A case in point is Gordon Sawyer, writing for Access North Georgia:
First, religion should, in my judgement, provide us with the core beliefs that guide us as individuals in our everyday lives.
Whose religion, Gordon? Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Santeria? And which version of those religions - Anglican? Catholic? Wahhabi? Mahayana? There is no such thing as a generic “religion” which all people follow and which can provide everyone with the same basic core values. There are any number of similarities between religions, but there are also even more differences. Unless you wish to impose your religion on everyone else, Gordon, “we Americans” won’t be able to agree on what core values religion tells us we should have. (and that doesn’t even touch upon the situation for people who have no religion — does Gordon think that they have no core values?)
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the moral foundation for our American democratic government comes from the Judeo-Christian faith, but I do not want my church (or yours) running our government. At the same time, we are getting some laws that disturb me greatly: legalized government gambling; legalized abortion-on-demand; sex outside of marriage, not just in Hollywood but all the way to the Oval office; laws that define the family as anything you want it to be.
I find it interesting that Gordon Sawyer considers “sex outside of marriage” to be a “law.” Maybe he means that it is not against the law to have sex outside of marriage — and this disturbs him. So, in addition to criminalizing gambling and abortion, he would also criminalize any sexual activity outside of marriage. Why? Well, it disturbs him that people are having sex outside of marriage. H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having a good time.” That sounds like Gordon Sawyer.
It seems to me that if those of us who profess to be Christians just stand by and let the liberals have their way, then pop-culture will write the laws we live by. Maybe the 10-commandments is a good place to take our stand.
Don’t you just love how Gordon Sawyer frames this debate as one between “liberals” and “Christians”? Clearly, Gordon doesn’t think that there exists such a thing as a “liberal Christian.” I think that Gordon may need to get out more — the country is teeming with Christians who are liberal when it comes to politics and/or theology. Gordon doesn’t want some liberals to have their way, he wants some Christians (his kind of Christians) to have their way. He claims that he doesn’t want “his church” running the government, but he must what “his type of Christians” to be running the government; if that creates an imposition on liberal Christians, non-Christians, and the non-religious, well I guess that’s just too bad.
The Ten Commandments are a good place to take a stand — people who take their stand on the idea that the government should have the authority to promote the religious doctrines of a particular religion very openly declare their allegiance to theocracy and oppression, not to democracy and liberty. It’s good to know where you stand, Gordon Sawyer.
Christian & Religious Privilege:
Ten Commandments:
It all revolves around each individual’s interpretation of the biblical word. If you interpret “sin” as “having a good time” and are alright with that, more power to you. After all, it will be you who has to answer for it, ultimately. I believe there are some democrats who are christians, but the current liberal leadership, operating under the moniker “Democrats”, has absolutely no moral backbone whatsoever. Mrs. Coulter couldn’t have had a better title for her latest book.
Well, I doubt that many liberal Christians define the term that way. Personally, I don’t use the concept at all — “sin” is a religious concept with no more application in my life than “karma.”
You mean, they don’t have a “backbone” when it comes to the narrow vision of “Christianity” and “morality” as you define them. The fact that others may have different priorities about what constitutes proper morality and Christian living apparently lies outside your field of vision.
If the purpose is to demonstrate how ignorant and irrational she is, I agree with you. Her extended screed against science is more than enough to demonstrate that her popularity is a sign of just how far below the most rudimentary standards of clear thinking and rational discourse modern American conservatism has sunk.
Anne Coulter is a “Mrs.”?
No! No! Don’t let it reproduce!
The man you are speaking of happens to be my grandfather. I do not agree with almost all of his political beliefs and we have had several heated discussions about these disagreement. However one main view we share is the support of freedom of speech.
I understand that this article was your way of speeching out against his ideas and I am fine with that. However there are far better ways to go about it that defending your beliefs by ripping to shreds the beliefs of your adversaries.
I know you may have many words for me after this comment, but that is fine. I just needed to let you know that to support your own beliefs you don’t have to be on the attack.
I’m not “defending” my beliefs; at most, they are being implicitly defended.
I’m pointing all the things that are wrong with Gordon Sawyer’s beliefs. Bad beliefs and harmful beliefs deserve to be critiqued — strongly, loudly, and often.
No.
Your mistake is in assuming that my purpose in criticism is to “support” something. Frankly, I cannot fathom why you’d make that assumption.
My point in this criticism was exactly what you see: to expose just how bad, poorly reasoned, and dangerous the ideas in question are.