Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Greatest I am]

I don't consider those types to be moderates. Perhaps it's best if we had like a scale or something? Like on the far right of the spectrum of Christianity, you have people like the Hutaree and the Christian domnionists, then you have the ultra-conservative but non-violent fundamentalists like Focus On The Family and the ex-gay movement, then you have the ordinary pew sitting mainstream fundamentalists who are the Rick Warren fans. Then on the far left, you have progressive Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy and are vocal defenders of liberal social justice issues like Spong and .co. When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc. and Christians who are members of the liberal wing of the Episopocilians or might belong to the UCC or a UU church. I think of pew-sitting conservatives who might not be violent as mainstream fundamentalists.

I also see moderates fighting for the rights of those that would be crushed under fundamentalism. There needs to be moderates in the churches if change will ever take place in the institution itself.

 

Life is a continuum and if there were no moderates, the ends would constantly be at each other's throats.

 

Yep. They are the sober second thought instead of the knee jerk response.

 

Not always sober, they are moderates after all.

 

It is easier to solve the problems of the world when you are half cut. Works for me.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

 

In the real world they aren't worth a discussion as they don't make an impact on politics, culture or mainstream xianity.

They don't?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqwBDVeVTM

[Greatest I am]

When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc

 

Then I think you are confusing moderate with liberal. And as far as I can tell this group isn't worth discussing as it doesn't make up more than, what, 1% of the xian population?

That could be Vigile.

 

I bet defining these and coming to an agreement would serve us all.

 

Impossible.

 

That would be like trying to define Christian nowadays.

 

First question---how nany wives does your Christian sect allow. the one or however many you can afford.

 

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

I read your post as refuting global warming.

 

Is it real or not?

The average temperature is increasing.

 

However, according to you, contradictory evidence is not allowed to be discussed in media. Any information, fact, or statistics opposing the global cataclysmic scare religion, must be silenced. That's honest and ethical reporting according to you.

 

So are you denying that there are places where they have record cold?

 

Are you telling me they are lying and they should shut up because you are divine and god's right hand?

 

Now I am sorry I asked your opinion earlier. It is not my writing skills this time it is you.

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

Now I am sorry I asked your opinion earlier. It is not my writing skills this time it is you.

So you don't believe in Global Climate Change?

 

I'm sorry that I even bothered trying to communicate with you.

 

[Vigile]

I just watched the first part of the video but it makes the point I was trying to make earlier. The woman accuses them of twisting scripture. I would consider this group to be of the liberal variety, not moderate and like I said, it doesn't impact other xians other than to reinforce their own fundy beliefs via a sense of persecution and a sense that they are right and those who believe differently are wrong.

 

I have mixed feelings about the group who put the board up. Part of me cringes that gays would fight so hard to be accepted by an organization that persecutes them. On the other hand, it's a positive message.

 

I still don't believe there are large groups of liberal xians that are tempering in any way mainstream xianity. But getting back to the discussion of moderates, I don't think we have yet agreed upon a definition of who they are. As far as I can tell, most church goers are fundies of one stripe or degree. Some of these fundies are more moderate. Once they stop being fundies they also tend to stop going to church and stop letting the church tell them how to vote and behave. At that point they aren't bothering me anymore so I say live and let live.

[Neon Genesis]

But surely not everyone who supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was an atheist?

[Greatest I am]

 

In the real world they aren't worth a discussion as they don't make an impact on politics, culture or mainstream xianity.

They don't?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqwBDVeVTM

 

It would be nice to change the anti Gay debate from sexual to discrimination.

 

I do find it a tad strange thought that any would want to get rid of discrimination.

 

Let me try to be clear here for those who cannot read properly.

 

Every law is permission and indeed compulsion to discriminate against a sub section of society.

 

A law against murder for instance says that we are to discriminate against murderers. In fact there is a compulsion there to do so in the sense that if we do not discriminate against these people as they do their deed and do not try to help when we can, we are charged along with the perpetrator.

Circumstances are what determines this.

I think the last time I heard of this compulsion to help was invoked was when a person stood back and allowed someone to get assaulted without intervention as they filmed it.

