Outcry
I won't spend a lot of time commenting on this, because hopefully the content should speak for itself. The embedded video of Bill Oreilly's segment which hosted the leader of the new youth movement "BattleCry", and a representative from the "World Can't Wait Advisory Board", Sunsara Taylor, shows a shocking level of hate, bigotry, malice and narrow-mindedness-- and not from the Christians!. Irony is beautiful isn't it? The very traits that Christians are being accused of daily are in full bloom by those who accuse us-- while they are accusing us! Beautiful. And kudos to the "Battlecry" group for not stooping to return fire. Love your enemies. Be a proper example when representing our Lord.
It is striking to me that "Fundamentalist" Christianity is labeled as so closed minded, out to subvert others' rights, so intent on forcing our beliefs on others, etc... There are few in the media that seem to look at the political left, and their tendency to force their agenda. It seems an uneven playing field to me.
Bill Oreilly-- either love him or hate him-- should be commended for pointing out this double standard. Sunsara Taylor seemed shocked that she was forced to face such bitter reality. Of note in the segment is the apparent expectation that the liberal left have opportunity to use the creation of laws to their benefit, but not the conservative, religious right. Also, Ms. Taylor seemed to fall into the trap of the argument to emotion. She threw out lots of statements which expect an emotional response, yet ignored facts when they were entered into the discussion.
When faced with the AMA study on abortion, and the start of human life, Ms. Taylor could only appeal to more emotion, in that the evil religious right has scared the AMA into publishing anti-fact. I give her a perfect 10 in the discussion for creativity.
I won't turn this into an abortion debate on the apologetics blog. My main intent here is just to run the video and let everyone see the tactics for themselves.
Blessings...
Technorati Tags: Musings- ‹ previous
- 6 of 56
- next ›
Syndicate
After speaking to a
After speaking to a Christian brother (a friend of mine of the more liberal persuasion), I feel I should probably make some clarifications. My use of the generalizations "liberal left" and "religious right" are just that, generalizations, which are dangerous by definition. It isn't my intent to insinuate that any and all of the "liberal left" condone or partake in the tactics mentioned above, any more than I condone the bombings of abortion clinics.
My intent of the above post was to point out the hypocricy of the more vocal of the political left, who claim to be the more inclusive and open-minded of the two major groups in the arena. And I do stand by that.
Blessings.
Sad, but moderately isolated
Do I agree with that this "shows a shocking level of hate, bigotry, malice and narrow-mindedness"? Basically, yes, although I think "shocking level" is overstating it as this entry appears to hold that this is not isolated which, by definition would not make this "shocking".
However, the thing that makes this news is that it is isolated. Does this happen every day in every area of the country? No. If it did, it wouldn't be compelling. So, the fact that it stands out only proves the fact that is is fairly isolated.
First of all, the group is overbearing and really unfair to the Christian group. Two of the reasons I am a liberal is because I believe all people should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (i.e. it should not be dictated or legislated, but rather derived from that person's relationship with the creator) and because people cannot be forced into correct realizations, but must come upon them when their heart is ready. You cannot force other people to believe as you, and you cannot force them to believe your position, no matter how right it may be until they are ready to accept it for themselves.
As far as the video goes, it was quite obvious the deck was stacked. The Right side had a person who was confident, older, more prepared and the left side had a younger, somewhat skiddish, unprepared person. Although O'Reilly was fairly decent in the way he talked the the liberal person, he would constantly "lead the witness" on the right. Had this been a court and O'Reilly the judge, we would probably have a mistrial.
The liberal was not well spoken or well prepared. She was probably simply someone who was passionate about a cause and she made several claims with no facts to back them up.
However, on that count, I would like someone to provide the attribution for this "fact" O'Reilly spit out (I'm putting it in quotes but it is probably not verbatim, but very close. Please view the video if you are concerned that I have altered the context): "90% of doctors will not perform abortions"... Alright, I can buy that, but it is the follow-up that concerns me, because seriously, how can he know this? "It's because they don not believe it is a legitimate procedure." I would like to see some back up to this claim.
I will end saying this:
1) The liberal group had a right to say what they said, but they shouldn't have said it.
2) I think this is basically isolated. That's what makes it worth talking about. No one enjoys talking about the mundane. "I drove to work today. Again" "That is awesome! Tell me more!"
Thank you for the
Thank you for the well-spoken response. I truly appreciate your input and furthering the discussion. I realize that I broached political subjects in the post, thus all is fair game, but I won't form a point-by-point response on the politics of it. But I would like to make some points and ask some questions, both in regards to your reply.
First, I don't think that the term "shocking" was in any way an overstatement. Whether isolated or not, signs saying "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" are quite shocking to Christians, and I would imagine such shock was their intent in painting them. In discussing this incident with a coworker today and describing the signs, he responded that he had seen them before; this would also indicate that the isolation of such is in question. (Not such a scientific pool of data, I admit.)
Secondly, I agree that you cannot force someone to agree with you, nor can you force salvation. It is the power of God and the gospel. I gather that the Christian group was assembled to peacefully bring about a change of morality in the American culture. It seems as though part of the intent was to peacefully gather and speak out against homosexual marriage, which in their mind is a threat to the family structure. Are you saying that they shouldn't speak out when they believe there is a danger? Now, I'm not saying they are right. I believe they are, but that is irrelevant to my point at the moment. They believe that it is a danger.
Would these same people be wrong to protest abortion? Those protesting abortion truly feel that it is the murder of defenseless babies. Would they be right in just remaining quiet with that conscience?
