What has church come to?
by BenthamiteSeptember 8th, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Filed under: News Story Commentary, Philosophy & Religion
 |
|
When I was growing up I found certain flaws in my church. I remember a youth group leader telling us to bloody the nose of bullies. I remember another leader, an old lady in fact, who coordinated a vehement chant aimed at a youths that were caught smoking (yes, the youths cried in the face of the mob). Those incidents shocked me and gave me reason to question the advice I was getting... But this, this, is by far the most outlandish case I've heard of recently. If you haven't already seen him, please welcome Steve Anderson, the newer hate monger and hate-crime wannabe, and possibly a future martyr, regretfully: Link From Anderson's church's Web site: Pastor Anderson holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament. source The one thing that you can give Anderson credit for, if it's a credit at all (especially at this point), is taking the bible literally. How seriously dangerous it is that he takes things so literally, as he preaches to kill abortionists? In my view, just dangerous enough to question whether or not Anderson does in fact have slaves, among other things--- You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) Is Anderson buying daughters these days also? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Enough is enough. The fact that this pastor's congregation has not fled just reminds me of the Waco, Texas, massacre. I hold firm to my points that 1) religion can in fact be VERY dangerous and 2) a religious speech is NOT a guaranteed privilege, especially not at graduations, and anyone that thinks otherwise may need to take a zealot test or admit to propagating anarchy by suggesting all religions can peacefully impose on the public's ear. Read what one of Anderson's followers has to say, and here's the gun he's toting:  Here's a blurb from Anderson's Web site, and surely he couldn't have gotten it wrong (I'm being sarcastic here): Pastor Anderson was sent out by a totally independent Baptist church to start it the old-fashioned way by knocking doors and winning souls to Christ. This is the scriptural method. A quick question before ending this article---Tell me, if one of Anderson's disciples were set to give a graduation speech, would it be in the best interest for the school administrators to allow this speech to resume and the diverse viewing audience to be forced to endure it? Me personally, I think not, and that's a logical decision, not bias or right-restricting. Give Anderson's followers their free speech, sure, in his strip-mall church, but keep that garbage the hell away from those that didn't ask for it, be it a graduation audience, an employee meeting, or the public airwaves----with one exception... Feel free to direct the message towards the secret service, just in case it happens to be a hate/murder-inciting speech (or llano, since s/he is open to all speeches anytime, even if delivered at the same time or wrong time). |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest FirstNo one is saying that there aren't other crazy people out there..most just don't have the legitimacy to try and influence how our government is run the way the Christian right does.
Here is another example of how Christians are not the only extremist out there.
Satan-Loving Teen Lights Church Fire
Excellent question, Rob.
Based on the link below, there is limited information on the shooter.
But, based on my definition of a hate crime, including the reason for such a characterization (which I quoted below), this offender would be guilty of a hate crime. However, the exception to this matter lies in the possibility that the offender is insane, which we would need more information to determine. If, by chance, he were insane, that could, before a jury, trump the hate-crime offense; because how would we determine whether his insanity lead him to committing an ostensible hate crime or if the insanity was a deeply manifested form of hate?
In this case, though, based on that small bit of information in the link, I would guess this individual is not insane. But that's just a mere hunch.
Should he be tried for a hate crime? Let's generate some pros and cons (and by all means weigh in here).
Pros:
-Would serve as an example of the danger of manifested hate surrounding polarized issues
-Would restore citizen confidence in safety and protection regarding the right to protest freely
-Would create more space and motivation for tolerance of differences
Cons:
-Would open the door to other crimes being hate crimes (could lead to all out penalty inflation, so to speak)
-Would award a penalty that could be deemed unfair in comparison with penalties standard murders have received.
This weighing of pros and cons leads us back to the crime classification options: murder, insanity, or hate crime. For this issue in particular, abortion, I think the classification of hate crime holds more value for the public at large in terms of sending a clear message and contributing to moral thought.
Murder is murder, sure. But while drive-by shootings are exhibitions of hate on a micro scale, hate-crime legislation should be reserved for impacting the macro perception of larger issues that must be addressed to move American society towards adopting a higher moral, as appropriate for the world's leading progressive society.
***Below are my previous thoughts on the composition of a hate crime***
A murder based on hate would certainly be a form of premeditated murder, but in a worse sense---Such a murder would be a deliberate act against an individual (or group) stemming from the offenders's disapproval of the victim(s) right to existence based on some nonpersonal characteristic of the victim(s) (e.g., race, sexuality, or religion).
In essence, as far as I see jurisprudence being concerned (with the intent of keeping the public safe from "barbarians"), since the offender was proven to commit such a crime (e.g, murder, or something less severe) under the sole motivation of hate (as explained above), then it is decided that the offender poses a more severe risk to society and therefore a more sever penalty would be suitable (i.e., meaning that the longer they are away from society, the better, since it is proven they have an observed defect which places innocent and unsuspecting people at risk).
I understand that crimes have been committed which should have been considered hate crime. However, when a hate crime is proven, or in fact admitted by the offender, what is the problem with awarding the offender a more severe penalty in hopes of making society a safer place to live in? I could not argue against the logic for recognizing hate crimes under these circumstances, unless I were to equally defend sexual predators' rights to live in any neighborhood they pleased, despite the proximity to a school, etc. It is just a statistical fact (granted their are exceptions we must recognize) that due to the predators' defect, they are extremely likely to commit and another crime, especially given the opportunity.
I thoroughly agree with you, though, that the utmost care and attention to detail must be exercised when determining whether a particular crime is a hate crime or not, since no one wants to see a law harm someone that is innocent of the accusations before them. --Marc from "My Thoughts on the Left and Right"
I guess Christians don't hold the corner of the market when it comes to extremist.
Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material
Marc just as a little after thought. Since this guy was murdered because of his beliefs should the murderer be charged with a hate crime?
I guess Christians don't hold the corner of the market when it comes to extremist.
Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material
However with the millions of Christians out there doing good, these hand full of extremist these are the exception and not the rule. ---Rob
Respectfully, I agree. Some of the most reliable and honest people I know are Christians. Most of them are humble.
efinitely am not anti-Christian, but feel that in some instances, religion has become hijacked by extremism.
However with the millions of Christians out there doing good, these hand full of extremist these are the exception and not the rule.
I DO believe in the separation of church and state
However he phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. Its one of my favorite documents it you would like a free copy I can have one sent to you. What the First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." What this prevents the government from establishing a national church (like the church of England). However, it was NOT meant to prevent God from being acknowledged (read the Federalist papers)
Here is a link to something some might find interesting. I definitely am not anti-Christian, but feel that in some instances, religion has become hijacked by extremism. I DO believe in the separation of church and state.
Here is the site in case I cannot get the link process to work once again :)
http://www.republicangomorrah.com/
Hopefully this works though.
http://www.republicangomorrah.com/
My criticism operates on the premise that people should be weary of the organizations they join and knowledgable of examples of the worse culminations of such.
I feel the same way about the DNC :) However it seems you relish in pointing the worst of Christians. Now if someone would point out the worst of your preferred communities you would be one of the first to cry foul. Defining a group by its worse is stereotyping.
While run of the mill, non-violent Christian organizations may consider my view as "hating," actually we are working on the same team in this aspect: I'm saying that Anderson sells a false Christianity, a warped one in fact, and the run of the mill organization would agree that Anderson has gravely misrepresented Christianity.
I agree that he is misrepresenting Christianity but there will always be false prophets, and I believe that they will pay at the final judgment. But even a broken clock is correct twice a day and some of his followers might start but find their way to the correct path. There will always be the people who blindly follow another and as long as they hurt none then let them do as they wilt.
As for my use of ancient passages, well, that is a separate issue altogether. It is not my place to initiate a reform of the modern church, as many have done in the past (Luther, etc.), but perhaps addressing these issues would be benefical to the church since modern society is much more analytical than past generations
But there is no longer one body known as “the church.”There are many denominations each possessing their own doctrine. I disagree I think man has always been analytical (Bernoulli & Newton lived centries ago but their principles and laws are cornerstone of aviation) and the power of deductive reasoning and wisdom are God’s greatest gifts. Unfortunately these gifts go unused in the majority of the population. Well the wounderful world of UNIX & Linux are calling so I have to go.
I believe Marc’s article was more geared toward the extremist of Christians and nothing to do with its influence of politics. I draw my conclusion from the following excerpts:
Now if I am incorrect please point out with it talks about the Christian right.