The Guinness Book

Os Guinness has popped up on my screen here twice in the past week, so I suppose we should see what's going on with him.

I first encountered Guinness through his entertaining and insightful little book, The Gravedigger File. In that book Guinness shamelessly borrows the mirror-image, devil's eye view of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters (if you're gonna steal, steal from the good stuff) for a breezy discussion of what he calls there "the subversion of the modern church."

I'd forgotten most of that book, but one thing that has stuck with me over the years since I read it was the Devil's maxim: "Remember 10-10-80."

How many times I have watched him listen to devastating reports in cold silence and then utter the words: "Remember 10-10-80." It is simply the shorthand for his own axiom: Win over 10 percent of the church to be a counter-elite on our side, reduce 80 percent of the church to a state of passive acceptance (either cowed or complacent), and we can disregard the active resistance of the remaining 10 percent (part of which is the lunatic fringe anyway).

This latter 10 percent is a particularly important category. It allows us a margin of error. It also takes into account all those exceptions to the trends we are manipulating successfully. If such exceptions were ever to amount to more than 10 percent, we would have to bring in the contingency plans. But for a long time we have been well within this limit.

That formula seems to me a useful rule of thumb that's applicable well beyond the particular case of religious vitality. (It might apply, to pick just one example, to the current question about whether America is "ready for" a black or female president.)

Anyway, Guinness' name popped up last week due to his involvement with the latest "Evangelical Manifesto," which apparently goes public next week. Sarah Posner discusses the document in her invaluable FundamentaList, linking to this whiny attempt to pre-empt it from Olaskyite Warren Smith.

Smith's knickers are in a bunch because the theologically conservative professors, theologians and pastors involved in producing this manifesto (to be called, apparently, "The Washington Declaration of Identity") didn't kiss the rings of the politically conservative activists, media moguls and other self-appointed bishops who claim to speak for and in lieu of all such theologians and pastors. Smith thus claims the authors of the document "shunned" people like Charles Colson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Beverly LaHaye. He suspects this is because of their political views and not because none of those people are actually involved in the leadership of the church (nor does it occur to him that those four might not have been consulted because, to put it mildly, they aren't actually all that bright).

"Why not let voices from the 'conservative' or so-called 'pro-family' wing of the evangelical movement have input?," Smith asks, arguing that their input would have broadened the document's appeal, making it "truly historic."

So, yes, Warren Smith is a concern troll. And he's not even very good at it.

What's really going on here is that this forthcoming document is an effort to reclaim the word "evangelical" as a religious term rather than as a political one. It is, in other words, a critique of partisan demagoguery masquerading as religion -- a critique of exactly the sort of thing that is practiced, professionally, by the very people Smith complains were "excluded" from writing up that critique.

For a foretaste of that critique, let's turn to the second time Os Guinness came across my screen this week. Will Hinton has been reading Guinness' latest book, The Case for Civility, and provides this excerpt:

I am angered by organizers of the Religious Right who play the victim card and appeal openly to Christian resentment. ...

But whether "victimization" then or a "war on Christians" now, such tactics of the Religious Right are foolish, ineffective, and downright anti-Christian. The problem is not that these people are theocrats, but that they are sub-Christian. They do not violate the separation of church and state so much as they violate Christian integrity. Factually, it is dead wrong for Christians to portray themselves as a minority, let alone as persecuted. Christians are as close to a majority community as any group in America ...

Psychologically, victim-playing is dangerous because it represents what Nietzsche called "the politics of the tarantula," a base appeal to resentment. But worst of all, it is spiritually hypocritical, for nothing so contradicts their claim to represent "Christian values" as their refusal to follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth by playing the victim card and finding an excuse not to love their enemies. Shame, shame, shame on such people; and woe, woe, woe to such tactics.

Ouch. It's one thing for such a critique to be published in a book and another thing altogether for it to be published as a document signed and endorsed by dozens of prominent theologians and church leaders.

If the leaders of the religious right seriously want to protect themselves from such a critique then they're going to need smarter concern trolls.

