Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests www.christianexodus.com

Originally posted by caltour:

---

Church members should express their political views through voting (and individual financial contributions), just like the rest of us. They shouldn't form umbrella organizations like the NAE for the purpose of gathering money to influence politics. They should not support initiatives to make their interpretation of christianity the law of the land. They shouldn't lobby for public funding for christian schools, they shouldn't try to get religious displays installed on public property, and they shouldn't try to make kids pray in public schools. They shouldn't seek to blur the line between church and state.

---

You're saying certain Americans should not be able to assemble because thier beliefs are different than yours? There are thousands of organized groups petitioning the government right now for policy changes that I find incredibly disturbing; but last I checked this is a democracy and it is their *RIGHT* to do such!

I am COMPLETELY aghast at a supposed intellectual, free-thinker like yourself saying that certain groups of law-abiding Americans should be FORBIDDEN from the political process.

Shocked. I am simply shocked that this kind of thinking actually exists in America today.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

Church members should express their political views through voting (and individual financial contributions), just like the rest of us. They shouldn't form umbrella organizations like the NAE for the purpose of gathering money to influence politics. They should not support initiatives to make their interpretation of christianity the law of the land. They shouldn't lobby for public funding for christian schools, they shouldn't try to get religious displays installed on public property, and they shouldn't try to make kids pray in public schools. They shouldn't seek to blur the line between church and state.

---

You're saying certain Americans should not be able to assemble because thier beliefs are different than yours? There are thousands of organized groups petitioning the government right now for policy changes that I find incredibly disturbing; but last I checked this is a democracy and it is their *RIGHT* to do such!

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

I never said that churches should be forbidden from anything. If you read the entire post, you'll see I said: " . . . groups with extraordinary potential for upsetting the delicate balance of power must exercise voluntary restraint if they care at all about preserving our democracy." See where it says VOLUNTARY?

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

What in the world makes you think they are not entirely capable of acheiving their goals?

---

caltour, you bring up some well articulated concerns about the potential for a powerful entity, be it corporate or religious, to misuse its influence within the public sector. And I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year. But in some of my earlier posts which were directed at your concern I'm trying to tell you that the christian population as a whole is much too diverse to want to align themselves with each other on all political matters for the purposes of creating a Bible Nation as you call it.

---

You are assuming that "the christian population as a whole" would have to support the evangelicals/megachurches' grab for power in order for it to succeed. Why?

Not necessarily. It would just take an even more cordinated and bidenominational effort to make the 'grab' sucsseful on the scale you speak of, imo.

A relatively small group can start a revolution (see Russia (1917), Cuba (1959), United States (1770s)). A small, relatively unpopular cadre of dedicated, organized operatives can dominate the policymaking apparatus of even a large democracy like ours (today's Neoconservatives).

Fair enough.

Evangelicals would need only a fraction of the "christian population as a whole" to generate the money and influence needed to dominate the playing field.

Only thing to point out here is that they already possess the fraction of this population and have for years. Which would mean the domination would have already occurred but it doesn't.

One of the great weaknesses of our form of government is that it is a "winner takes all" system. There is virtually no representation for those individual voters who don't vote with the majority. Minority parties are locked out of power. And only a minority of the population votes. Any group that can round up tens of millions of dollars, or (just a few) tens of millions of votes, can control almost everything.

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

Not only would these attempts not make it out of the church pews but if it did I have a feeling that the rest of our society would be more inspired than ever to take political action more seriously and try restoring balance to the political landscape.

---

Faith is a wonderful thing, in sprirtual matters. But not in politics.

Not sure what you mean. We've all seen in recent elections how outcomes can come down to just a few counties.

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

You should also know that the often unheard christian voices that preach sermons that aren't centered around a few divisive hot button issues are beginning to gain a wider acceptance by congregations around the country. And it is within these churches that I think a new perception of christianity by the mainstream will be born.

---

You acknowledged above that the evangelical megachurches are growing in influence. ("I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year.") You know they have millions of members and are hugely wealthy organizations. They already have more than enough money and membership to steamroll almost any political opposition. And they are avowedly dedicated to doing so.

Yet you pin your hopes for averting their excessive political influence on some "often unheard christian voices" in a few churches. You think that "a new perception of christianity" will be born in these chuches. Excuse my skepticism, but is that really supposed to make me feel better?

Yes, imo. I believe in the coming years a more diverse political platform will replace what's now seen as mainly right wing. As we sppeak a new vision of biblical truths is being applied to how christians can look at politics.

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

I geuss my advice to you then is to not be so alarmist.

---

If you are not alarmed by the political threat posed by the evangelicals and the megachurches, then I suppose it's simply because you share more of their goals than I do. A lot of Germans were not alarmed by the rise of the Nazis, because they shared many of the Nazis militaristic, totalitarian and antisemitic views.

Not even close. Again you paint too many with the same brush.

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

And maybe go to church every once and a while.

---

Why? Do I need to go to church in order to have a fulfilling spiritual life? Do I need to go to church in order to get into heaven?

No and No. Maybe this particular form of communication is not ideal for detecting the humor I was trying to convey.

What if the churches in my area are havens of SUV-driving Bush Republicans who would rather run over a needy person than feed him?

Then find a real church.

---

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

One of the great weaknesses of our form of government is that it is a "winner takes all" system. There is virtually no representation for those individual voters who don't vote with the majority. Minority parties are locked out of power. And only a minority of the population votes. Any group that can round up tens of millions of dollars, or (just a few) tens of millions of votes, can control almost everything.

---

This statement is not accurate. The entire basis of the court systems was put into place to guarantee a voice to minorities to pursue issues that they felt were patently unfair.

---

Quote:

---

Where did you get this opinion? The megachurches have multi-million dollar budgets, and a call from the pulpit can readily raise more. They are a huge source of "soft" money and a major financial supporter of right-wing causes. I have never heard anyone deny this before.

---

Originally posted by 04marauder:

---

Only thing to point out here is that they already possess the fraction of this population and have for years. Which would mean the domination would have already occurred but it doesn't.

---

Originally posted by caltour:

---

No. The judicial system was never designed to be a guarantor of democratic representation for the minority. It is a forum for testing the constitutionality of legislation, for enforcing laws (that were put into place by majority-elected legislators), and for resolving civil disputes. As I recall from law school, there is no cause of action for "political unfairness."

---

Political unfairness? What is meant by these words? Those words sound like someone who values safety (comfort) over liberty. The courts are definitely one of three federal branches that are part of the overall democratic system of gov't we have. They represent the appointed and generally more permanent positions in our gov'ts. They are absolutely a part of testing whether laws written by the legislative branch hold up to constitutionality, which is a part of our democratic process. In many instances in history, the "small guy" has found victory over the majority through representation in the courts.

Quote:

---

The filibuster is widely recognized as an extremely limited and often ineffective antidote to majority domination in our system.

---

Quote:

---

It is a very crude tool for obstruction, and not a true "seat at the table" of power. As a practical matter, it is rarely used, because not only does it require extraordinary committment and dedication of resources, it can be quickly ended by a supermajority vote. And recent attempts by the Republicans to kill it altogether reveal that it is a weak substitute for real power.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, a MAJORITY of votes were cast for those elected representatives (except for Bush in 2000, of course). How does this support your argument that minorities have real representation in our federal government?

---

Quote:

---

If the "minority" of voters were united, they would likely be a majority, wouldn't they?

---

Quote:

---

It is pretty rare for a candidate to win an absolute majority. Often the vote is split between several candidates, and the winner receives less than half of all the votes.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing that there are no groups that have some influence except for majority voters. If no "minority" groups had any influence at all, democracy would have failed long ago. Thanks for pointing out an example of a "minority" group that has managed to have some political success (not much, but some), but it truly is an exception and not the rule.

---

Quote:

---

Where did you get this opinion? The megachurches have multi-million dollar budgets, and a call from the pulpit can readily raise more. They are a huge source of "soft" money and a major financial supporter of right-wing causes. I have never heard anyone deny this before.

---

Huge churches have large budgets but spend the majority of it on the infrastructure they support. I'm on the financial committee for my church which is by no means a megachurch, we see on average about 500 people between two different services each Sunday. Our annual budget is around 750k roughly. The majority of our annual budget goes toward two things, real estate and salaries/personnel expenses for our three pastors. Outside of that the next largest expenditure is toward ministries, most of which are for people outside of the U.S. I've personally seen the budgets for a few megachurches and their expenditures aren't a whole lot different. They are ministry focused just like my own church. I've never once heard of an alter call for money for anything politically related in my own church nor any of the megachurches, and I have several friends in California that are members of some 10-20k person megachurches. Like I said, the majority of funding for political representation goes to PAC's and SIG's such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Familylife, Gary Bauer's CWFPAC, etc. The largest donations to these Christian PAC/SIG's are in fact corporate donors believe it or not, followed by individual giving ala internet.

Love these kind of debates but man I'm tired. I don't think I've said well enough what I wanted to say here so I'll check back in tomorrow.

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson:

---

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter -Thomas Jefferson




I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. -Thomas Jefferson




Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus. -Thomas Jefferson

---