Are all Evangelical Christians off their rockers?
I had the good fortune to turn on the TV yesterday just as Larry King was interviewing some of the most notorious - sorry, I meant to say notable - Evangelical Christian leaders in the US today. Needless to say, all of these people are enormously wealthy, which is okay because God, apparently, has no serious problems with Capitalism. A good thing, too, as according to one of these rulers of the Christian airwaves, Americans are now the chosen people. In which case I'm especially happy I left the country when I did.
The following, then, are some of the highlights of the show. In some cases, I have subsituted my own comments and questions for Larry's, who, at 70, doesn't really give a shit anymore and tends to be a bit soft on the people he's interviewing. Still, you can't help liking the guy.
The best quote by one of the distinguished Reverends: "Christians do not, per se, oppose clean air and water."
Well, that's good to know. Hell, I'm almost tempted to start going to Sunday services again.
The Reverend went on to explain that, from a Christian perspective, people were not created to take care of the environment.
The environment was created for people to use as they see fit.
All people?
People of faith, especially.
I guess that let's Dick Cheney and the entire holy hierarchy at Halliburton off the hook. And let's not forget Ken Lay, as devout a crook as we're likely to run into in a Texas church pew. And George W. Bush. Drilling for oil in Alaska's last remaining wilderness is a lot easier to stomach when we think of it in terms of doing God's work. After all, Bush was re-elected because he is viewed as a man of faith. This plus the fact that the invention of the "Terrorist Threat," striking the Fear of God into more than fifty percent of the electorate, was perhaps the most brilliant campaign stratedy in American political history.
By the way, what Terrorist Threat? Do we really want to jump on the right wing bandwagon and assume that the incompents in the US government have actually prevented additional terrorist attacks since 9-11?
But let's not lose sight of the Evangelicals.
On the question of homosexuals: "All homosexuals are sinners, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love them. He does. All they have to do is repent their sinful ways and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. "
Okay, but then what about Christian homosexuals? Don't tell me there aren't plenty of them out there. Or is it all about pretense? Appear righteous and, needless to say, heterosexual, in public; what you do in private is of no concern to anyone but God, and since he automatically forgives you for believing in His Son, no worries.
"A Christian homosexual is an oxymoron."
Hey, nobody's calling these people geniuses.
"I'm sorry?"
Let's move on to another issue: Why do Christians oppose the teaching of evolution?
"For a number of reasons, but basically because it takes God out of the equation."
Nice answer, but couldn't God also be seen as running the evolutionary show?
"No. And all we have to do to realize this is read the Bible."
And, of course, it makes sense to be relying on a book written 2000 years ago, under what some would call dubious circumstances, as an effective way of interpreting present reality.
"Certainly, because the Bible is the Word of God."
But what about other, more contemporary, books, possibly taking a different perspective on things?
"Those would be the work of the Devil?"
So you also believe in the Devil.
"Of course! He is very much alive and active in our midst. And let's not forget that he is the ultimate deceiver, quite capable of appearing to us as God."
So god and the Devil are easily mistaken.
"God allows the existence of the Devil to both tempt and teach us. Finding our way to faith is not always an easy path."
But they can be distinuished.
"Ultimately, if not sooner. On Judgement Day all will be made clear."
But no before then.
"Unless one is truly faithful, I would have to say no. But let me add that the second coming of Jesus is at hand."
Like what, soon?
"In my opinion, quite soon."
Are you currently taking any anti-psychotic medication? (A question that should have been asked at this point, but wasn't)
Moving on to other issues: How does one get into heaven?
"There's only one way to enter God's paradise. Belief in Jesus Christ. Accepting him as our personal Savoir."
And everyone else goes where, Hell?
"I'm afraid so."
What about the Buddhists, for example?
"What the Buddhists do is their business."
But they will be doing it in Hell.
"Unfortunately."
Okay, but what exactly is Heaven? Is it an actual place? Is there shopping? Any sort of a nightlife?
"Being reunited with God is joy beyond our imagination. That there is nothing to do in Heaven in the conventional sense will not be a problem."
Tell me one thing. What's wrong with you people? (Thought, but not spoken.)
How about sex?
"What, now?"
I mean, is it okay for Christians to have sex?
"God gave us sex to enjoy, in wedlock, exclusively."
Lock perhaps being the operative phrase here.
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Without it we would all be Nihilists. No better than animals."
Sure, but how long can one enjoy sex with the same person, or animal, as the case may be?
"Read your Bible."
Anyway, I'm sure we all get the gist of the Evangelical position. Abortion, of course, did come up, but as I'm personally uncomfortable with it, thereby having no glib explantions for it, I've opted to avoid the issue.
Except to say that in a so-called free society, albeit one filled with idiots, what a woman does or does not do with her own body has to remain a personal, private matter. Politicians looking to suck up to bland, overweight, ill-informed constituencies bent on some watered-down version of sorry-salvation should take a long, hard look in the mirror, and then shoot themselves. Morality cannot be legislated.
