The key observations in this piece come at the very end. Take a gander and let me know what you think of it.
« If You Repeat It Enough.... | Main | Technical Problems »
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Jim Wallis: Living God's Politics: A Guide to Putting Your Faith into Action
Virginia Todd Holeman: Reconcilable Differences: Hope and Healing for Troubled Marriages
The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology (Blackwell Companions to Religion)
Michael L. Budde: Christianity Incorporated: How Big Business Is Buying the Church
Jim Wallis: The Call to Conversion : Why Faith Is Always Personal but Never Private
Jim Wallis: God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
You were stating that Hedges' concerns were exaggerated? :)
Posted by: evagrius | February 22, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Maybe it's just me being from upstate NY, but I've never heard of somebody being discriminated against because they're "not" religious. Frankly, I don't believe there IS such a thing as a non-religious person, but that's because I believe everybody has a religion or a faith, even atheists or agnostics. Some people deify science, some people deify themselves, but in the end, everybody deifies something and then form a set of patterned beliefs and actions around that deity: religion. So to "protect" the "non-religious" from "religious discrimination" is sort of a joke, don't you think? I mean, I'm not expecting my government to rule in favor of my religion (in fact, I'd prefer it if they didn't more often, Christianity works best under persecution), but I would think that a country that's so imbued with the concept of "tolerance" would recognize their own intolerance when they saw it. Again, I'm not expecting any sort of justice to happen, but it'd be nice ...
Posted by: Chris | February 22, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Evagrius, I'm not sure. It struck me, though, where and how the announcement was made:>)
Chris, I understand what you mean about everyone being "religious." If you are thinking more along the lines of commitments to something beyond themselves, I think it makes sense. Generally, though, folks are talking about religion as related to belief in God:>) I do get a bit of critique in some places just for believing in God, but I don't really mind, just noting it. I also think there is some prejudice against the non-religious. For example, some folks want to be able only to hire a particular religion in their places of employment, etc. I am with you on the bigger point, though, there is not really much persecution here, either way.
Posted by: chuck | February 22, 2007 at 08:59 PM
christianity works better under persecution?
that doesn't say much for christianity, does it? if it must rely of the siege mentality to funcion properly?
Posted by: zero | February 23, 2007 at 05:03 PM
zero,
I believe God is under persecution by the being of evil in humanity.
Posted by: David Beasley | February 25, 2007 at 07:28 PM
but to say that christianity functions "best" when being persecuted?
that doesn't say much for the strength of the faith.
Posted by: zero | February 26, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Interesting, zero, why not?
Posted by: chuck | February 26, 2007 at 08:54 PM
doesn't that perspective put christianity on par with "the enemies are after us" mentality that governments foist on citizens? why isn't it strength enough to just believe and live the way of the word without needing the hype (drama) of "they are out to get us because we are christians"?
it's insulting, actually.
Posted by: zero | February 27, 2007 at 10:07 PM
I don't think so. I think it is part of the mentality that causes us to support something more strongly when it is threatened. It makes us value it more and see the need to defend it.
Posted by: chuck | February 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM
but only if it's truly being threatened. if it's a ploy, it's bogus and degrading to the institution.
Posted by: zero | February 28, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Sure, I'm with you on that:>)
Posted by: chuck | February 28, 2007 at 09:37 PM