Let’s not have any backsliding, folks
This piece from the Boston Globe gives the reader some idea of how the Voltaires of yesteryear must have felt as they struggled with pen against ancient ignorance and self-satisfied intolerance -- and worse, how little so many have advanced since.
Try not to be gripped by the horrifying thought that the family interviewed here speaks and thinks for the majority of Americans. It can then be amusing to count the subjects’ apostasies and see that those very lapses would, in the eyes of even more condemnatory fanatics, damn the entire family to eternal flames.
The purity of any revolution -- such as the one Christian evangelicals believe they're spearheading -- is never quite achieved, hence it knows no limits.
posted by P.M. Carpenter @ 11:05 AM
12 Comments:
I wonder why the reporter for this issue didn't ask some tough questions of these people.
How do they feel about the war in Iraq started on false pretenses that has killed over 1500 Americans and maybe over 100,000 Iraqis?
How do they feel about the war in Afghanistan since a life is a life according to them.
Can they still admire President Bush knowing he misled the nation into a preemptive war?
If so how do they square that with Jesus' teachings?
How do they feel about poverty and how do they justify their fairly plush lifestyle with 3 vehicles and a large home in the burbs?
Do they support the death penalty and if so how do they reconcile that with their views?
Being republicans how do they support tax cuts that cut services for the poor and needy?
What's more alarming about this piece is the poor shoddy piece of journalism in a feel good piece that really addresses no serious questions about what these people believe and how hypocritical some of their believes can be.
The father wants to be called a do-gooder at the end of the piece, but believing in a fundamentalist religion does not a do-gooder make. The last I checked a do-gooder does more than just tries to convert people to their way of thinking, but truly tries to help relieve the suffering of the poor and unfortunate. Do-gooders don't support preemptive wars that kills thousands of innocent people and do-gooders don't take away from the poor to give to the rich.
What a bunch of passive-aggressive semi-psychotics. Scary.
God almighty this article gave me a chill. The 1st poster got it right. Why would the reporter not ask tough question rather then let them blather on about basically nothing. They don't have a religion as much as they have a gimmic...
To the first poster, even if the reporter HAD asked the questions you suggest, the couple would have had answers that would neither make sense or be very satisfying. I deal with people like this at work at the time.
The thing that gets me is the line that they live their lives according to a literal translation of the Bible, yet literal translations are FAR different than the interpretation that these people rely on, which is more than likely a translation of a translation of a translation -- all by already biased sources.
If folks were to look at actual, literal translations of the Bible, they'd be shocked to learn that not only is Homosexuality NOT a sin, abortion is -- according to the Bible -- condoned by God.
Show them those passages and you'll see the smiles wiped right off their faces in seconds flat.
Yes, I also agree that the reporter in question should have asked some harder questions, especially with regards to their beloved, Dear Leader and his war crimes (yeah, I said it. Am I wrong? No.). But it is my guess that the reporter wanted to portraty this family as the typicalEnvangelical Christian family. At least that was the tone of the article to me.
However, I don't think this family as is radical or "out there" as others suggest. Before I read the article I was thinking, "Oh, here we go... this is going to be a family where they encourage their kids to stand on the corner and hand out bbibles to people and any one who refuses, politely or not, they are to scream 'Demon!' or "Whore!" at them."
They seem Flander-lite. I could live next to this fmaily, provided they had no problem with the fact that I'm not Christian and my wife is a visible minority (Racially they don't seem to cool). But.... I think that's exactly what the article wants you to think.
this is the enemy. those who chose to let others do their thinking because the world is to big, complicated and overwhelming to deal with. Listen to a simplistic, moralistic message that makes you feel comfortable and self righteous in your crass materialism an d shallow view of the world and shuffle on to the rapture. Face it its a hell of a lot more comfortable then thinking and working for active change towards a better world. Sadly , it is also delusional and will only result in the conversion of this country to a third world police state. By the time these people figure out that they have been dupes, it will be too late or they will become guards at the gas chamber gate.
greatblueheron777@yahoo.com
Sigh. Style over substance. Dogma over science. Faith over reason. Evangelical Christianity is dumbing down America.
"I'm not sure that Jesus is that important in the Catholic church" Hmmm, my my this gentleman has not been to Mass has he? Good to know that he knows who will and will not go to heaven, maybe I should check with him before I go around being all Catholic and the like. It is this ilk of evagelistic christian that claims to "know" God and Jesus that are the very scary ones.
It's one thing to have moral values and believe in Jesus... another very extreme is to be FANATIC.
I believe that people should take to heart what feeds them spiritually about religion and base their faith and values on that, not just some "he say she say..."
Why is this family under attack? The Bible presides over the lives of many people across the world, its doctrine infiltrates nations. This family has chosen to live according to its doctrine and they do not have to do it alone, as there is a community of others who have made a similar choice.
There are reasons within the Bible itself for making such a choice, and within that choice is the need to reconstruct one's world view to encompass the standards set forth by that book. Those standards can be uncomfortable, strict, and difficult.
It is the Bible which sets the tone of this story, not the Wilkinsons. If you wish to ask the tough questions, ask them of the Book from which the Wilkinsons take their fundamental principles. In there are the Biblical answers to all the questions I see put here, but the answers can be yes, uncomfortable, strict, and difficult.
It occurs to me that what really brings the Wilkinsons under fire here is their strength of purpose, the presentation of a family having it all figured out (or figured out for them). Many people are awash in the world we live in today where truth is relative and too many serious questions are open to debate. The Wilkinsons have placed the hard questions in the hands of a higher authority and follow a book that clearly states the standards by which they are to live.
Every human is forced to make choices of this sort and we none of us have any idea if our choices are more sacrosanct than the choices of others.
No what has brought the Wilkinson's under fire is
1) They do not live by the so-called uncomfortable, strict, and difficult standards set forth in the Bible, but claim to be. Living in a nice to do suburban home with 3 vehicles is not difficult. Support tax cuts for the wealthy (them in this case) while the poor get to foot a greater portion of our social bills is not uncomfortable. Pointing your finger at abortion, homosexuality, and evolution while you admire a man who started a brutal war based on lies is not very strict. These Neo-conservachristians claim to follow a religion based on peace, love, and generosity, but show very little of the fruits it should bare.
2) They do have it all "figured" out and are not open to critical thought nor discussion. Reason and rationality is beyond them, but yet they wish to place their faith-based views into the public square where they expect them to be accepted by all. Our secular pluralistic democracy is based on open and rational discussion of all the issues at hand in deciding what directions our country should head. An answer of because "the Bible says so" should never be a satisfactory answer for any question of legislation, foreign policy, judicial matters, etc. in our secular pluralistic democracy. Save such faith based logic for theocracies such as Iran.
Lastly we should ask tough questions of the Bible. If it is demanding that we accept it as our guiding principle on life then we should question it. I have questioned it as you might expect found it to be wanting. While there are many good things within some of which I have taken to heart, other parts border on pure immorality and are things I could not take up without a troubled conscience.
To the poster above who said that if the report HAD asked some tough questions, their answers would not have made sense:
It is not the job of the reporter to judge if an answer to a question would make sense or not, its their job to investigate and to inform. Ask some tough questions on how they justify their religion with their politics and life style and report the answers. Let us "the readers" decide if it makes sense or not. If it doesn't then it will highlight the hypocrisy and silliness of their thoughts. If it does then it will enlighten us.
Post a Comment
<< Home