 

Discrimination in this sense is quite good.

 

This is not to be read as my supporting negative and unjustified discrimination as in the case of Gays for being Gays or blacks for being black.

 

Discrimination can thus be a good thing or an evil thing depending on how it is applied.

 

I await replies from those who will now turn my words around.

 

Do not be surprised if I ignore those.

 

Regards

DL

[Vigile]

But surely not everyone who supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was an atheist?

 

I'm a bit confused by this. Why would it matter if they are atheist or not? I never argued that only atheists can be liberal in their values. I'd be willing to be though that almost all of those in support are not church goers. That's always been my point. I don't take issue with the average guy who has a vague understanding of xianity, who considers himself an xian, but that that is pretty much it for him. I have a problem with those whose religion influences them to persecute others, vote their faith, etc... This typically means church goers. And of regular church goers, how many are fundy? I argue that most are.

 

The problem with this entire debate has always been about definitions IMO. I suspect that you might consider average people who drink beer with their friends on Friday nights, who sleep in on Sunday, who don't really give religion much thought ever, but who consider themselves xian if you ask are moderates. Perhaps they are and if that's the case I don't have an issue with them.

 

Moderate to me is probably a mild fundy. I have a problem with their beliefs and much of their behavior insofar as it affects me, affects their children and/or affects society. Beyond that I don't care.

[Shyone]

 

 

Then I think you are confusing moderate with liberal. And as far as I can tell this group isn't worth discussing as it doesn't make up more than, what, 1% of the xian population?

Well, it's hard to know who's talking about who when people like Dawkins and .co and their loyal followers just lump moderates all-together in one basket and never properly define who they're talking about.

Vigile's definition of "average church going people" is probably more on target. They are the ones that carry beliefs silently until they get to the polls. They don't speak out, but constitute the majority of believers.

 

What are the beliefs of these people? Polls suggest that the people holding religious beliefs hold them strongly, and they are definitely biased against atheists and gays according to a recent Gallup poll:

 

People's opinions of atheists break down:

 

Very Favorable: 7%

Mostly Favorable: 27%

Mostly Unfavorable: 19%

Very Unfavorable: 33%

 

So, only 34% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards atheists; 52% have a mostly unfavorable or worse attitude.

 

If we assume that 7% saying that they view atheists "very favorably" are atheists (makes sense doesn't it?), then that means that the second group is probably the liberal branches of religions (mostly Christian) coming in at about 27%. The Mostly unfavorable and very unfavorable groups would be the average churchgoers and the radical fringes. What percentage of Christians would be in the radical fringes? Well, there's Phelps...

 

This is at least generally born out by the statistics from born again christians:

 

Here are the numbers of born-again Christians who regard the impact of these groups as negative:

 

Islam: 71%

Buddhism: 76%

Scientology: 81%

Atheism: 92%

 

 

The Evangelicals are more vocal, but the "average church-going Christian" still has opinions that make a big difference when it comes to the vote.

 

They quietly sit in pews, they don't protest or speak out, and they are fully functional in the "real world" but they are not like Spong or UU in their attitudes. There's your "moderate" Christian.

[Greatest I am]

I just watched the first part of the video but it makes the point I was trying to make earlier. The woman accuses them of twisting scripture. I would consider this group to be of the liberal variety, not moderate and like I said, it doesn't impact other xians other than to reinforce their own fundy beliefs via a sense of persecution and a sense that they are right and those who believe differently are wrong.

 

I have mixed feelings about the group who put the board up. Part of me cringes that gays would fight so hard to be accepted by an organization that persecutes them. On the other hand, it's a positive message.

 

I still don't believe there are large groups of liberal xians that are tempering in any way mainstream xianity. But getting back to the discussion of moderates, I don't think we have yet agreed upon a definition of who they are. As far as I can tell, most church goers are fundies of one stripe or degree. Some of these fundies are more moderate. Once they stop being fundies they also tend to stop going to church and stop letting the church tell them how to vote and behave. At that point they aren't bothering me anymore so I say live and let live.

 

I disagree with live and let live.

 

To see why, just google Jesus camp and killing African witches.

