Myth 3.  The Christian Right have a monopoly on Christianity.

Leaders of the Christian Right allege that a "relationship with Christ" lies at the core of their belief system.  

It is rather misleading to refer to America's politicized theocratic movement as 'Christian' (their preferred term), because the word has so many different referents, many of which bear no resemblance to this movement.  To allow this network of politically active social conservatives to monopolize the term 'Christian' is grossly misleading. I prefer 'theocrats' because it more accurately describes the values this movement represents. It seems the proper question is not whether it is `Christian' to be homophobic, feminist, or pro-life, but whether the word `Christianity' refers to any single thing. Mainline moderate Christians concede too much to their theocratic rivals by taking for granted the unity and coherence of the New Testament (i.e. the Christian bible).  

Myth 2.  The Christian right defends the sanctity of life.

In the abortion issue the theocratic right's strategists found another opportunity to divide and rule.  One of the problems for the movement's early leaders was that traditional Catholics, who make up 24% of the American population, overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates. By championing a single issue, on which Catholics have famously held strong views, the theocratic right drove a wedge between pro-choice Democrats and traditional anti-abortion Catholics. On the strength of that single-issue, they persuaded a fair proportion of Catholics to vote for Republicans. By defining their paternalistic sexist position as "pro-life" they were able to create the impression that they, and they alone, value life. If you do not support their policies, you cannot support life.

This being my first post, I'm destined to make
editorial and protocol errors, so please forgive
me, suggest corrections as you wish, and shed little of my blood.  

  There are Christian Right factions that have mostly opposed the
GOP Neo-Conservatives Bushites who have aggressively
pushed to expand the US Empire via preemptive military
aggression against very select "enemies", while making
a mockery of historic Civil Rights via their new Junior
Department of Defense now call Homeland Security. (Or is this "Domestic Pentagon Junior?)

  Not sure just who the most prominent Christian Right
naysayer of the GOP Bush neo-cons would be but Chuck Baldwin,
a Baptist Pastor in Pensacola is one candidate. (Roman Catholics
might rightly argue that Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran
are more prominent.) Pastor Baldwin last two Updates have
openly discussed the possible Impeachment of President
Bush due to information coming out of the Scooter
Libby conviction. You can read both Updates here and find
many other Updates in his Archives.

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070309.html
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070313.html
more here...

by Terri Murray
© 2006

The aim of this commentary is to identify and assess three central myths promulgated by America's Christian right.  For the purposes of this piece, the `Christian right' is defined as a group of socially conservative, politically active organizations within Fundamentalist Christianity who share the objective of implementing conservative changes to American culture and law.  Its members have been especially successful building coalitions opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.

The movement generally rejects any modern method of Biblical interpretation and many of its adherents place less emphasis on the Gospels than on Pauline doctrine.  Its adherents are generally anti-intellectual, hostile to science, pluralism, tolerance, and the separation of church and state.  Amongst its central aims are downsizing the government, and "restoring" America as a Christian nation by imposing religion through the mechanisms of the state.  

Much of the movement's ideological strength has come from their expertise in circulating and reaffirming three powerful myths central to its image.  These are:

(1)     that the Christian right have a monopoly on moral realism,
(2)     that they have a monopoly on respect for the 'sanctity of life,' and
(3)     that they have a monopoly on Christianity

The Christian right's pundits present this set of abstract concepts - moral "values," sanctity of life, and Christianity - as their core values. Over and over again they have successfully framed complex issues as oppositions between these core values and their opponent's position. This has worked partly because, instead of engaging in an analysis of these concepts, they equate them with a set of public policies that are assumed to meet the conditions that define them. Thus it would appear that if you do not support their policies, you cannot support moral values, the sanctity of life, or Christianity.  A closer examination of the fallacious reasoning underpinning each of the Christian right's core myths will follow.

Analysis of an abstract concept involves defining its necessary and sufficient conditions. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is a form of fallacious reasoning that has worked well for the Christian right.  For example, one could argue that winning the lottery will make you rich, so if you don't play the lottery, you'll never be rich.  However, while winning the lottery is sufficient to becoming rich, it is not necessary, as there are many ways to become wealthy and winning the lottery is only one. Likewise, there are many ways to promote moral values, protect the sanctity of life and practice the Christian faith.  While the Christian right's social policies may be sufficient to achieve these valued ends (although this is questionable), none of their policies are necessary to achieving them.  

The US National Council Of Churches represents over 45 million members. The NCC was represented in a delegation that went, in late February, to Iran and met with top Iranian religious and political leaders, in hopes of increasing trust and reducing tensions that might lead to war between the US and Iran. On Monday February 26th the delegation gave a Washington press conference about the trip. Beyond a vitriolic New York Post parody of the delegation Not a single major US media venue has opted to cover the story.

Jews worldwide are in for quite a surprise.....

According to Ann Coulter, as outlined in her book  "Godless: The Church Of Liberalism", Jews are not actually Jews at all.

Jews are actually Christians ! suggests Coulter, erasing a distinction that led countless Jews and Christians astray for thousands of years.

