95 Theses on the Religious Right

[Nicodema]

Warning: may be offensive to right-wingers. Read at your own risk. I am posting this here for INFORMATION, not to start another tit-tat flame war over it. I do NOT expect everyone here to agree with ALL OF these theses. I myself disagree with some of them. However, I would ask that any disagreement be stated WITHOUT reliance upon invective or labels or judgment passing on others. If you cannot abide by that, keep it to yourself. I am not looking to censor anyone, just to keep discussion civil and avoid degeneration of the thread into label-wars and flame-wars.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/95_theses_on_th.html

The full document is available as a .doc or .rtf download, but excerpts are available on the site above.

Here are just some of the excerpts:

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "love thy neighbor", willed that believers should show *compassion* toward others.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean mere lip service ("I love them, but I hate their sin"), but genuine concern for the welfare of others.

3. Yet the Religious Right has forsaken compassion for a doctrine of institutionalized hatred and violence.

4. Specifically, the Religious Right has taken the Word of God and wrapped it in the flag of Right Wing Politics, replacing God's message of redemption for the entire world with a narrow message endorsing right wing American politics.

5. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, where He instructs that we are to show compassion for the poor.

6. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a right wing political doctrine in which the poor have only themselves and their alleged laziness and moral weakness to blame.

7. For example, the Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers.

8. The Religious Right has rejected the cries for help from the children of impoverished families in the inner cities.

9. The Religious Right, has advocated fewer resources for the elderly poor and for the millions of children now living in poverty.

10. In place of giving to the poor, the Religious Right has advocated political doctrines specifically designed so that individuals may acquire vast sums of money.

11. The Religious Right has thus seized on a contemporary economic ideology as an excuse to ignore the teachings of Jesus.

...

18. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

19. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a doctrine in which perceived sinners are to be persecuted.

20. Gays, for example, are persecuted because of their alleged sins. In some cases, leaders of the Religious Right have encouraged acts of physical violence against gays.

21. While the Religious Right has been eager to persecute others for their alleged sins, they have been blind to their own.

22. While the Bible counsels that a rich man can no more enter the of Heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, many in the Religious Right have celebrated the acquisition of wealth.

23. While the Bible enjoins us against pride, the Religious Right appears to be flush with pride in it's holier than thou stance.

24. While the Bible asks that we be slow to anger, the Religious Right is quick to anger -- indeed it appears to revel in anger and in fanning the flames of anger in others.

25. While the Bible counsels that we are not to be "revilers," key members of the religious right have consistently and aggressively reviled their political enemies as well as those who are perceived to be sinners.

26. It seems then, that the Religious Right picks its sins selectively, ignoring the clear Biblical message against avarice, pride, and anger, and emphasizing selected “sins” that have little to no Biblical basis.

...

31. Item: Religious Right has failed to see that God's call to help our neighbors also extends to our international neighbors.

32. International aggression is not a Christian doctrine.

33. Where the Bible calls us to be peacemakers, the Religious Right claims that we have no business trying to bring peace to troubled areas but rather counsels that we should use military might to secure our business interests.

34. Where the Bible, through the story of the good Samaritan, instructs that we are to help our international neighbors -- indeed, even our enemies -- the Religious Right counsels "America First".

35. But "America First" cannot be a true Christian Doctrine.

36. The Bible gives no special status to political entities like the United States of America, and any suggestion to the contrary is to simply lie about the content of the Bible.

37. God does not bless nation states, and if He did, He surely would not bless them for practicing international internal intolerance, and propping up corrupt kingdoms and military juntas that traffic in institutionalized poverty and violence.

...

83. Item: the Religious Right pays lip service to the authority of the Word of God, yet that Word plays little role in the treating of the Religious Right.

84. In place of the message of God's Grace and our redemption, they have substituted a purely political doctrine with no grounding in the Scriptures.

85. Rare are the references to passages of the Bible in the sermons of the Religious Right.

86. Those references that survive, are taken out of context and are merely used to justify preestablished political doctrines.

...

93. In conclusion: the Religious Right has desecrated the house of God, taking a place of worship and treating it as a soap box in the service or the Right Wing of the Republican Party.