 

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

 

If we live and let live then the innocent suffer and die.

 

Regards

DL

[Vigile]

If we assume that 7% saying that they view atheists "very favorably" are atheists (makes sense doesn't it?), then that means that the second group is probably the liberal branches of religions (mostly Christian) coming in at about 27%. The Mostly unfavorable and very unfavorable groups would be the average churchgoers and the radical fringes. What percentage of Christians would be in the radical fringes? Well, there's Phelps...

 

Thanks for this. You put some meat on a debate that is quite difficult for all of us to grasp.

[Vigile]

 

 

I disagree with live and let live.

 

To see why, just google Jesus camp and killing African witches.

 

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

 

If we live and let live then the innocent suffer and die.

 

Regards

DL

 

I think you missed my point. I said live and let live as long as they aren't bothering me, their children or society. Your examples above would be areas I would consider them being a nuisance or worse.

[florduh]

Now, until someone finds another poll to refute that poll . . . maybe we're onto something!

 

I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society.

 

I wonder if the Christians ever debate good atheist vs bad atheist. My guess is they view all atheists, moderate and extreme, as a threat to their Christian Nation.

[Shyone]

I wonder if the Christians ever debate good atheist vs bad atheist. My guess is they view all atheists, moderate and extreme, as a threat to their Christian Nation.

I had a mental picture of a fundy saying, "The only good atheist is..."

 

The blank part isn't flattering.

[NotBlinded]

I can understand where both sides here are coming from. Of course, I do have an opinion.

 

I think that it will take those "liberals" or "liberal moderates" that do continue to want to go to church to be influential in bringing about change. We have a Christian here that attends a Lutheran Church (Open_Minded). The more liberal church-goers have different times they attend than the "regular" church-goers do. They seem to communicate with each other and how else can any change come about if not for communication?

 

If there were no moderates or liberals, which ever way that can be taken to mean what I want it to mean, then the church would never have accepted the things they do now. It seems that most of the early church fathers believed in a literal hell. There are many Christians now that don't believe that way. Yes, the number is higher for regular church-goers, but I think without the voice of moderation, it would be much higher and the hopes of getting rid of some of the horrible beliefs that cause suffering isn't going to happen without communication with those that see it in a different light.

 

Ok, there's my 2 cents and I do expect change.

 

[Realist]

I wonder if the Christians ever debate good atheist vs bad atheist. My guess is they view all atheists, moderate and extreme, as a threat to their Christian Nation.

I had a mental picture of a fundy saying, "The only good atheist is..."

 

The blank part isn't flattering.

 

 

arhhh come on don't be shy ... "Shyone" .... Fundies say "The only good atheist is a dead one"!!

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I have mixed feelings about the group who put the board up. Part of me cringes that gays would fight so hard to be accepted by an organization that persecutes them. On the other hand, it's a positive message.

 

 

But is it really that surprising? African American Christians did the same thing when they fought for equal rights and MLK Jr. frequently quoted from the bible to give theological support to his protests.

[oddbird1963]

I found an op ed piece entitled, Onward Moderate Christian Soldiers, written by Rep. Sen. John C. Danforth

 

Since he is both a politician and a clergyman, I think his take on moderates is about as definitive as we are going to get, not because his definition is particularly good. It's just so hard to figure out what a moderate Christian really is.

 

I read an excellent blog by a recent de-convert who pondered about moderates, but I couldn't find it again when I googled it.

 

But apparently, moderates tend to do the following two things:

 

 

• Emphasize the high points of Christian moral and ethical doctrine such as love, mercy, compassion.
  
• A view of the mature Christian as the trusting "seeker of truth" and not the certain holder of Truth.
  

 

I would add to this a holding to the Bible as "authoritative" or "Infallible" but not necessarily inerrant. I recall a seminary president (moderate) who once wrote that fundamentalists and moderates believe in the same thing with regard to the bible, but use different words to describe it.

 

What this seminary president didn't realize was that the whole fundie vs. moderate debate was all about was which words one uses. Eventually the word inerrant won out and this president had to resign.

 

Let me ask you ( "you" as in "ya'll"). In a world where there is very little to be absolutely certain about, couldn't the moderate position actually be more honest than "wishy washy"?