(One final caveat: I suspect that, overall, this manifesto will be about as effective as all such "declarations," which is to say not very. We evangelicals are an unruly and disorganized bunch, and these attempts at consensus building by petition are about as close as we come to church polity. The idea is to write something reasonable, sound and persuasive, and then to get as many different "gatekeepers" as possible to endorse it in the hopes that readers will see a name they recognize in the list of signatories and thus regard the statement as worthy of their consideration. It doesn't work very well, but no one has yet come up with a better approach so we keep doing it. As a form of church governance, it's far less efficient, far less decisive, far less authoritative, and infinitely preferable to the Catholic magisterium.)

Comments

[Kristy]

*glances around* hoo-kay. Well. Glad to see it wasn't just me, at least... is it fixed now?

[Jeff]

If Rev. Wright were white and if he substituted "gays" for "America" for the thing he was calling on god to damn, we would be going ballistic.

What hapax said. You obviously haven't seen the sermon in question (a good part of it was on Bill Moyers' Journal (2 parts, for most of an hour). He was saying that God damned nations that oppressed. God let nations fade. He was quite specific on why God would damn America, and part of it was the oppression of gays.

The media chopped up his words to be as offensive as possible. Have you learned nothing from the last 8 years?

[J]

"Islamic practice"--like Jewish practice, Christian practice, American practice, etc.--are the practices practiced by Muslims. You can argue that something is a regional Islamic practice, a minority Islamic practice, an unorthodox Islamic practice, a barbaric Islamic practice, etc. But I don't see where you get off saying it's "not really Islamic". It's not in the Qur'an, no. But lots of religions can and do practice things that seem, on their face, antithetical to their own written teachings. And then there's the debate about whether canonical books really capture the essence of religious practice. And then to make things even thornier, there are religions without canonical books.

[J]

While we're on the topic, 9/11 conspiracy theories are like the new Mormonism: A transparently batshit belief system that mysteriously has like a bajillion adherents. I live 3 miles away from an Ivy League university and there are regular meetings and leaflet-hander-outers on campus there who, with calm face and earnest voice, tell me that 9/11 was an "inside job".

[hapax]

And the AIDS and 9/11 mythmongering?

That is just, well, dumb. As dumb as anything Dawkins ever said, outside HIS own field of competence.

But I don't recall hearing those particular statements being central to Wright's religious message (if I'm wrong, I'll be glad to see the cites), which is what you were specifically attacking. Nor do I recall hearing any evangelical leaders (or followers) of any political persuasion defending them.

Kristy, Wright said "God damn America" -- that is, American society and culture, that thrives on oppresive structures -- not "God damn AmericaNS".

Big difference.

Oh, can we all agree on "God damn Typepad"?

[Chris]

By "not an Islamic practice", I mean that the majority of Muslims do not practice female genital mutilation, and female genital mutilation is practiced by people belonging to other faiths than Islam.

Of course I don't give a free pass to the Muslims who do, just because they're Muslims. But I get annoyed when female genital mutilation is used as some sort of all-purpose stick to beat all Muslims with, regardless of sect or geographical location.

[Chris]

I believe all faiths should join together in a condemnation of Typepad.

[Jeff]

Despite the lunacy of some of his claims (AIDS as weapon of the U.S. govt?!?!), there is a legitimacy of that mindset that cannot be denied

Wright is old enough to remember hearing about The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: "For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all."

Combine that with the CIA at least turning a blind eye to drug dealers flooding the ghettos with crack (I'm still not convinced they didn't aid and abet), and it's not that far to "AIDS is a weapon of the US government".

Wright knows more history than you do. That's supposed to mean he's "crazy"?

[balt]

He was saying that God damned nations that oppressed. God let nations fade.
God let's all nations fade. But then again, all nations thus far oppress. So maybe he's got something there.

He was quite specific on why God would damn America, and part of it was the oppression of gays.
As opposed to Pat Robertson, who is quite certain that God has damned America for its abject failure to oppress gays more.
What's with this God guy? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[J]

As dumb as anything Dawkins ever said, outside HIS own field of competence.

Ah. Because, since every single person in the entire world is Catholic, we have all agreed that only theologians are allowed to write or have opinions about god and religion.

[Kristy]

Kristy, Wright said "God damn America" -- that is, American society and culture, that thrives on oppresive structures -- not "God damn AmericaNS".

Well, yes, but as "America" - and American society and culture, is by definition made up of "Americans"...

