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

[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