I realize that you never said the BattleCry group was wrong to assemble, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to make the distinction that the "you can't mandate morality" argument only goes so far. You can't mandate morality, but you must mandate right and wrong. And if you do not raise your voice for what you feel is right, then the only voices come from those who are "wrong".
The above video showed two groups raising their voices. One group did it right, the other...
Although it may not have come across as well in my blog post, the main intent was that of an apologetic point. Christianity is attacked as narrow-minded and intolerant, and that's fine I guess. Christianity teaches the existence of "absolute truth", and that is narrow by definition. My point was that the "liberal left" can be as unaccepting of others' beliefs as "we" are, and they're the ones flying the flag of tolerance. But what are they tolerating?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the fact that the above was as isolated as you suggest. From PETA throwing blood on people wearing fur to the "Earth-firsters" vandalizing SUVs with bumper-stickers, etc, etc... I see tolerance for those who think similarly.
Christianity is narrow-minded-- again, it preaches absolute truth with absolute right and wrong. But Christianity is also all-inclusive. It preaches a Savior-God that died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life. And it should be a message of love-- to the saved, the sinner, the neighbor and the enemy.
So, I guess I just typed all of that to tell you I love you. :)
Be blessed
BattleCry had a right to
BattleCry had a right to assemble. I didn't know that anyone (including the group protesting) questioned that. That is why I didn't say anything about it.
You state that this is about apologetics, but then state this is not isolated by showing examples of people wearing fur and driving SUVs. These are not defining Christian attributes. This seems to me to be marrying a political ideology and religious viewpoint.
And it is isolated. It may happen daily, but out of 300 million people in the US alone, how many are affected by this on a daily basis? 1 percent (that would be 3 million)? No. A one hundredth of 1 percent (or 30 thousand... on a daily basis? Most likely not)? And even then, it is only words. Can't we as Christians weather a few bad words?
Now, how many people in that same population are "food insecure" (at risk of going hungry)? 11.2 percent according to the USDA, or over 30 million. I'm sorry, but you can lump all the verbal assaults be they anti-religious, anti-left, anti-right, etc. and you won't come close to this number.
Again, was the left-wing group wrong: yes. Was BattleCry in the clear: yes. But it was just words. It just seems to me sometimes we make mountains out of molehills so much so that we can no longer see the mountains.
You make a valid point
You make a valid point concerning my examples of liberal intolerance and the political connection. I would argue that it is still an apologetic point, however not totally independent of politics. I'll phrase it another way, in attempting to make the same apologetic point.
Christianity is often attacked for being too narrow-minded and unwilling to allow the validity of competing viewpoints. On one hand, this is a valid argument, since Christianity claims to hold absolute truths, specifically that Jesus Christ is the only name in which salvation can be found. This is absolute as far as Christianity is concerned. Christianity also submits to absolute right and wrong.
On the other hand, my point is that anyone who attacks Christianity for absolute right and absolute wrong is making an absolute satement that Christianity is absolutely wrong for being so narrow-minded and unyielding in their unacceptance of altering viewpoints. The argument by definition fails on the basis by which it is made, and is self-defeating. It is an argument of absolute conviction against a group's absolute convictions. So, even though political groups have been mentioned to make the point, I feel the point is not a political one at its core, but one of a reasonable defense to the Christian point of view. I apologize for not choosing a better mode of making the point.
As always, I find your input here thought-provoking, well-formed and very intelligent. You're helping this site become what I hope it will continue to become-- a place for open discussion on such topics by intelligent and well-reasoned individuals. I appreciate your time and effort to add to the content, and hope that you will post frequently.
Be blessed.
(Update: Edited for spelling.)
Like most people, we agree more than we disagree
"Christianity is often attacked for being too narrow-minded" Check
"Christianity also submits to absolute right and wrong." We may not agree on which items are absolutes, but still: Check
"On the oher hand, my point is that anyone who attacks Christianity for absolute right and absolute wrong is making an absolute satement that Christianity is absolutely wrong for being so narrow-minded and unyielding in their unacceptance of altering viewpoints." Check
But didn't we agree to all this before?
The only issue I have is that it's a viewpoint that is being oversold. People are always going to disagree with you, be mean to you, even hate you for positions you hold regardless of what that position is or even if you hold no position at all. Some on the right will hate the left, and some on the left will hate the right. I mean, we even STILL have people who hate people for the friggin' color of their skin!!
There is an awful lot of hate in the world and it is fueled by fear. "I'm afraid this group will curtail my rights and that makes me angry." "I have met a couple people of this race who did me wrong, and I am afraid that people of this race are out to get me."
I just think sometimes we need to turn the other cheek, take a deep breath, and not worry.
I like the presentation of the information. It was interesting and a good example of the way things shouldn't be. I just don't like making it into something more than an isolated incident.
(Note, I don't mean isolated as in happens once. I mean it as in it is very infrequent and happens to an extremely small subsection of the populace.)
Well said on all accounts.
Well said on all accounts. You can see similar sentiments on love, as opposed to hate in the Spiritual Rheumatism blog entry. I would hope that there wasn't an air of hate in any of my content or responses.
Stick around a while and you'll see that my tendency is to be harder on the Christian church for some its actions than anyone else (I have a "polemics" section set up for such musings).
I plan to speak my viewpoint here in a (hopefully) reasonable manner. (Also hopefully) I plan to do so with a lot of love shining through.
Again, thank you for the valued input and I hope to see much more in the future as you care to offer it.