*laughs* Nah, no go, I'm stretching now. Honestly, I don't know enough about his speech to properly debate it, and I don't feel like going to the link above and reading it all - not now, at least. Probably later. Especially if this topic continues to be discussed.

As for 9/11 theories, I direct you to this.

I've stopped evaluating conspiracy theories on whether or not they're likely to be true and am now considering whether or not they are funny.

[Jeff]

While we're on the topic, 9/11 conspiracy theories are like the new Mormonism: A transparently batshit belief system that mysteriously has like a bajillion adherents.

I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but I believe that the Bush administration aided and abetted the plot:

Failed to keep a watch on known al Queda sleeper cells (just because it was a Clinton policy! Yeeesh!)

Failed to act on known threats -- "bin Laden determined to strike in US"

Failed to come up with **any** plan in case of strike (Condi to Congress: "No-one gave me a plaaaaaaaan!" You're the head of the NSA -- that's YOUR job. Yeesh)

Failed to act once the attack was underway -- Just keep readin "My Pet Goat" until you can get whisked to safety.

Failed to protect New York: Bush could have come down hard on Guilliani for messing up the phone system and the command center. Nope, not one peep.

Failed to protect the citizens of NY after the attack -- claimed the air was fit to breathe when they knew it wasn't.

Considering all the ways that these crooks and traitors have acted, it's not "lunacy" to believe they helped plan 9/11. Far from it.

========================

God let's all nations fade. But then again, all nations thus far oppress. So maybe he's got something there.

That was Wright's point. From God's view, there's nothing that special about America.

[Robb]

RE: Wright's "9/11 mythmongering"

I don't know what else he's said, but what I heard Wright say was something like (paraphrase) "US Foreign policy has incited terrorist attitudes and we should not be surprised that we're finally victims of this kind of attack". I was specifically waiting for him to say something like "The US was secretly behind 9/11 so George Bush could kill n*****" or "inside job" or something else just as ludicrous, but what he said was not that far from reasonable, if still inflamatory & tactless in delivery.

*****

I believe all faiths should join together in a condemnation of Typepad.

AYYYYY-MEN, mah brutha!

*****

Because, since every single person in the entire world is Catholic, we have all agreed that only theologians are allowed to write or have opinions about god and religion.

No, but most of those that comment on religion in any sort of professional or expert capacity are usually well read in the traditions & source texts of the religions they're discussing. Dawkins is quite familiar with the parts of the Bible that support his arguments, but, as has been pointed out so excellently by Alister McGrath & Chris Hedges (among others), he purposefully ignores a lot that contradicts & undermines his claims.

Does/has Jeremiah Wright do/done the same? Almost certainly, but, as with Dawkins, that does not totally invalidate everything he has to say, we just need to raise our blood pressure a bit*.

* - Dumb heart disease prevention joke, means "Take with a large amount of salt"

As dumb as anything Dawkins ever said, outside HIS own field of competence.

Ah. Because, since every single person in the entire world is Catholic, we have all agreed that only theologians are allowed to write or have opinions about god and religion.

Hapax didn't say Dawkins wasn't entitled to have as many foolish-if-popularly-inflammatory non-specialist statements as he liked....

[Praline]

claiming God will damn an entire country for the actions of some of its citizens - especially when a large portion of the country is actively trying to make up for past sins - is pretty hateful.

True - but can we allow for rhetoric? There's a difference between saying 'God damn America' and 'God will damn every last American'. In context, he's clearly speaking of America as a political entity rather than as a mass of souls:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

For a developed country, America toots its own horn an unusual amount; you don't hear 'God bless Scotland' or 'God bless the Netherlands' nearly so much - and yet there are a lot of awful things in its political history and current policies, more awful than most developed nations, such as its use of the death penalty, its tendency to declare war, and its human rights record.

Hence, there's a case to be made for 'God damn America', not as a literal calling-down of fire and brimstone, but as a refusal to play along with the myth that it's a morally superior nation. It seems clear from his speech that this is what he's doing; it's in the same tradition as Muhammed Ali's refusal to fight in Vietnam because 'No Viet Cong ever called me nigger': a declaration that America's black citizens have been so discriminated against by their own country that they should not feel they owe it automatic loyalty, and that America isn't particularly blessed just because it's America, no matter what it actually does.