94. The Religious Right has likewise desecrated the Word of God, attributing to the Bible doctrines that are hateful, cruel, and entirely antithetical to the actual contents of the Bible.

95. Christians are to be exhorted to speak out against the Religious Right, as it is a vile heretical movement, wholly outside the teachings of the Word of God.

[Nicodema]

Here is an example of the kind of disagreement statement that is not offensive:

Quote:

---

Thesis #72: In place of that beauty, they have taught their children a theory in which God's revelation through nature is ignored, and an ugly doctrine of fiat creation is espoused.

---

I disagree with #72 because I find nothing "ugly" about the doctrine of fiat creation. While it may not be scientifically verifiable, it is certainly no more "ugly" than any other creation story from any other religious tradition. The writer might have written, "a scientifically unverifiable doctrine" but "ugly"? I don't think so.

===============================================

please NOTICE the LACK of the following in the above statement:

• hostile invective
• flaming
• labeling
• passing judgment on anyone

I would like to see any disagreements expressed in similar fashion: merely stating the nature of the disagreement and why.

[Nicodema]

Open invitation to debate:

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed on the internet, under the presidency of Peter Ludlow. Anyone wishing to debate with us, may do so by e-mail at []ludlow@umich.edu[/]

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

at times it is all to obvious to me that someone is "regurgitating" from what they have been spoon-fed by some rabid LEFT -wing politico, pundit or preacher,

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Nicodema]

Shane,

First of all, I did not write these. Second of all, I have already mentioned that I don't agree with all of them. Last of all, your post is unacceptable and not in keeping with the atmosphere I have requested for this thread. I am going to request that it be deleted.

Nico

Edit: p.s. If you would like to post objective, civil, and specific disagreement with any of the "theses" you are still welcome to do so. Please refer to my post above for an example of this and stick to the subject of the item itself.

[Guest]

Wow Nico, these are pretty confronting statements. They certainly made me sit up and take notice. I do think the person who wrote them has a very narrow view. And there are probably a lot of people out there who would agree with him.

I found it to be a good read as it made me re-evaluate my relationship with God. As well, I think perhaps there may be an element of truth in some of what is written. I also think the writer misses the mark to some degree as he lumps all Christians together in his assessment of them. There are some Christians who are not as he perceives them to be. “Dare I say it”, I believe these Christians to be the minority.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

"institutionalized hatred and violence."

"Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers."

"political doctrines specifically designed so that individuals may acquire vast sums of money."

"an excuse to ignore the teachings of Jesus"

"perceived sinners are to be persecuted. "

"eager to persecute others for their alleged sins,"

"flush with pride in it's holier than thou stance."

"have consistently and aggressively reviled their political enemies"

"counsels that we should use military might to secure our business interests."

"Religious Right has desecrated the house of God,"

"a vile heretical movement, "

---

Quote:

---

please NOTICE the LACK of the following in the above statement:

* hostile invective

* flaming

* labeling

* passing judgment on anyone

---

[Nicodema]

Like I said, I didn't write them. I only asked to keep the atmosphere of THIS thread civil in discussing areas of disagreement. The guy who wrote these (whom I don't know personally or at all) invites debate and offers his email address -- I have posted it above if anyone here wishes to debate him personally.

If nothing else, they are at least valuable in understanding how one group of Christians appears to others. Whether or not that is important to us I guess depends on who's evaluating the situation. I think it is too easy to be glib and say that's their problem. I think "PR" for Jesus Christ is very important, and it is our duty to reach others, not their duty to make allowances for our offensive attitudes. The only "offense" we are to present is the "offense" of the cross -- nothing else. Not in social intercourse, not a brand of "religion" and certainly not politics.

Just my 2 centavos.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Beapeacemaker said:

Wow Nico, these are pretty confronting statements. They certainly made me sit up and take notice. I do think the person who wrote them has a very narrow view. And there are probably a lot of people out there who would agree with him.

---

What about his view did you find to be narrow? This might be good meat for discussion ...

Quote:

---

I found it to be a good read as it made me re-evaluate my relationship with God. As well, I think perhaps there may be an element of truth in some of what is written.

---

That's about how I see it, though I disagree with several specific statements and especially those that are accusatory without offering evidence. I would classify this document as "a good start" but in need of some reworking to be "ready for prime time."

Quote:

---

I also think the writer misses the mark to some degree as he lumps all Christians together in his assessment of them. There are some Christians who are not as he perceives them to be. “Dare I say it”, I believe these Christians to be the minority.

---

I believe his comments are addressed specifically to/about the "religious right", not to all Christians.

Not that I'm comparing the two by any means, but didn't Martin Luther also cause a stir -- and not a little hostility from the Big Mama Papal Church -- when he posted his 95 theses? Of course his were more theological than socio-political, but my feeling is that if this document was truly considered irrelevant nonsense rather than intimidating, it would be ignored rather than vituperated by its target subjects.

[there buster]

Can we deduce from your evaluation of his theses--

no hostile invective, no flaming, etc.

--that you would find such language acceptable in this debate?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane,

First of all, I did not write these. Second of all, I have already mentioned that I don't agree with all of them. Last of all, your post is unacceptable and not in keeping with the atmosphere I have requested for this thread. I am going to request that it be deleted.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Dear Sister, I only posted your words from another thread and changed the word "right" to "left". What on earth do you find so objectionable about your own words?

By your own admission, you were regurgitating what some obviously left-wing politico had written. Note that I didn't say anything was wrong with that. I didn't say anything at all. I just quoted your own words with one slight alteration.

[Nicodema]

And why would you do that Shane, except out of spite and insult? That's why I said it did not fit the atmosphere I requested for this thread. You completely decontextualized those words to make them sound nasty when they were not, in their original context, then you throw them in my face with your smart aleck alteration. I am neither impressed nor intimidated. You can stop it anytime now.

[Dr. Shane]

You mean when other regurgitate propaganda they hear or read it is wrong and provacative but when you do it, it is wrong and provacative to point out that you are doing it?

I didn't think you would get upset at your own words either. I thought you would see the irony. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Nicodema]

You decontextualized my words, that is what made me "upset". Those words were written in the context of acknowledging problems on BOTH ends of the spectrum and you ripped them out of context to make them seem like I was just ragging on the right -- and then used them to rag on the left -- when in their original context they were nothing of the sort.

Let's just drop it, OK? I'd like to get this thread back on the topic -- that is, if anyone is interested in discussing the topic. I'm over it -- let's move on.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Dear Sister, I only posted your words from another thread and changed the word "right" to "left". What on earth do you find so objectionable about your own words?"

Shane:

I give this thread some freedom to go, and did not spend much time reading it yesterday. So, I have just now read this exchange. At this point in time, so many posts have been made, and so many have read it that deleting anything would serve no useful purpose.

However, I am concerned with your own admission. You acknowledge that you quoted from a prior post by Nico, and made what I consider to be a major change in what she said.

I have refered to the place where you first posted it. I see that you posted it as a "Quote". To me this is a representation on your part that you posted it as she wrote it. Nowhere in that post did you tell us that you changed a word.

I consider this to be inappropriate. You could have fairly accomplished you purpose if you had stated in that post that you had made that change to illustrate a point. I do such at times. It would have been better if you had not represented it as a "qoute", although it still would have been better if you had clearly stated that you had changed her wording.

In the future, please be more accurate. God is a God of truth.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

You decontextualized my words, that is what made me "upset". Those words were written in the context of acknowledging problems on BOTH ends of the spectrum and you ripped them out of context to make them seem like I was just ragging on the right.

---

Just for the record, here is my original statement in its entirety:

[:"blue"]While I don't deny at times it is all to obvious to me that someone is "regurgitating" from what they have been spoon-fed by some rabid right-wing politico, pundit or preacher, I have also at times heard intelligent, interesting arguments and ideas from conservative folk evincing independent thought. I recognize both classes exist, and I allow that both classes exist on the other end of the spectrum as well. I've seen people spew on both ends and I've seen people exhibit intelligent, rational thought on both ends.[/]

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Greggory, My only mistake was placing the changed word in bold instead of in brackets. That is a gramatical error and hardly a reason to accuse someone of being dishonest.

Sister Nico was tired of others cutting and pasting conservative propaganda. The truth is that it is so easy to do - conservative or otherwise. So often we read or hear something and then repeat it in conversation with others. Sister Nico is a good example. Shortly after complaining about conservatives doing it, she did it herself.

I have no problem with the practice. I don't even think we need to give our sources when we do it. I was just pointing out how easy it is to do. Sorry for the gramatical error.

[Michelle]

SHane--I usually don't get into discussions where there has been strong emotions, but I think you are missing the point by "only" putting the changed word into bold rather than into brackets. That is more than a grammatical "error." I hadn't read the previous quote of Nico's, so had no idea you were trying to be ironic in what you were posting. However, after having read the entire quote in context, I have to say this is a gross misstatement in relation to the original post. This is what many people do with EGW's quotes--take bits and pieces out of context and look at them without the entire context. By using the tiny snippet you used, you changed the entire thought that Nico was stating originally. This is NOT a mild grammatical error.

Truly, if you were a student in my English class and pulled a stunt like that, you'd have a whole lot of 'splaining to do to me!

M

[Dr. Shane]

The entire thought was suppose to be changed. So according to you I accomplished what I was trying to do. The original quote was indicating that only conservative people repeat propaganda. By changing one word, I showed that it isn't just conservative people but liberals too.

It isn't a big deal to me. Liberals repeat propoganda. Conservatives repeat propaganda. Moderates, communists, Nazis, Christians, Budhists, union members, sports fans, everyone repeats propaganda. That is just part of life in an open and free society where each can compete in the arena of ideas.

My point was, let's not criticise others for what we do ourselves. If we would have been f2f I doubt anyone would have been offended. I was being light-hearted when I posted it but of course that would be hard to know on line. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, you have missed my point. I do not think that putting a word in bold instead of brackets was your only mistake. I think that your error was bigger than that. I hope that you can do better than that next time.

By the way, when my children were growing up, they typically attempted to point out, when corrected, that someone else had done the same. It does not speak well of you to attempt to deflect just criticism of you to another.

I hope that it is not your life purpose to copy the actions of others regardless of their correctness.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane, you have missed my point.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well it is a good thing you are not my judge. I don't know if I would ever be able to please you.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

when my children were growing up, they typically attempted to point out, when corrected, that someone else had done the same.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I don't think anyone has done anything wrong. If Sister Nico wants to cut and paste liberal propaganda I have already said I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. My only point is that when others cut and paste conservative propaganda they shouldn't be beat over the head for it.

Lighten up folks. Don't take yourselves so seriously. Sheesh <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . . hardly a reason to accuse someone of being dishonest>"

Shane, here is what I said: "In the future, please be more accurate. God is a God of truth."

I asked you to be more accurate. I did not accuse you of being dishonest. Accuracy and honesty do not have the same meaning.

My statement that God is a God of truth is a truism. It carried the implication that God, as a God or truth, is concerned about accuracy, and more. It was a call for you to be more accurate in the statements that you make. It was not a call for you to be more honest.

Shane, if I think you are dishonest, I will probably tell you personally, and not in a published comment on CA.

So that there is not misunderstanding of what I said: I called upon you to be more accurate. I did not comment on your honesty.

[jasd]

QReply window...

“BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS”

Student gets F grade for mentioning God

'He told me you might as well

write about the Easter Bunny'

…

Bethany Hauf, a freshman at Victor Valley Community College near San Bernadino, wrote the G-word 41 times in a paper titled "In God We Trust," examining the role of religion in government.” [ed.] ---2005 WorldNetDaily.com: Posted: June 30, 2005

"He said it would offend others in class," Hauf, 34, told the Daily Press. "I didn't realize God was taboo." [ed.]

“Recruit every agency of the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of Christianity ... You must subort [sic] district attorneys, and judges into an intense belief...that Christian practice is vicious, bad, insanity-causing, and publicly hated and intolerable. Just as in Russia, we destroyed, after many years, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest.” [ed.] --Psychopolitics, page 52

“There’s a pinko commie in every nightmare.” --jasd McCarthy