This is how it's done...

[pecunium]

From little acorns to mighty oaks:

lj user hilltop

This points out one of the things I forgot to include in my last post... religion.

Not the bible thumping, chest beating, my piety is greater than yours kind. No, the deep-seated expression of faith.

Even if you aren't a Christian, you need to know how they think (and by this I mean the neo-con supporting types). You also need to have a more progressive take on the matter. Luckily it isn't hard to do, because asking, "What would Jesus do?" is a good start.

Fred Clark, over at Slacktivist is good for this, so is Real Live Preacher.

When they say Bush is Godly, ask how that squares with the tax shift; Jesus said the man who loved God, did not murder, honored his mother and father had only one thing left to do... give all his wealth to the poor.

There is a wealth of such argument in the Bible. Point to Micah ("three things does the Lord ask of thee, love justice, do mercy, and walk humbly with thy God"). Ask why Islamic radicals think God needs them to kill the infidel... can't he wipe us out Himself? When they agree, ask why He needs us to enshrine Him in the law, couldn't he do that Himself?

Lead them to the water, and baptise them in reason.

Comments

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Go check out pegkerr and porphyrin for the last couple of days if you haven't--a couple of kick-ass Christian ladies I am proud to call friend.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Also, go take a look at this. Very worthwhile information.

[mcduff.livejournal.com]

I'd love to say I agree with you. Once, when I was a Christian, I would have been right there with the "right on, brother!"

But then I spent too much time in the Bible Belt, with those who could quote chapter and verse right back, who knew Micah and the gospels inside out, but also knew that homosexuality was a symptom of God's rejection of an individual, that the Pope was evil and the Catholic church was a work of the Devil, and that it was a sign of love to picket abortion clinics and vent hate and abuse at young women going to seek counselling.

In their favour, they did more good works than I did, or possibly will ever do. They were good, humble people, who just happened to be filled with hate as well as love. I wish I could understand it.

All I now know is that there are brands of Christianity that feed off and reinforce political strands. The liberals have a Christianity that doesn't care about gays very much, and puts great emphasis on giving to the poor, on tolerance, on understanding. The conservatives have a Christianity of trials and tribulations, of persecutions and wailing and gnashing of teeth, of fighting a bitter fight against the massed hordes of darkness that rage against the gates. They might base these religions, and all the others in between, on the same Bible, but they are not the same religion, and the two do not communicate well.

[editrx.livejournal.com]

I have to second that with the same knowledge one gains from having lived in the Bible Belt and been courted by that particular brand of Christianity from all angles (including a section of my family) for many years. I even learned how to act like one so well I could fool people close up for days at a time -- but the act wears on one. As well as on one's soul.

Having been schooled and surrounded by it for years, I can agree easily that it's hard to communicate with them as Christians. It doesn't work. One can only try, but it's a losing battle. I've lost it for many years, and I have a degree in theology.

I also got better. ;)

[mcduff.livejournal.com]

I think a great part of it is the fact that reason and logic don't work, because they are ultimately rejected. While all religious expression (indeed, all human expression) requires a certain amount of taking things on faith, there is a notable anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist streak in Southern Evangelical Christianity.

With evolution as a case in point, there is no compromise, no matter how compelling the scientific evidence; no attempt to incorporate evidence in the world into the old worldview and modify it in accordance with new information. It's just a straight rejection of everything that doesn't gel with the old model of the universe, no possible acceptance of the possibility that human error could have tainted the interpretation of God's Word. It's impossible to trump "God Said" as evidence for support of ones opinions and bigotries.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I agree, for those irreducible arguments... such as the existence of God, there is no reason which can persuade.

But that doesn't preclude the use of the motifs, ideals and systems of the believer. I have made the arguement (never with apparent success, but ocsaisionally with those who would listen, and admite it wasn't impossible) that God, being omnipotent, could use a system as complex as evolution to make the world (He works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform). It's the watchmaker arguement, and has some appeal.

More to the point, the mere act of making a cogent arguement, in the framework of religion... the act of not denying them, can be suasive, at least to the point of getting oneself listened to.

I don't expect to swing anyone in a road to Damascus moment, but I do want them to think I understand... maybe even that they can save me, and so I can keep planting the seeds of change.

The worst that happens is I fail... which is where we are now.

TK

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

The original neo-conservatives were people who had started out as anti-Communist Marxists (mostly Marxist-Leninist) and moved to conservatism.

The newer neo-cons were mostly raised as conservatives (they include some offspring of the original neo-cons). But they're secular; they might be religious in the sense that they attend church regularly and follow religious rules, but religion is secondary for them.

The religious people on the right are quite different. (And varied -- they include militant pacifists, for example. And some of them think that the religions of others are literally Satan-inspired.)

a comment on this topic I left in another person's journal

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

I agree with taking back our claim to morality. Not in the sense of trying to cloak ourselves in the same kind of morality the Christian and conservative right, but in the sense of not allowing them to get away with claiming that we are immoral or amoral and of why our stances are moral. Not just moral, but essential to the core of what it means to be an American.

Also, I don't think we should have to completely dumb ourselves down, but we can't be seen to be lording it over people we perceive as dumb, no matter how tempting it is, even if it's true that there are a lot of dumb people out there. Intelligence is kind of like good taste -- everyone would like to believe they have it, but really, not everyone does. But even if they don't have it, people don't like being treated as if they don't. Intellectual, educated people (and I consider myself one) run the risk of intellectualizing things past the point of practicality. If people think you're out of touch with their lives, they'll dismiss what you have to say. I know I dismiss all kinds of things said by people whom I think don't have a clue.

I wonder if there's not also something to be said for making it clear that having no religion, or an alternative religion, doesn't mean you worship the devil or have no morals. It's always irked me when people intimate that religion is the only thing keeping people from doing all kinds of bad things. Um, no. I don't do those things, not because I'm afraid the Big Invisible Guy will punish me, and not even because I'm afraid the law will punish me, but because I believe them to be wrong all on my very own. Since it's been said many times recently that churchgoers tend to be Republicans and voted for Bush (though, ironically, he doesn't go to church himself -- I guess he just speaks to god directly), and that atheists, agnostics, and those who just can't be bothered to show up tend to be Democrats and voted for Kerry, I think it's important to get across that being unchurched or godless or pagan in no way means that you don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Some of my most radical, non-mainstream ideas are deeply rooted in my own concepts of morality and righteousness. My morality holds that we should always strive to be excellent to each other, and much flows from that.