It wasn't a way to make friends and influence people, but it's a classic example of free speech, and as such, deserves respect. From the outside, it's a bit extreme the way politicians all have to talk at such length about how great America is if they want any votes at all, and how much vilification people get for directly criticising the country.

And also, could people please stop baiting Jesurgislac? I've been critical of her tone myself, but mocking her isn't appropriate either; it's no way to behave, nor to encourage good debate. All it's likely to produce is an ecalating round of mutual rudeness. If you have an issue with something she says, engage with it, but otherwise, let's try to debate civilly on all sides.

[damnedyankee]

Is it Thursday already?

Careful, Praline. Suggesting that some here refute Jesu's actual arguments instead of mindlessly bashing a caricature of her tends to provoke a strong reaction. If their eyes start rolling back into their heads and the words "HATER OF WHIT MEN BLUUURGH..." start coming out of their foaming mouths... run.

[Kristy]

*glee*

Praline, every time you open your mouth, I want to hug your words. Is that weird?

[Robb]

I want to hug your words. Is that weird?

Not nearly as weird as what popped into my head the instant I read that sentence:

"Oh Ple-ee-eese, say to me-e-ee, you'll let me watch 'The Birds'
And Ple-ee-eese, say to me-e-ee, you'll let me hug your WORRRRRRRDS

I WANNA HUG YOUR WOR-ER-erds, I WANNA HUG YOUR WORDS..."

There's more, but I've embarrassed myself enough - I'm pleasantly disturbed at how often my brain formulates what I'm reading into alternate lyrics for Beatles tunes.

[damnedyankee]

I went over to the bookmobile's fiction section to hug our copy of Benighted, but it's out.

[Steven S.]

On the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories...

The day I decided it really was not worth my time any more talking with conspiracy-theory believers (as opposed to conspiracy buffs or conspiracy-theory students, who can be highly amusing) was when, after spending half an hour talking to one, and explaining problems like the ever-increasing circle of people who need to be quiet, the unlikelihood that none would ever talk, etc., etc., and so forth, I pointed this out to him:

There was a group of 4 people who were, at the time of 9/11, falling from the position of pre-eminence they had held for many years, a position that brought their leader world renown and influence in the highest places.

They were wealthy -- more than wealthy enough to fund front groups to do their bidding.

In the year post-9/11, they rose to previously unprecendented heights within their field, and cemented their leader's position for a very long time; indeed, they became extremely high-profile.

He nodded, curious as to who this nefarious bunch were.

"I'm talking about the band U2."

"You know -- I never thought about that as a possibility, but now that you mention it..."

"That's it. I give up."

[J]

Of course I don't give a free pass to the Muslims who do, just because they're Muslims. But I get annoyed when female genital mutilation is used as some sort of all-purpose stick to beat all Muslims with, regardless of sect or geographical location.

Sorry you're annoyed. Question is, whether they practice things like that or not, why aren't Muslims annoyed?

[damnedyankee]

"I'm talking about the band U2."

Free Association Namedropping Blogwhoring: I actually met them last week. Well, virtually, anyway.

[J]

...but, as has been pointed out so excellently by Alister McGrath & Chris Hedges (among others), he purposefully ignores a lot that contradicts & undermines his claims.

You meant this piece of shit?

Seriously, I don't get the "atheists don't know enough about religion to criticize it" argument. Gosh, what a friggin' surprise: People who go to school for theology tend to believe in god. What a fucking surprise. You could really be on to something here, Robb. Next, why don't you investigate whether things which quack like ducks are in fact, such.

[damnedyankee]

Sorry you're annoyed. Question is, whether they practice things like that or not, why aren't Muslims annoyed?

What makes you so certain that they're not?

[hapax]

J: why aren't Muslims annoyed?

Well, J, I tried to post a response with the first ten links I got on Teh Google when I typed in "muslim condemn female genital mutilation", but Typeputz flagged it as spam.

So I will repeat the gist of my comment -- why are you asking me, and not them?

[Jim]

It is, in other words, a critique of partisan demagoguery masquerading as religion -- a critique of exactly the sort of thing that is practiced, professionally, by the very people Smith complains were "excluded" from writing up that critique.

You know someone's perspective is skewed when they start describing Rick Warren as part of the religious left. Smith thinks that this manifesto is timed to influence the Democratic primaries in early May. That is just wrong for so many reasons, several of them so obvious it's unbelievable he would actually write that.

