Dark Christianity
dark_christian
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back October 3rd, 2006 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
WHEN NEUTRALITY IS BIASED

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nebris)

From Hot Potato Mash

The AP writes that "The IRS is increasingly being asked to referee disputes over whether churches are improperly engaging in partisan politicking from the pulpit. And some fear the trend could endanger the taxman's neutrality." Churches cannot endorse candidates because of their tax exemption benefits.

The article, however, goes out of its way to be neutral. Complaints from both sides are up. The IRS recently looked at a couple of churches for supporting Republican Ohio Governor candidate Ken Blackwell but also investigated a Pasadena (Los Angeles) based church for an anti-war sermon days before the 2004 presidential election.

The rather bland article concludes, "Despite concerns about the politicization of the IRS complaint system, many say the agency is still a crucial check that prevents religious organizations from becoming arms of a political party."

The problem with this overt neutrality is that it paints an entirely false picture and serves to coverup real problems and illegal activity. While there may be some individual liberal churches that cross the line by endorsing candidates for office, there certainly is not a grand coalition of churches conspiring together to propel republican candidates to victory that exists on the right.

But don't take it from me, watch Michelle Goldberg, author of "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism", in this video explain how evangelical leader Tony Perkins takes his marching orders from the White House and then disseminates that information to more than 100 evangelical leaders during a monthly conference call. The pastors then pass on the latest White House talking point to their flock. Worse, this effort is not merely an election time gambit but continues year-round and is a vital cog in the right wing propaganda machine.

And while the AP manages to stay neutral, its bias could not be greater

Current Mood: contemplative
dogemperor [userpic]
Battle Brewing Over Military Chaplains

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]sunfell)

This CBS article talks about the battle over sectarian prayer by military chaplains:

Christian conservatives in Congress are expected to renew their fight to allow military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus at public events, contending that existing practices infringe upon basic religious freedoms.

They lost a battle last week to push through legislation that would have allowed military chaplains to publicly lead groups in sectarian prayers. The language was championed by conservatives who say service policies are so restrictive that chaplains cannot invoke Jesus's name when praying in public, including over a dead soldier on the battlefield.

Military chaplains often lead groups in prayer outside private religious services, but omit references to any particular religion. Opponents have said allowing specific religious references during public military prayers could be divisive.


It's rather ironic- back when I was in the military, chaplains were very careful to be as religiously neutral and unprovocative as possible in public situations, only using sectarian phrases and prayer when they were performing services under their particular sect. It has been only in the last 15 or so years that the influx of very evangelical sects like Assemblies of God and Baptists has shifted the tenor of the chaplain corps, from spiritual support that was friendly to all faiths to a deliberate and agressive sectarian evangalicism that has become a bone of contention in the military.

Yes, chaplains should be able to perform sectarian prayer. But not in public venues, and not in the aggressive manner that current chaplains now prefer.

dogemperor [userpic]
Emailing government

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]eiredrake)

dogemperor [userpic]
Challenging Harry Potter in Georgia

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]britzkrieg)

This morning the Georgia state Board of Education held a public hearing to address arguments by a "concerned parent" that the Harry Potter books foster witchcraft, negative values, etc. A friend of mine actually attended the hearing, and she summarizes it here.

You might want to comment here instead of there.

dogemperor [userpic]
Religious Right strangely silent about Foley

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nebris)

"The situational morals of the most pious among us"



AlterNet link

Current Mood: cynical
dogemperor [userpic]
Also on the book-challenging front...

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]cyber_istari) http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17270600

The irony here is almost too much. ;) Text behind cut, if you don't want to navigate out.

dogemperor [userpic]
Is the anti-christ gay?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]kittynboi)

Since there has been discussion about frightening attitudes of dominionists and their ilk;

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/christianism_wa_5.html

The gay rights movement was birthed and inspired by the anti-Christ. He suggested that the anti-Christ is himself gay, citing a verse from the book of Daniel saying the anti-Christ will have no desire for a woman.


I find this particularly frightening and ugly. It also reminds me of Pat Robertsons speculation in the early 90s that the "anti christ" will most likely be a jew.

Of course, going around saying the anti christ is gay will make it even more difficult for gays to be tolerated on any level by the dominionists if people take such rhetoric seriously.

How will these people react when they think every gay person they see if potentially the anti christ?

dogemperor [userpic]

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]jamie_miller)

Cal Thomas argues that "popular culture" has so thoroughly disposed of morality that no one has the right to condemn Mark Foley for his acts of ephebophilia, as if Dominionist Christianity were the only platform that provided a basis for such a condemnation.

Back October 3rd, 2006 Forward