Hat tip to Mike The Mad Biologist(note: original post seems unavailable due to blog-host change)  who unearthed this tasty morsel through a close reading of Coulter's footnotes. Writes Mike :

In Ann Coulter's world -- as described in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum) -- Jews are Christians, but apparently Episcopalians are not.

A footnote on Page 3 of the book reads: "Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." [emphasis added]

Yes, you read that correctly. As far as Coulter is concerned, Jews are Christians. Mazel tov!

As for Episcopalians, they might be disheartened to learn that they will not be welcoming their newly Christian Jewish friends into the brotherhood of Christ, because they don't quite measure up as a church. Coulter writes on Page 5, "Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church -- which is barely even a church -- because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path." [emphasis added]

So, maybe Episcopalians get to be the new Jews ?

At Blog From the Capital, I've posted some interesting quotes from the transcript of this morning's oral argument and links to other coverage as I find it.

My initial reaction after reading it through is not optimistic, though I don't think the taxpayer standing principle as a whole is in jeopardy. Justice Kennedy's concern that allowing suits like this one would amount to an "intrusive" control over the Executive branch is most concerning and makes me think he may join Alito, Roberts and presumably Thomas and Scalia (though Justice Scalia seemed to find the line-drawing on both sides preposterous.) in finding a way to deny standing in this case. The question is what kind of line will they draw to accomplish it?

Anyone who wants to get all the background info on the Hein case, as well as updates from Washington from the Freedom From Religion Foundation folks can find all of this on the MIC 92.1 website.

A press release from Market Wire:

Left Behind Games Inc...has hired consultant Dr. Gordon Chiu to research the suitability of introducing LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces PC game into the Asian market.

Dr. Gordon Chiu has brought many international brands to the Asia Pacific region. Chiu comments, "I personally find the unique platform of nonviolence connects very strongly with ancient Asian philosophies. With the upcoming Olympic games in 2008, everyone is looking for intellectually stimulating products from the United States and Europe that can better prepare them for interaction with Westerners. This particular game has educational benefits to Asian families because they will all want their children to learn about the West without having to engage in violence."

Chiu's spin on the subject matter of the game accords with the damage-limitation exercises currently being undertaken by Left Behind Games in the wake of the huge controversy that Eternal Forces has generated (and which has been covered extensively on Talk to Action). But the suggestion that the game is "non-violent" goes beyond even the claims of its supporters: Jerry Jenkins and Jeff Frichner argue that the game's violence should be put in a Biblical context, while LaHaye has complained that it is no more violent than other games (the fact he has in the past condemned other games for violence is glossed over).

Chiu continues:

"...This way of learning has been very popular in Hong Kong and is termed 'edutainment.' With the movie, 'The Da Vinci Code' doing phenomenally in Asia, the game Eternal Forces would be very well received," adds Chiu.

Not sure if LaHaye will like that comparison. But while LBG CEO Troy Lyndon argues that "Our game does NOT teach the pre-tribulation theology of the book series, except that this worldview is utilized as a FICTIONAL backdrop of the game", we can be sure that LaHaye sees the Asian video game market as a whole new field ripe for apocalyptic evangelisation.

Assuming that it’s the same person, Dr Gordon Chiu is better-known as a skin-care expert, although he also does technology and "private image" consulting.

(Cross-posted to my blog.)

For about 10 months, the Every Nation article on Wikipedia has been under on-again, off-again mediation because the gangsters in Brentwood have a conniption fit over anything critical about them.   It's part of their clumsy attempt to ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are, in fact, a repackaged and revived version of Maranatha Campus Ministries, one of the most notorious campus cults of the 70s and 80s.

Well, it's on again after yours truly and a bunch of other EN refuseniks on the FactNet anti-cult message board tweaked it a bit--check out the article's history to see it (edits by "Blueboy96"--yours truly--and "Osakadan" are from the good guys).   See the talk page to follow the discussion.

In particular, EN, through its communications director, has been somewhat upset at excerpts I added in from a speech made by Jim Laffoon, their chief "prophet," at their 2004 world conference.  In this speech, entitled "To Reach and to Rule," Laffoon announced that the organization was changing its name from Morning Star International to Every Nation in accordance with a vision God had given him.  According to Laffoon, Every Nation is part of God's plan to retake the world from the devil.

My good friend ulyankee--the intellectual leader of the EN refuseniks--has a copy of the CD from that conference, and kindly transcribed it here.  Here are some excerpts:

The assertion that we are 'exceptional' in matters of faith is commonly buttressed by various polls citing church attendance.  Some years ago this rang false for me, so I devised an easy test: How many church seats are available in American communities?  (this has obvious advantages over opinion polls).  In my own rural upstate NY town and county, I discovered that. the maximum capacity ran around 9%. 

Some of you may have read John Dean's recent book "Conservatives without Conscience". It was based upon the work of psychologist Robert Altemeyer.

Altemeyer studies what he has called the "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) personality type. This is the type who follows a strong leader and believes in a hierarchical social structure.