[hapax]

I don't get the "atheists don't know enough about religion to criticize it" argument.

Umm. I don't think that I ever made that argument.

I have read several very thoughtful, informed criticisms of religion -- both as a general phenomenon and more often of specific religious traditions and practices -- by atheists. (Bart Ehrmann comes to mind.) Actually, I've probably read more than I know, since I don't generally doublecheck the faith credentials of people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Richard Dawkins has said and written brilliant things on his topic. His statements on religion tend to be a combination of embarrassingly slipshod generalizations, cherry-picking, hand-waving, flat errors, and polemic appeals to emotion. He really isn't a good spokesman for "the cause" -- particularly because he views it as a "cause", rather than a conversation.

[practicallyevil]

Wait, what's Rev. Wright have to do with the majority Christian group claiming protections of a minority group while wielding the powers of a majority group? Aside from the fact that it is being used as a side show that plays right into the majority power structures hands?

[Kristy]

practicallyevil: it was a throwaway comment that got picked up and tossed around like a beach ball. Because, well, again like a beach ball, it was fun.

[Ryan]

I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to hear about some world records.

T-minus 10 seconds and counting until Jesurgislac comes in here and throws a fit, 10, 9, 8, 7 . . .

Jesurgislac is on vacation, silly!

I believe all faiths should join together in a condemnation of Typepad.

Does that mean you also condemn every weblog on Typepad? OHHHHHHHHH, you hate americans

[Dash]

I agree with what hapax said. To respond to the next step in the discussion, this is Kristy's comment to hapax, although she's clearly playing devil's advocate. I should probably use J's comment, but Kristy's is more succinct, so here goes: to play devil's advocate, saying that God will damn an entire country for the actions of some of its citizens - especially when a large portion of the country is actively trying to make up for past sins - is a pretty hateful thing to say. Not AS hateful, to be sure, as some of the things said about God and gays, but still a mean-spirited sentiment.

Well, it may be hateful, but bear in mind two things. First, that's precisely the kind of talk you get in the Bible, generally attributed to God or someone who speaks for him. Check out Jeremiah and any references to Babylon. Wright was preaching a standard evangelical prophetic sermon, and threatening some country (usually one's own) with judgment if it doesn't clean up its act is part of the genre. Second, hyperbole is a common rhetorical device in religious speech.

It really isn't true that large proportion of the country is actively trying to make up for past sins. Mostly, people are all just going along with whatever the state of affairs is now.

As for Wright himself, I hold no particular brief for him, but Hilzoy on Obsidian Wings for March 21, 2008, has an excellent discussion of Wright's generation of African Americans--he was born within a month of Emmett Till. That in itself speaks volumes about what he must have experienced in connection with Till's murder. Yes, the spreading-AIDS canard is precisely that--a canard--but when you're an African American man who has lived through the time of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, it may not seem the sort of thing you automatically discard as impossible.

[Dash]

Dawkins' statements on religion tend to be a combination of embarrassingly slipshod generalizations, cherry-picking, hand-waving, flat errors, and polemic appeals to emotion.

Come to think of it, that's also a pretty good description of some sermons I've heard. . . .

[hapax]

@Dash: that's also a pretty good description of some sermons I've heard. . . .

Hee. Somebody say Amen!

Apologies for my remarks at 8:32, everyone. While I was laboriously trying to get my halting thoughts down in pixels, turns out smarter folks than I were making the same points and making them better. And I failed to check before posting. Sigh.

So let's just pretend my comments at 8:32 consisted of "yeah, Jeff! yeah, Praline! yeah, hapax! yeah!" (waves pompoms)

[MikhailBorg]

I've stopped evaluating conspiracy theories on whether or not they're likely to be true and am now considering whether or not they are funny.

I suspect that is a step on the path to enlightenment.

I once saw a cartoon set in Dallas in November 1963, where several gunmen of different ethnicity and implied political leanings were sitting puzzled at a bar, all going "Hell no, I missed! I thought it was you!"

[practicallyevil]

practicallyevil: it was a throwaway comment that got picked up and tossed around like a beach ball. Because, well, again like a beach ball, it was fun.

Ah thanks, I'd gotten lost.

