The Realignment Of Christian/Jewish Groups in America

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Freddie53, May 31, 2006.

  1. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    There was once a time when The Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, a part of the Anglican Communion were almsot just alike.

    There was a time when Baptists, Assemblies of God, and some other Protestant groups were extremely oppposed to Catholicism.

    There once was a time when Methodist and Baptist congregations used the same building out on the frontier and each congreation met twice a month all all Methodist and all Baptists went to both churches.

    Now things are being realigned.

    Example: Cardinals of the Roman Cathoic Church, The Southern Baotist Convention and a Orthodox Jewish group and others have formed a group to fight for a ban on gay marriage and have a amendment to the U S Consitution to establish marriage and a union between one man and one woman.

    On the other hand a Reformed Jewish group, The United Methodist Church, The United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church have formed a group to olppose a federal amendment to the Consitution of the United States for the purpose of banning gay unions.

    What we have here is a Jewish group on each side. Catholics on one side and Episcopalalians on the other side and Methodist on one side and the Southern Baptist Convention on the other side.

    In the political arena and in moral issues such as homosexualtiy and abortion amongst a host of other things, one can't assume that all Jews will be on one side. All middle of the road Protestants on one side etc.

    What is ahead for America in this realiignment? How will it affect politics? How will it affect how well different religious groups will be willing to share in religious services?


    According to the news release I read, each of the groups had a reason for their decision. In the case of the Untied Methodist Church the decision was based on Methodist belief that Methodists values shouldn't be forced on other people, not an endorcement of gay unions.

    Anyone else notice that this is happening?

    Don't know where this thread will go. I see great change ahead in how religous groups interact in the future. Will religous political parties develop like the Christina Democrats in Euroope?
     
  2. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I posit the fight against abortion did more to unite Christian sects in the last few decades than gay marriage has. Current events show gay marriage is not quite so unifying an issue for the faithful.
     
  3. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    the existing political parties in america are already religious platforms.
     
  4. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Much akin to your spelling, nobody ever said life would be perfect. The best thing to emerge from all of this is that people are verbalizing their thoughts on the matters instead of sitting around staring like morons while doing nothing.
     
  5. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    oh, that was helpful! WELL DONE INDEED
     
  6. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Yes without question Freddie. They're drawing up sides in an effort to "clean up the 'morals' of this country" and "save our children from the dreaded homosexual". It's blindingly clear.

    The scariest of all is the co-mingling of the Roman Catholic Church with the Christian fundamentalists on many of these so-called "morality" issues. I had always hoped that the various denominations would come together in a more eccumenical fashion but this is decidedly NOT what I would have hoped would have engendered it.

    Bottom line? I want them ALL the fuck out of my bedroom.
     
  7. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Jerk
     
  8. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out?
     
  9. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Freddie does have a point, though. The Democratic Party seems to have no apparent religious agenda. One would classify their image as secular humanists, I think. However, beneath the surface you will probably find a lot of progressive religions viewpoints. In response to the political victories of the religious right, I think Democrats will surely begin to articulate progressive religious/cultural slogans. For example, "Since when is poverty not a moral issue?", "Literacy is a family value.", etc.

    Here is a good example from yesterday's email. Notice who is lining up behind Jim Wallis.

    I think the Dems just didnt see it coming in the last election. Remember in one of the "town hall" style presidential debates when someone challenged Kerry with a question on abortion rights from the standpoint of religion. Kerry missed an opportunity to tell her how his faith informs him that all life is sacred, not just the life of an unborn child, which moves the debate away from a black and white Pro-Life issue. He could have said that his faith informs him that one cannot be Pro-Life and be pro-capital punishment at the same time, etc. He could have said that you can't put all your energy into preserving the rights of a fetus and then have no social safety nets for it to thrive in after it is born. Why would a "pro life" person not be also passionate about reducing hunger, poverty, disease, and social injustice? Anyway, you get my point, I'm sure.

    I think he pulled a Dukakis on that one, where his response to the question was so erudite and devoid of emotion that noone could connect to him on it.

    I dont think they will make that mistake this time, however, it;s difficult to imagine what it might look like. I predict someone unexpected will figure out how to model all this in a presidential campaign. Someone from left field (no pun intended) like Barack Obama (just a wild hunch. I can't figure out if he is the real thing or something contrived.)
     
  10. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes, this is frightening. I agree with your bottom line. I also want them out of public school science class.