 

There have been comments that the moderates are the quiet ones who actually vote the conservative/fundamentalist agenda. But that sounds more like self-effacing fundamentalism than a moderate agenda.

 

I think moderates are people who want to hold on to the things they most strongly believe in from the Bible and their traditions, but don't want to be at war with the world in terms of making everyone conform to their interpretation of what reality ought to be. Literalism is not as important to them as it is with fundamentalists.

 

With fundies, the tendency is to not only interpret the Bible literally, but to try to make everything and every one in society conform to their vision of what reality ought to be. So much so, groups like "The Family" in DC and various fundie pleasing political activists are trying to reshape societies, rewrite history and re-draft school curriculum to force a wordview on people since the prevailing worldviews have moved passed their archaic, bronze aged view of the world.

[Shyone]

I found an op ed piece entitled, Onward Moderate Christian Soldiers, written by Rep. Sen. John C. Danforth

 

Since he is both a politician and a clergyman, I think his take on moderates is about as definitive as we are going to get, not because his definition is particularly good. It's just so hard to figure out what a moderate Christian really is.

 

I read an excellent blog by a recent de-convert who pondered about moderates, but I couldn't find it again when I googled it.

 

But apparently, moderates tend to do the following two things:

 

 

• Emphasize the high points of Christian moral and ethical doctrine such as love, mercy, compassion.
  
• A view of the mature Christian as the trusting "seeker of truth" and not the certain holder of Truth.
  

 

I would add to this a holding to the Bible as "authoritative" or "Infallible" but not necessarily inerrant. I recall a seminary president (moderate) who once wrote that fundamentalists and moderates believe in the same thing with regard to the bible, but use different words to describe it.

 

What this seminary president didn't realize was that the whole fundie vs. moderate debate was all about was which words one uses. Eventually the word inerrant won out and this president had to resign.

 

Let me ask you ( "you" as in "ya'll"). In a world where there is very little to be absolutely certain about, couldn't the moderate position actually be more honest than "wishy washy"?

 

There have been comments that the moderates are the quiet ones who actually vote the conservative/fundamentalist agenda. But that sounds more like self-effacing fundamentalism than a moderate agenda.

 

I think moderates are people who want to hold on to the things they most strongly believe in from the Bible and their traditions, but don't want to be at war with the world in terms of making everyone conform to their interpretation of what reality ought to be. Literalism is not as important to them as it is with fundamentalists.

 

With fundies, the tendency is to not only interpret the Bible literally, but to try to make everything and every one in society conform to their vision of what reality ought to be. So much so, groups like "The Family" in DC and various fundie pleasing political activists are trying to reshape societies, rewrite history and re-draft school curriculum to force a wordview on people since the prevailing worldviews have moved passed their archaic, bronze aged view of the world.

There is a lot of meat to chew on here, but let me take a few bites.

 

First, any Christian, liberal, moderate or fundy, will give a similar picture of their faith in terms of how they wish to be seen. They want to express the love of Jesus, pull people to Christ, and see themselves as rational, even "open-minded" people. Would you expect them to say, "I'm a bigot for Jesus!"

 

What they are, however, may be completely different, and if you pry into their secret actions and beliefs (aside from the sexual impropriety) you find someone that would privately say gays are (put some derogatory word here).

 

I don't see moderates as interested in conflict or tranforming the world, but they would nod approvingly of measures to "put God back into schools" and other places religion doesn't belong. They like the public expression of Christianity at Christmas and high school graduations, and see nothing wrong with public prayer.

 

They think their religion is good, and what's good for them is good for everyone.

 

So they aren't "trying" to transform society, but they see nothing wrong with the transformation that the fundies are asking for (and voting for). Think of it this way. Every religious institution that has a school system of any kind has prayer in school. They clearly don't oppose it. While the individual churches publically feign tolerance of secular education, they don't advocate it for their schools and they would hardly object to some general religious expression in public schools. I think this is truer of the rank and file than the clergy.

 

Fortunately, I don't have to depend only on my own opinion. I have the opinions of a smattering of Americans.

 

"Do you believe the motto 'In God we trust' should remain on U.S. currency and coins or should it be removed?"

 

.

 

___________________Remain Removed Unsure

____________________%_______%______%

11/29-30/05________93______4______3

4/25-26/05_________92______5______3

.

 

"Do you believe the phrase 'under God' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance or should it be removed?"

 

.

 

______________________Should Remain____Should Be Removed____Unsure

___________________________%______________________%___________%

11/29-30/05_______________90____________________7____________3

.

 

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal to display the Ten Commandments on government property?"

 

.

 

__________________________Legal_________________Illegal__________Unsure

___________________________%_________________________%_____________%

11/29-30/05_______________76______________________15______________8

3/1-2/05__________________77______________________14______________9

.

 

"Do you agree or disagree that the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life?"

 

.

 

__________________________Agree___________________Disagree________Unsure

___________________________%_________________________%______________%

11/29-30/05______________77_________________________17_____________6

 

 

"Do you favor or oppose allowing public schools to have a prayer during graduation ceremonies?"

 

.

 

_________________________Favor________________________Oppose________Unsure

__________________________%_____________________________%_____________%

11/29-30/05_____________82____________________________11_____________6

 

 

"Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to post the Ten Commandments in public schools?"

 

.

 

_______________________Good Idea_____________________Bad Idea________Unsure

__________________________%_____________________________%______________%

11/29-30/05______________66____________________________24_____________10

 

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I don't see moderates as interested in conflict or tranforming the world, but they would nod approvingly of measures to "put God back into schools" and other places religion doesn't belong. They like the public expression of Christianity at Christmas and high school graduations, and see nothing wrong with public prayer.

 

 

See the Interfaith Alliance: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

[Shyone]

 

 

I don't see moderates as interested in conflict or tranforming the world, but they would nod approvingly of measures to "put God back into schools" and other places religion doesn't belong. They like the public expression of Christianity at Christmas and high school graduations, and see nothing wrong with public prayer.

 

 

See the Interfaith Alliance: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

Are you claiming this is a "moderate" organization? And that it represents the median view of American Christians?

 

I see lots of comments like this one:

 

What I find amazing is that in this “balanced” piece she goes on to interview Connie Ryan Terrell who is the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa (uniting “progressive voices of faith”, conservative need not apply).

 

I contend they are not representative of the average Christian. I don't deny that they exist.

 

Liberals still account for a minority of the white evangelical community -- perhaps 20 percent.

 

Quite frankly, the expressed opinions in the polls on issues that divide conservatives from liberals demonstrate that most americans are just conservative. And most are Christian.

 

I tried to find statistics on religion as a whole, but every damned study breaks them down by sect. I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time, to put them all back togather. Their opinions, however, are not generally consistent with the Interfaith Alliance which, by any measure is a liberal conglomeration of religious people.

 

I counter your link to interfaith alliance with this:

 

http://www.faithandvalues.us/

 

They are, and I quote, the "Moral Majority." The Interfaith Alliance would then be the .....

[Neon Genesis]

I contend they are not representative of the average Christian. I don't deny that they exist.

 

Liberals still account for a minority of the white evangelical community -- perhaps 20 percent.

 

 

The president of the Interfaith Alliance, Rev Gaddy, is a pastor for the Northminister Baptist Church although I think they're something of a heretical Baptist church.

[Greatest I am]

 

 

I disagree with live and let live.

 

To see why, just google Jesus camp and killing African witches.

 

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

 

If we live and let live then the innocent suffer and die.

 

Regards

DL

 

I think you missed my point. I said live and let live as long as they aren't bothering me, their children or society. Your examples above would be areas I would consider them being a nuisance or worse.

 

A good word for brain washing and murder.

Nuisance.

 

Not.

 

It must be the way I understand language.

 

That is like saying rape is just friction.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Now, until someone finds another poll to refute that poll . . . maybe we're onto something!

 

I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society.

 

 

 

So much for the equality of citizens.

 

You would make a good Christian and would be quite happy top tell women to sit at the back of the church and shut up.

 

Take the log out of your eye.

 

Regards

DL