By Manila Ryce
Published Tuesday, December 5th, 2006, 4:11 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Society/Culture: Religion, Society/Culture, Videos, US Politics

4 Responses to “The Colbert Report - The Christian Right”

1. “Christianity, a socially liberal religion” — Read your bible; the only reason the West is socially liberal is because of its moving AWAY from religion, not because of something in Christianity. The Bible, for example, is absolutely unequivocal, in both “testaments” about slavery: not only is it not condemned, it is actively encouraged.

   Western society is socially liberal, and religion has had to follow suit. Not the other way around.

   Denis Robert
   12/7/06 at 3:03 am
   
2. 

   @Denis Robert
   I believe your assessment is flawed given that you claim Christianity not to be liberal based a literal interpretation of the Bible. You leave out the fact that the Bible is not the sole source of doctrine with which Christianity is derived. While some fairly recent fundamentalist sects see the Bible as the only truth (sola scriptura), early Christians and most present forms of Christianity give authority to Church and tradition as well as scripture. They include prophetic and apostolic proclamation and oral tradition, as well as teachings not included in the Bible to complete their understanding.

   Secondly, if we are to examine the Bible exclusively we do not find active encouragement for slavery. What we do find is that slavery is mentioned as a social reality, but neither encouraged nor condemned. Most arguments I’ve read which claim the Bible condones slavery come from the Old Testament. Not only are they looking for something that isn’t there to endorse their foregone conclusion, but they forget that the Old Testament is not the main book of emphasis for Christians. Let’s remember that even Jesus himself went against scripture. Christianity is based off of the teachings of Christ.

   Your claim that “western society” is responsible for liberalism is an oversimplification. You can not simply separate liberalism as an aspect of European culture devoid of religious influence when the majority of the greatest thinkers to come from western civilization were educated by the Church. Where do you think these liberal ideas came from? They did not originate in a secular vacuum in Europe. I can think of no other religion, besides Buddhism, which teaches that all people are equal and should worship and be treated equally. Even Judaism, from which Christianity was derived, was doctrinally sexist and racist. Christianity teaches that every man, woman, gentile, jew, race, creed, etc. are equal. I’d say that’s not only a good argument against slavery, but a socially liberal society as well.

   Administrator
   12/7/06 at 8:19 pm
   
3. 

   I’m sorry, I must correct you on one major point: The original religion of Jesus the Christ, which btw included no book, no building, and no dogma, was hijacked by Imperial Forces more than 2500 years ago. Therefore it’s understandable why Christianity is not viewed as the socially liberal ideology it originally was. The same can be said for just about all religions, or at the very least, the ‘civilized’ ones.
   I believe that Jesus’ original message was just that; no dogma, no book, no bigotry, no church, none of the shit that mires us even today. Just live by example, and “believe in me.” Who can argue with that?
   Answer: Unfortunately, Anyone in the modern age who opposes oppression of equal rights for gays or favors separation of church and state, or just is sick of the neo-cons in general.

   PapaFigue
   12/11/06 at 8:44 pm
   

4. The truth here is that the only real resource we have for reference against the times we live in is the Bible, not the traditions or mandate of the church. I was raised in a church where we were constantly encouraged to test the words of our pastor against the words we read in the Bible. The Bible itself was the ultimate source of truth. Of course, interpretation is best left to the individual and his or her relationship with God, which quite follows along with the individual empowerment of free market mobilization, not the communal understanding of an empowered but fallible human.

   There are communal arguments to be made about New Testament models, but these come under the authority of God, not some arbitrarily selected human leader. When there is a leader of such a model, empirically only evil ensues. But when it comes to social movements, we are to “give unto Caesar what is Caesars” and honor the government’s decisions.

   However, I feel that when it comes to the social stint of gay rights and other things conservatives disagree with the liberal left on, these arguments come from the New Testament as well as from the old. When it comes to gay rights, what I believe religiously is that their lifestyle would detract from their relationship with God, therefore, religiously, I see no reason not to label sin as sin, and treat it as such (however I do believe all sins are equal, and that I am a sinner as well and am in no position to judge myself as better or worse), using the Bible as the ultimate source of guidance on the matter.

   And socially, the gay lifestyle could detract from the family model that has been the basis of American growth and civilization itself, therefore I see no reason to create a system of rights that so completely deviate from the structure of actual marital relations. From a legal position, it changes the basis of governmentally defined relationships which falls into no area of defined equality. It would be like trying to change the definition of a term in the dictionary to suit your own purposes, not to make things any more equal. I believe in equal rights, but I don’t believe that definitions need to change merely because the minority wants to impose its will on everyone else. That’s not how our society was founded, and not how it should continue.

   BradStar
   07/2/07 at 12:03 pm
   

Leave a Reply