    Did anyone see the Frontline Special on AIDS last night? If not, I recommend going to pbs.com and watching it. The second half is on tonite. In the special, they talked about how the Republican Administrations and the Conservative Christian groups were huge roadblocks in promoting education and condom and syringe giveway programs in the early years of the pandemic. In other parts of the world, these things were the single most effective weapon against the spread of aids before medical treatment was devised.

    How an organization like the RC Church could be against the use of condoms is baffling and really scary. I am sure that if Jesus came around these days he would be on tv telling people to not use condoms because risking your own health and the health of millions of people around the world is better than condoning sex outside of marriage. Uh duh.
     
  11. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Sorry I'm a bit dense today JustAsking but I'm missing your meaning here. Who out of the science class? The Church??


    Yes. I watched it spellbound. The second half is being broadcast tonight. I suspect the only problem JA is that the only people watching it are those, like you and me, who wish to be informed.

    Even my boyfriend was antsy watching it and at one point when I left the room changed the channel. When I asked "why?" He said, "it's boring".

    Brings to mind the old Algonquin Club (Dorothy Parker?) quote "you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think" :redface:

    -disclaimer: Sweetie? If you read this I'd say it to your face!:biggrin1:
     
  12. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes. I wouldn't say "The Church" though, because most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that see no conflict between science and religion. I am referring to the conservative religious groups that promote the teaching of Creationism in science class. The flavor of the month is Intelligent Design Creationism.
     
  13. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    There's an oxymoron if I ever heard one...:rolleyes:

    P.S.
    Isn't it in violation of the first amendment to teach this as science..(Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)?
     
  14. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    I second the eye-rolling.

    Not exactly. The proponents of ID have carefully worded their various and ambiguous theories to be devoid of religious content on the surface. Proving that it has a religious agenda takes a lot of work. So its not a "no brainer" to throw it out as a first amendment violation. But it is not impossible as demonstrated by the landmark case you cited. In that case, it clearly failed the Lemon Test, but not until it was shown to be scientifically vacuous, and the very strong ties to Creationism was established by days of expert testimony. Also, the behavior of the Dover school board was such that it was clear that they themselves had a religious motivation to alter the curriculum in favor of it.

    Another thing is that the Dover case did not go to the Supreme Court. Judge Jone's decision is only binding in the Federal District that is served by his court. However, when a case like this is decided in Federal Court, and a very well constructed decision is written by the judge, it becomes a benchmark for use by other Federal Courts. This means that if a school system in another District tries to do the same thing, and someone decides to challenge it in Federal Court, there is a good chance that the judge for the new case will rely heavily on the Judge Jones' decision as a starting point.

    So although the Dover case did not change the law in any way, it created what is now known as The Dover Trap. The Dover Trap is the high probability that a school system would be challenged in its introduction of ID into the curriculum, be sued, and end up having to spend a million dollars (as Dover school district did) in legal fees, and then lose.

    It worked. A few months after the Dover case, the State Board of Education of Ohio restored its science curriculum back to its pre-ID state after having it be compromised for a number of years. They were avoiding The Dover Trap.

    Bless you Judge Jones.
     
  15. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Sometimes it's a refreshing change when the law works even if without change it is able to create a credible deterrent.

    A good result, thanks for the background :biggrin1: I just remembered hearing about ut and that it used to a large degree on the Establishment clause as it's argument? I believe while there were 'sour grapes' aplenty there was no appeal?

    To know that as a Bush appointed Republican and a Lutheran his ablity to separate 'faith' from law must be as much a reassurance to you as to the chagrin of creationists everywhere...:rolleyes:
     
  16. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    In fact for a Lutheran there would be no need to separate faith and law in order to find ID both scientifically and theologically vacuous. Lutherans (not including the conservative offshoot denominations), find no conflict between science and religion.

    However, Judge Jones did say that his personal beliefs in God as a creator were not pertinent to the question of whether ID was science or religion, nor did they interfere with his decision. I am saying that as a Lutheran, he did not have to compartmentalize his thougths in order to avoid that conflict (unless he is a Missouri Synod Lutheran), but as a Judge he did anyway.

    But in general you are right. Seeing this particular judge do his job so competently and brilliantly really gives one hope for the system itself. And indeed it has taken the wind out of the Creationist's sails.
     
  17. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Since I am oblivious to sarcasm I appreciate your compliment.
     
  18. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    If you and your dimwitted cohorts had bothered to read ALL of what I said, I also indicated that talking about it (that's what verbalizing means) is helpful since at least it places the matter out in the open instead of keeping it off to the side as if it does not exist.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted