Comment by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 10:56am

What continues to disturb me about this conversation... is not that religion doesn't have political implications, but that the subject here goes immediately into political loyalties, and persistently returns to them.

We've got someone who likes Jesus, but would rather call himself "Quaker" than "Christian" because the politics associated with being "Quaker" will gain him a sympathetic ear, while the politics [mis]associated with being "Christian"  will start new acquaintances off with hostile expectations...

vs someone upset because people who favor the current trend toward a nihilistic frenzy of punitive authoritarian, environmentally-ruinous, and socio-psychologically uncharitable policies (aka "Conservative" although not at all conservative as in the sense of "Conservative Friends") are unjustly maligned for their support of vicious social policy.

I repeat, what does Jesus, the purported occasion of this conversation, have to do with it?

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 1:11pm

A Synopsis of Christian Smith's *Christian America: What Evangelicals Really Want*:

From Publishers Weekly

In this convincing cultural analysis, Smith, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, aims to debunk the prevailing myth, fed by high-profile elites in the religious right, that evangelical Christians are a uniform body of obedient zealots. Smith focuses on "ordinary Evangelicals" and poses the questions embedded in the title: What do they want from America, and how do they hope to get it? He then combines compelling statistical research with evangelicals' own words from in-depth interviews to show that evangelicals as a group are hardly monolithic in their views, nor do they necessarily constitute a threat to pluralism in America. In matters ranging from politics to public schools and gender roles in the family, the author finds that evangelicals are far more likely to advocate tolerance and change through example and personal Christian discipleship than through public mandates. In his chapter on families, Smith reveals a particularly intriguing complexity of evangelical views: most respondents claim male headship without giving up equality between spouses. These internal contradictions are precisely what Smith wants us to understand; although they may lag behind other Americans in advocating diversity, evangelicals are still more complex than most have assumed thus far. Smith provides a narrated appendix in which he presents his regression analyses in surprisingly readable form, appropriate even for the lay reader. This book is a major contribution, both substantively and methodologically, to understanding America's religious landscape.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 1:21pm

Richard:  I think you spend too much time watching TV and dabbling in politics.  This intellectual diet provides an extremely distorted view of the world.  I am talking about ordinary people, not the "stars" you see on television.

Aaron:  Friends as a group tend to be seen as an extension of the liberal Quaker elite.  When someone speaks in public about "What Friends Believe...",  I shudder because what follows almost always represents a small liberal elite's viewpoint.  I know that you are relatively new to Friends, but you will soon find out that most Friends actually have little input into the public image of Quakerism.  "Friends are all equal, but some are more equal than others!"

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 1:38pm

Richard,

I've seen a great deal of venom directed by numerous groups towards similarly numerous outgroups on practically endless websites, ad nauseum. The plentiful venom in our public (and private) discourse, however, makes me even less interested in adding to the supply, and even more grateful for websites (like this one) where it seems far less common.

Regards,

Aaron

Comment by Mackenzie on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 2:10pm

Richard said:

 He is totally the opposite of the Jesus the Religious Right presents: judgmental, angry and hating sinners.

Ah, you mean Republican Jesus™! http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/republican-jesus/ I'm sure there are conservatives who actually understand Jesus' message, I just wish they'd take the microphone away from those who preach the "Prosperity Gospel" (if you're rich, you deserve it and got it as a reward from God for being awesome sauce. If you're poor you must be a terrible person that God is punishing. Ignore the Sermon on the Mount behind the curtain.)

Comment by Mackenzie on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 2:15pm

Richard said:

And I heartily disagree that conservatives count as a minority. If you were to divide up the US population I am sure that you would find it pretty evenly divided among liberals, conservatives and moderates.   

I'd say it's pretty evenly divided among conservatives and moderates but lacking in liberals. This is evident by the large amount of Democrats (moderates) and Republicans (conservatives) in Congress with only a tiny smattering of Greens (liberals).

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 12th mo. 5, 2011 at 3:05pm

Thanks for clarifying, William. I think integrity requires that a person describe things of importance as they truly are, in all their complexity (to the best of his/her ability) rather than as the person wishes them to be (unless it's made clear that the description is aspirational). To do otherwise is a disservice to both the thing described and the audience to the description.

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 12th mo. 6, 2011 at 10:00am

I know this is off-topic, but it has been on my mind for some time that a degree of the rancor between the branches could be somewhat alleviated if Friends acknowledged their branch (which tacitly acknowledges the other branches) when making "Quakers . . ." pronouncements. Doesn't it feel that the fight is really about who gets to call themselves "Quaker"? I can say, "Conservative Friends have their unity in Christ," and be mostly unoffensive, but if I say, "Quakers have their unity in Christ," then I am on thin ice factually and willfully excluding the Liberal branch. Similarly, if someone says, "Liberal Quakers believe one can be an atheist and Quaker," I am unperturbed, but if someone says "Quakers believe one can be an atheist and Quaker," I am cringing and annoyed.

Comment by Patricia Barber on 12th mo. 6, 2011 at 10:15am

I agree, Isabel. I believe there are some Friends who prefer to use the term "Friend" to Quaker because they feel as if the term Quaker has been hijacked by liberal Friends. In my later posts on this subject, I make it clearer that my struggles are taking place within the context of liberal Quakerism. I am very interested in reaching out across the divides because I think we have enough in common to present a more unified vision to the world - a vision I think the world sorely needs. We all need to disabuse ourselves of the generalizations we hold about "other" Friends - and reach out to each other in a spirit of love.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 6, 2011 at 10:45am

Friend Patricia:

 

Thanks for this articulate post.  I particularly appreciate your observation about those who have a negative, or bitter, relationship to the religion they were raised in and how they often seem to set the agenda for how a Meeting relates to religion as a whole.  Like you, I never had a negative experience with religion while growing up.  Because I grew up in a secular family, but with parents who had no objections to religion, I do not carry around with me a childhood imprint regarding religion.

 

I have filled in the absence of explicit Christianity in Meeting by engaging in activities at home that fill that absence.  For example, I am a daily Bible reader, and before I go to bed at night I read some Psalms.  I wonder if there are others involved in Meetings that are as you described engage in these kinds of activities.  I would be interested in hearing from other Friends on this.

 

Again, thanks for the post.  I found it personally helpful.

 

Your Friend Jim

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page