Which brings us to my own personal view of some of the problems with Evangelical Christians and, by extension, all forms of religious fanaticism.
1) Their apparent total lack of imagination: Life, to be at all meaningful, has to be based on the idea of continuous and active reinvention of what it means for each of us, individually, to be alive. Sure, we're all full of fear, confused, depressed, in need of quick-fix medication to cope with the madness. The answer, however, is not the suppression of our basic impulses, instincts and intuition in favor of an externally imposed, artificial and restrictive belief system, which is aimed less at salvation, more at control.
2) The facile substitution of faith for social, political and existential responsibility. It's just too convenient and smacks of laziness. If there is anything God wants from man, it's that he be an active, creative participant in the unfolding of the experiment of existence. Perhaps the reason God no longer actively intervenes in the world (for example, by striking down all right-wing Republicans) is because He is bored out of his mind. Faith may be all well and good, but it's not substitute for art.
3) Dumbness: The vast majority of American Christians have nothing to gain from the policies of the Bush Corporate White House, aimed at dismantling soical programs, restricting personal freedom and underming the middle class, while further securing the position of the country's wealthy elite. So why did they vote for him in such large numbers? Are they masochists? Is suffering really a sign of sanctity? Is the hope for a Bush-inspired culture based upon constrictive, banal, moralistic principles really such a turn-on?
Where in the Bible does it say that accepting Jesus as our personal saviour requires giving up our ability to think?
Is intelligence a sign of the Devil at work?
One wonders. God yawns. Nietzsche (in Hell, needless to say) cracks a rare smile.
The following, then, are some of the highlights of the show. In some cases, I have subsituted my own comments and questions for Larry's, who, at 70, doesn't really give a shit anymore and tends to be a bit soft on the people he's interviewing. Still, you can't help liking the guy.
The best quote by one of the distinguished Reverends: "Christians do not, per se, oppose clean air and water."
Well, that's good to know. Hell, I'm almost tempted to start going to Sunday services again.
The Reverend went on to explain that, from a Christian perspective, people were not created to take care of the environment.
The environment was created for people to use as they see fit.
All people?
People of faith, especially.
I guess that let's Dick Cheney and the entire holy hierarchy at Halliburton off the hook. And let's not forget Ken Lay, as devout a crook as we're likely to run into in a Texas church pew. And George W. Bush. Drilling for oil in Alaska's last remaining wilderness is a lot easier to stomach when we think of it in terms of doing God's work. After all, Bush was re-elected because he is viewed as a man of faith. This plus the fact that the invention of the "Terrorist Threat," striking the Fear of God into more than fifty percent of the electorate, was perhaps the most brilliant campaign stratedy in American political history.
By the way, what Terrorist Threat? Do we really want to jump on the right wing bandwagon and assume that the incompents in the US government have actually prevented additional terrorist attacks since 9-11?
But let's not lose sight of the Evangelicals.
On the question of homosexuals: "All homosexuals are sinners, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love them. He does. All they have to do is repent their sinful ways and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. "
Okay, but then what about Christian homosexuals? Don't tell me there aren't plenty of them out there. Or is it all about pretense? Appear righteous and, needless to say, heterosexual, in public; what you do in private is of no concern to anyone but God, and since he automatically forgives you for believing in His Son, no worries.
"A Christian homosexual is an oxymoron."
Hey, nobody's calling these people geniuses.
"I'm sorry?"
Let's move on to another issue: Why do Christians oppose the teaching of evolution?
"For a number of reasons, but basically because it takes God out of the equation."
Nice answer, but couldn't God also be seen as running the evolutionary show?
"No. And all we have to do to realize this is read the Bible."
And, of course, it makes sense to be relying on a book written 2000 years ago, under what some would call dubious circumstances, as an effective way of interpreting present reality.
"Certainly, because the Bible is the Word of God."
But what about other, more contemporary, books, possibly taking a different perspective on things?
"Those would be the work of the Devil?"
So you also believe in the Devil.
"Of course! He is very much alive and active in our midst. And let's not forget that he is the ultimate deceiver, quite capable of appearing to us as God."
So god and the Devil are easily mistaken.
"God allows the existence of the Devil to both tempt and teach us. Finding our way to faith is not always an easy path."
But they can be distinuished.
"Ultimately, if not sooner. On Judgement Day all will be made clear."
But no before then.
"Unless one is truly faithful, I would have to say no. But let me add that the second coming of Jesus is at hand."
Like what, soon?
"In my opinion, quite soon."
Are you currently taking any anti-psychotic medication? (A question that should have been asked at this point, but wasn't)
Moving on to other issues: How does one get into heaven?
"There's only one way to enter God's paradise. Belief in Jesus Christ. Accepting him as our personal Savoir."
And everyone else goes where, Hell?
"I'm afraid so."
What about the Buddhists, for example?
"What the Buddhists do is their business."
But they will be doing it in Hell.
"Unfortunately."
Okay, but what exactly is Heaven? Is it an actual place? Is there shopping? Any sort of a nightlife?
"Being reunited with God is joy beyond our imagination. That there is nothing to do in Heaven in the conventional sense will not be a problem."
Tell me one thing. What's wrong with you people? (Thought, but not spoken.)
How about sex?
"What, now?"
I mean, is it okay for Christians to have sex?
"God gave us sex to enjoy, in wedlock, exclusively."
Lock perhaps being the operative phrase here.
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Without it we would all be Nihilists. No better than animals."
Sure, but how long can one enjoy sex with the same person, or animal, as the case may be?
"Read your Bible."
Anyway, I'm sure we all get the gist of the Evangelical position. Abortion, of course, did come up, but as I'm personally uncomfortable with it, thereby having no glib explantions for it, I've opted to avoid the issue.
Except to say that in a so-called free society, albeit one filled with idiots, what a woman does or does not do with her own body has to remain a personal, private matter. Politicians looking to suck up to bland, overweight, ill-informed constituencies bent on some watered-down version of sorry-salvation should take a long, hard look in the mirror, and then shoot themselves. Morality cannot be legislated.
Which brings us to my own personal view of some of the problems with Evangelical Christians and, by extension, all forms of religious fanaticism.
1) Their apparent total lack of imagination: Life, to be at all meaningful, has to be based on the idea of continuous and active reinvention of what it means for each of us, individually, to be alive. Sure, we're all full of fear, confused, depressed, in need of quick-fix medication to cope with the madness. The answer, however, is not the suppression of our basic impulses, instincts and intuition in favor of an externally imposed, artificial and restrictive belief system, which is aimed less at salvation, more at control.
2) The facile substitution of faith for social, political and existential responsibility. It's just too convenient and smacks of laziness. If there is anything God wants from man, it's that he be an active, creative participant in the unfolding of the experiment of existence. Perhaps the reason God no longer actively intervenes in the world (for example, by striking down all right-wing Republicans) is because He is bored out of his mind. Faith may be all well and good, but it's not substitute for art.
3) Dumbness: The vast majority of American Christians have nothing to gain from the policies of the Bush Corporate White House, aimed at dismantling soical programs, restricting personal freedom and underming the middle class, while further securing the position of the country's wealthy elite. So why did they vote for him in such large numbers? Are they masochists? Is suffering really a sign of sanctity? Is the hope for a Bush-inspired culture based upon constrictive, banal, moralistic principles really such a turn-on?
Where in the Bible does it say that accepting Jesus as our personal saviour requires giving up our ability to think?
Is intelligence a sign of the Devil at work?
One wonders. God yawns. Nietzsche (in Hell, needless to say) cracks a rare smile.
posted by Bruce Leigh at 10:56 PM
2 Comments:
That's a sanctified brother talking there, yeah! And it's just the way we like to see those evangelicals called into account. Not to paint all Christians (or any other religious adherents) with the same wide brush, it goes without saying. Just the televangelists and Republican toadies, for starters, and all other self-righteous, intolerant, pseudomorality-legislating types. Get a clue, you idiots, as to the essence of Christ's teachings.
Larry King treats everyone too deferentially, but, hey, the big corporations rule and he doesn't want to lose his show. I don't know much about the guy, actually, having only watched his show perhaps a dozen times in the last decade. That you have a soft spot for Mr. King is understandable, given that 1.) Americans living abroad have, in many instances, limited TV viewing options in their native tongue, and 2.) the guy's a native New Yorker, like yourself, is he not?
And what happened, people, to all those terror-watch color alerts which emanated so frequently from the Dept. of Homeland Propaganda prior to Nov.4? John Ashcroft reportedly claimed when he left office that the threat had been vanquished. Yadayadayada....
Vielen Dank, Herr Nietzsche, for the smile. You should do it more often.
John E.
AMEN to 99% of that! These selfish, shallow, superstitious, religious fanatics turn my stomach. The 1%? I am even more uncomfortable than you with the liberal position on abortion. The best defense of it is put forth by Peter Singer, who concludes that to support abortion rights one must also support euthanasia and infanticide in certain cases. I haven't met many people who will concede this. Singer's argument enrages the clergy of any religion and can be found in his brilliant book "Writings on an Ethical Life". True, much personal morality can't be regulated by law. However, if it is concluded that an unborn fetus is a human then abortion is, of course, murder. And murder must be regulated by law. Abortion is a vastly complicated subject and I distrust anyone (Christian evengelists and radical liberals alike) who sees it as a simple black and white thing. In any event, if Nietzsche's in hell and these southern preachers are going to heaven I, like Billy Joel, "would rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints." Have you listened to "In It for the Soul" from Perfect Gentleman yet? It's making fun of these Bible literalists, too! All my love, Randall Leigh
Post a Comment
<< Home