I once saw a cartoon set in Dallas in November 1963, where several gunmen of different ethnicity and implied political leanings were sitting puzzled at a bar, all going "Hell no, I missed! I thought it was you!"

How can you fools not see? Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy, climb to the top floor, shoot Kennedy, and eat an entire serving of fried chicken without the grease affecting his aim? Furthermore as you can see in the Zapruder Film...

[hf]

Unless someone has a quote, I do not believe Wright endorsed any 9/11 conspiracy theory. The sermon I saw from after 9/11 seemed more reasonable than most of what I saw back then in the media. Speaking of which, do y'all really think mainstream figures tend to hold more reasonable positions?

[Dahne]

Ooh! Major points to Guiness for a Nietzsche reference that shows he's actually read Nietzsche!

[Josh]

If Rev. Wright were white and if he substituted "gays" for "America" for the thing he was calling on god to damn, we would be going ballistic.

"God damn gays for treating its citizens as less than human"? I would be perplexed but not enraged. See, it sometimes makes sense to talk about the U.S. Government as a unified entity with agency and responsibilities. But the people who talk about ethnic, religious, racial, or sexual groups that way are on the level of Russert asking Obama to renounce Belafonte: he (or the audience he imagines himself playing to) believes that there's, like, one person called The Blacks and The should be held responsible for his actions.

[hf]

(My question should read "accurate" instead of "reasonable".)

[Robb]

I don't get the "atheists don't know enough about religion to criticize it" argument. Gosh, what a friggin' surprise: People who go to school for theology tend to believe in god. What a fucking surprise. You could really be on to something here, Robb. Next, why don't you investigate whether things which quack like ducks are in fact, such.

Yikes. . . bitter, J? I'm not sure what point of mine you're responding to, but I don't think I was trying to say what you're claiming I did. I would, however, agree that people who study theology to tend to believe in God, but that's not a guarantee; indeed, many scholars of religion approach it from an anthropological/phenomenoligical/social point of view, with no real involvement in the faith they're examining. There are many atheists that do this, and I would say, yes, they are far better critics of religion than those who don't take the time to truly understand their "enemy". Dawkins has been rightly called out for this, but he's hardly the only one. Nor, however, is he the foremost expert on opposition to metaphysical belief - there are plenty of atheists out there who know Christian doctrine quite well & still have valid reasons to reject it.

You're also ignoring the point of Chris Hedges book if you're implying the message is "Atheists don't know anything about religion" - the book revolves around the fact that many of the most visible & vocal critics of religion parallel their fundamentalist counterparts in their actions. I'm honestly curious if you think it's a piece of shit because you don't like Hedges' writing or you don't like the arguments he presents, or if you haven't even read it but automatically think it's a piece of shit because Sam Harris said so?

As for Alister McGrath. . . bah, you can google him. Suffice to say he has a bit more credibility than Hedges when it comes to being a student/scholar of religion. The Dawkins Delusion is (IMHO) a far better book than Hedges', but you might think that's a piece of shit as well.

*****

Come to think of it, that's also a pretty good description of some sermons I've heard. . . .

(sigh) Yeah... there's a guy who occasionally preaches at the church I go to that is . . . less than thorough in his examinations of anything other than the Bible (and even there he's somewhat lazy). When I know he'll be gracing the pulpit with his hyper-anecdotal, ranting style, I'll make sure I'm elsewhere, otherwise I get frustrated & want to make my protestations known in a rather impolite manner.

[matt]

Christians are under attack in America! Take Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America. Written by Robert S. McElvaine for example. This worthless
"historian" attempts to attack Christians with the bible! This book is likely to be the refrence book of the Anti-Chris. I found this great review of Grand Theft Jesus that tears the arguments Dr. McElvaine to shreds.

[Dahne]

Oh my dear Nyarlathotep.

Grand Theft Jesus?

It is just plain wrong for somebody to come up with a name that fabulous and make it into a polemic instead of a band.

[Mrs Tilton]

this forthcoming document is an effort to reclaim the word "evangelical" as a religious term rather than as a political one

And fair play to them. For political reasons (not to mention a concern for sheer human decency) I hope they are successful.

