things could be different in Reno, but I highly doubt it. You would think the early service here would be more crowded so people could get to the beach, but it is not.

 

As a fun aside: I bet a similar argument could be made for learning about hell. You're born bad and unless you can convince god that you're good, you burn in hell with satan forever and ever. Oh and he watches everything you do and can read your mind. Don't forget to eat your vegetables. See you next week.

I actually remember being taught this as a child and it was traumatic and confusing. Luckily, I had parents that let me work it out for myself only offering guidance for me to make my own decision. Instead of trying to explain it and scaring and confusing me worst.

[Achilles]

No it isn’t and I feel no burden to present the un-presentable <snip>

Ok, but since we both agreed that the distinction between a moral decision and an immoral one hinges on this, it's still important. I imagine that this speaks directly to the topic as well.

 

as he must believe or else is really is there trolling for victims.

I'm sure on some level he does believe. Again, going back to the topic, I'm not sure how wanting something to be true makes it true which in turn makes it a basis for justifiably discriminating against others. I realize that I'm deviating from our specific discussion, but I'm trying to draw this back to the topic.

 

No, he can not, unless the church changes the requirements of his attending the services as he is only allowed to be at the 7:30 am Sunday service.

Fair enough. My point was that if anyone should have to adjust their schedules it should be him, since he is the one for which the exception is being made. Whether that ends up being earlier rather than later or vice versa, I don't think that multiple families should be inconvienced for this experiment.

 

I actually remember being taught this as a child and it was traumatic and confusing.

Me too.

 

Luckily, I had parents that let me work it out for myself only offering guidance for me to make my own decision. Instead of trying to explain it and scaring and confusing me worst.

Indeed you were very lucky to have parents that didn't reinforce those messages. Unfortunately, not all children are so lucky.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, this topic exploded while I was away at work today. Sigh, no internet access there, they have not entered the 1990's in technology (they're using black-and-white monitors--I kid you not).

Is there a rule I don't know about that requires me to do anything when something disturbs me?

I didn't answer that because I assumed it was rhetorical irony/sarcasm and didn't require a response. If you're actually being serious, then no, there isn't a rule, unless Niner came up with something while the forum was down.

 

In a ideal world, we could all sit down to talk and reason this out, but ideology tends to make such interactions difficult.

This is very true.

 

Dogmatic ideologies make them impossible. Is there some way I can cause them to abandon their dogmatic ideologies?

They would ask the same about you, actually, because they would consider you dogmatically atheistic/anti-theistic, and I'm not meaning that in a pejorative way, it's just the way they view the atheistic community. With examples such as Nietzshe and Dawkins and even O'Hair being dogmatically anti-theistic, can you blame them if they don't want to budge on their ground, either? Both you and they would have to find some common ground and work on it from there. It would require someone who can move comfortably in both theistic and atheistic circles, understands both groups, and has respect for and from both groups, and there are precious few people who meet those criteria. It comes down to trust, and I would guess most atheists don't trust the average fundamentalist, and I know most fundamentalists don't trust the average atheist. In addition, how do you bridge a gap when the groups are diametrically opposed on some issues? Is bridging that gap even possible?

 

Welcoming the sex-offender into church and removing membership of those who've broken Biblical/church rules....

For those who've broken the Biblical rules in our church--if they're sorry for what they've done and agree to not commit the act again (e.g. adultery) then our church doesn't remove them from membership. If they're defiant about their 'sin', and refuse to stop, then our church takes steps according to what's laid out in the New Testament for such situations. That involves 1 or 2 elders going privately to talk with that person, than a small group, then removal as a very last resort after all other options have been exhausted. There's a fine balance between welcoming sinners (which we all are) and allowing someone to openly flaunt their unrepentant involvement with sin.

 

Two questions I have about the sex offender--what was the actual nature of the offense--actual physical contact, or something else? That does make a difference to me, though since I have kids, I'd err heavily on the side of caution. The fact that he violated parole is a huge red flag for me. Also, is he actually allowed to be on the church site or within a certain distance of groups of children? I imagine there are some heavy restrictions placed on him and any contact with kids, and I'm surprised he's even allowed by the law to do this.

 

Assuming that he actually is allowed to be on the church property in potential contact with kids--I probably could sit in the same pew with him, but I would not allow my kids, or any other kids for that matter, any where near him. First and foremost, I don't want my children or fellow members' kids harmed. Our church has a lot of families and tons of kids running around, so he'd likely never be able to really be part of our particular congregation. Second, it would be unfair to place him in a tempting situation that could cause him to fall. One may welcome a 'reformed' thief into a church, but that doesn't mean he should be put in charge of the treasury. There has to be some very clear restrictions in place as this Lutheran church has done. Also--how do you handle awkward situations, say if a family (with a bunch of kids) new to town comes in to the 7:30 service and the only pew available is his? Do you move them discreetly? Move him discreetly? He moves, being discreet? Would it be fair not to tell that family? Can his situation be dealt with in such a way that he's not wearing the proverbial scarlet letter, but still recognizes the seriousness of his previous crimes and the likelihood of recidivism?

 

That brings up an interesting question, though--how can you minister spiritually to someone who's a pedophile? I believe the guy when he says he needs a church family. I'm just wondering if there's another outlet that would meet his spiritual needs without putting kids in danger and him in a tempting situation. I know there's prison fellowship ministry, but I don't know if ex-cons have access to that ministry after they leave jail, though I believe they do in some way.