Theologically, I no longer have a dog in that fight, as I am no longer a Christian or, indeed, religious in any way. But in the days when I was, it often struck me that "evangelical Christian" was a redundancy; all Christianity is by nature evangelical, indeed is utterly pointless without the evangelion. And I resented the people who claimed ownerhsip of the term "evangelical", thereby implying that it did not apply to my friends and me (boringly mainstream reformed tradition, as it happens).

I should add that I hadn't at the time known evangelicals, in the narrower sesne, who are like Fred. The ones I'd encountered were all prim humourless pietistic hypocritical pharisaical complacent pecksniffs who could bring home gold if hating were an Olympic event and who, in the unlikely event Jesus knocked on their door as he does in that stupid picture so many of them have on their walls, would slam it in his bearded foreign face, if not gun him down straightaway (as I believe is legal in many of the states they infest).

[Ursula L]

"Islamic practice"--like Jewish practice, Christian practice, American practice, etc.--are the practices practiced by Muslims. You can argue that something is a regional Islamic practice, a minority Islamic practice, an unorthodox Islamic practice, a barbaric Islamic practice, etc. But I don't see where you get off saying it's "not really Islamic".

Not everything a Christian does is a Christian practice, and not everything a Muslim does is a Muslim practice.

Consider the US 4th of July celebrations. Many Christians, and many Muslims, celebrate this holiday. But celebrating it is neither a Christian nor a Muslim practice.

Everyone belongs to many cultural groups - not just their religious one. When discussing a cultural practice, it's important to correctly identify the group associated with the practice.

FGM is primarily a northern/central African practice, with lesser use elsewhere. In the areas where it is common, it is practiced by people of all of the faiths in the region. Calling it an Islamic practice is both overbroad (not all Muslims follow the practice, and Muslims who follow the practice do not do so for Islamic reasons) and overnarrow (in areas where it is done, many people of other faiths, including Christians, will do it.) In short, to call FGM an Islamic practice, or an Islamic issue, is inaccurate.

[indifferent children]

> would slam it in his bearded foreign face, if not gun him down straightaway (as I believe is legal in many of the states they infest).

I don't know of any states with Deicide laws, and there isn't even a Federal law against murdering humans. If you want to try them for homicide, you'll have to rehash the homooisian-homoousian debate in court. Good luck with that.

[Praline]

@ Kirsty: Praline, every time you open your mouth, I want to hug your words. Is that weird?

Not really. I feel pretty cuddly towards yours, as well. :-)

[J]

the book revolves around the fact that many of the most visible & vocal critics of religion parallel their fundamentalist counterparts in their actions.

Riiiiiight. I've written this same parallel in about 18 threads now, but here goes again...

-Religious fundamentalists: Kill people, plant bombs, steal elections, burn books, beat women.

-The New Atheists: write books, give lectures, maintain weblogs.

Oh yeah, I can TOTALLY see the equivalence.

I'm honestly curious if you think it's a piece of shit because you don't like Hedges' writing or you don't like the arguments he presents...

Hedges' writing of I Don't Believe In Atheists was for me like discovering that a beloved uncle--someone I always thought was Cool, who'd sneak off with me and the cousins during boring family reunions and play video games with us--was actually a drug dealer or pedophile. Seriously; I was floored that he'd traffic in the kind of cheap stereotypes and out-and-out mistakes that he does in that books. MOST New Atheists support war in the Middle East? No; ONE does. The New Atheists want to put Christians in concentration camps? No; NONE do. Need I go on?

The Dawkins Delusion is (IMHO) a far better book than Hedges', but you might think that's a piece of shit as well.

Oh, I do.

[Chris]

indifferent children wins the thread.

[Froborr]

*sigh*

I used to feel a certain smug superiority in my atheism.

Then the New Atheists came along.

Harris, Dawkins, and their ilk are just as combative, self-righteous, and dogmatic as the worst of the fundies. The only reason they aren't putting people in camps or starting wars is because they are massively outnumbered. The only reason they aren't blowing themselves up is because they're well-fed and comfortable, and strapping a bomb to yourself requires desperation more than ideology.

Atheism, I realized, isn't superior. It's still vulnerable to the same monkey instincts that can take the religion that produced Bach and the Segrada Familia and twist it into LaJenkins.

That's why I'm not a New Atheist -- I realized I don't *need* atheism to be superior, because I am comfortably confident that it's probably true.