Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 41.348                   Religion in the News                    348 of 350
GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      16 lines  31-AUG-1993 12:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .347

>        But I bought a book on vacation called "The Culture of Disbelief"
>by Steven Carter, a professor at our old alma mater, Hillary's and mine,
>at the law school.  He is, himself, a committed Christian very dedicated
>to the religious freedoms of all people of faith -- of any faith in the
>United States.  And the subtitle of the book is: "How American Law and
>Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion."

Michael Kinsley mentioned this book in the "TRB" column in the latest New
Republic.  Kinsley's comment is that the book exaggerates the alleged
anti-religious bias in American public life.  For example, it takes more
courage to say "I don't believe in God" than it does to say "I believe in
God".

				-- Bob

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 41.349                   Religion in the News                    349 of 350
CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist"                   11 lines  31-AUG-1993 12:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>Michael Kinsley mentioned this book in the "TRB" column in the latest New
>Republic.  Kinsley's comment is that the book exaggerates the alleged
>anti-religious bias in American public life.  For example, it takes more
>courage to say "I don't believe in God" than it does to say "I believe in
>God".
    
    I am quite surprised to hear anyone say that. At least in Digital I've
    found it takes more courage to say "I believe in God."
    
    			Alfred

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 41.350                   Religion in the News                    350 of 350
SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Via,Veritas,Vita"                   14 lines  31-AUG-1993 13:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The same opinion appears in Michael Kinsley's syndicated column today
    which appears in the New York Post, among other newspapers.

    His column appears with a picture of George Orwell.  The article
    approvingly quotes Orwell who engages in a bit of name-calling:
    "intellectually crippled" is the term Orwell used to describe what he
    called the "orthodox religious believer".

    Of course Orwell and Kinsley are wrong.  The hostility to religion and
    the embrace of atheism in the United States as a cultural force is
    overwhelming.

    The way he put the question, "Does anyone really think..." is a way of
    not asking the question and assuming the answer.

Re: .2 Alfred

>>For example, it takes more
>>courage to say "I don't believe in God" than it does to say "I believe in
>>God".
>    
>    I am quite surprised to hear anyone say that. At least in Digital I've
>    found it takes more courage to say "I believe in God."
    
Maybe it depends on the context.  Outside of notes conferences I haven't
heard people say much about God at all, either for or against.  In notes
conferences I think it's about even: you can expect to draw equal heat for
both statements.

Re: .3 Patrick

>    His column appears with a picture of George Orwell.  The article
>    approvingly quotes Orwell who engages in a bit of name-calling:
>    "intellectually crippled" is the term Orwell used to describe what he
>    called the "orthodox religious believer".

I'm not sure about the syndicated column, but in The New Republic I didn't
think Kinsley was necessarily agreeing with what Orwell said.  He used the
Orwell quote as an example of the sort of thing it would be almost
impossible to say nowadays.  Can you imagine someone on Crossfire, say,
calling religious believers "intellectually crippled"?  The commentator
would be eaten alive.

>    Of course Orwell and Kinsley are wrong.  The hostility to religion and
>    the embrace of atheism in the United States as a cultural force is
>    overwhelming.

Orwell and Kinsley were saying different things.  Orwell was attacking
religion.  Kinsley was attacking those who claim that the United States
embraces atheism.

How many politicians do you know who are avowed atheists?  Now compare
this to the number of politicians who say that they believe in God.

				-- Bob

 IMO the antagonism appears to me to be more directed towards mainstream
 Christianity than religion in general.  I can state to someone that I'm a
 Buddhist and get smiles and nods (I am not a Buddhist btw) If I state I'm
 A Christian I seldom note the same reaction.  A few weeks ago I was carrying
 my Bible in the hall at work enroute to a Bible study during lunch..a guy says
 to me "What's that, a Bible?" "yes" I responded..the guy laughed.


 A few recent exchanges in another conference leaves me with the feeling that
 its OK to be anything but a Christian.





 Jim

    	A few years ago, while I was serving in the Air Force (Royal), I
    	heard a similar question: "Why is there so much anti-Christian
    	bias around?"  One answer received was: "That's just the typical
    	paranoia of you religious nut-cases".
    
    	If we had believed the responder to be serious, we (including the
    	non-Christians) would have crucified him!
    
    	My sister, who lives in USA (Maryland) told me that she feels
    	free-er to practice her faith (she is Roman Catholic) there than
    	she ever did in England and in France. That is, of course, at the
    	private level. I do not know what she experiences in contacts with
    	the authorities (I am assuming that this is meant by the expression
    	"American public life" in the base note).
    
    	Could it be that, having a Constitution which explicitly separates
    	religion and politics, many authorities go to extremes to insure 
    	that they do not appear to act unconstitutionally? This could
    	lead to a feeling, amongst religious persons, of being - at least -
    	cold-shouldered if not antagonized.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    >    	Could it be that, having a Constitution which explicitly separates
>    	religion and politics, many authorities go to extremes to insure 
>    	that they do not appear to act unconstitutionally? This could
>    	lead to a feeling, amongst religious persons, of being - at least -
>    	cold-shouldered if not antagonized.

    Quite possibly this is correct. One example comes to mind immediately.
    New York City, as most places in the US, provides remedial help to 
    school children. At one time this help was available to all school
    children. Unfortunately the courts ruled that providing this help
    inside religious schools was unconstitutional. So the city wound up
    placing trailers outside some schools. In some places there was no
    room for trailers so those students went (and go) without help because
    their parents opted for a religious education. This feels antagonistic
    to many people. I know it does to me. And frankly I believe that the
    people who brought this case to suit did so with intent to hurt
    religious schools and religious families.

    I have little first hand experience with religious treatment in other
    countries. Some stories from people, Christians, I visited in Israel
    lead me to believe that it is much easier to be of any religion in the
    US than a Christian in Israel. But I feel a tide of change in the US.

    			Alfred

    	Re: .7: Alfred.
    
    	Such cases as you cited are all to frequent and, in fact, led me to
    	the idea that the Constitution may be at the root of the problem.
    	However! I do not believe that the Founding Fathers had anything
    	like this in mind when they set out the principles. It is the
    	deliberate and targeted misuse of such valuable privileges by an
    	antagonistic minority which leads to such nasty - and, let's face
    	it - absurd judicial findings.  I am amazed that the courts go
    	along with them instead of making judgement based on the *spirit*
    	of the law.
    
    	I know the USA only from the outside (I will set foot in the USA
    	for the first time in my life in October even though I've crossed
    	the Atlantic 26 times!!) from reading, participating in notes, from
    	my sister and from contact with your citizens - mostly from the
    	armed forces - but it seems to me that moderation is not one of
    	your major virtues. Everthing seems to be done to extreme: a sort
    	of "big is beautiful" mentality.  Exagerating a little: you're
    	either teetotal or a lush; you're atheist or fundamentalist; you're
    	for us or you're against us.  As someone said: America is BIG. I
    	guess that gets into the blood somehow.  So, in the practice of
    	religion, you either have co-believers or enemies. Since there is
    	a - currently: an almost world-wide - trend to fundamentalism -
    	you are likely to experience an escalation of antagonism (even if
    	your own religious position is not extreme). The ability to discern
    	various grey tones has been/is being lost.
    
    	I see and feel it here in Austria, too.  On the religious front, I
    	have already shown the increasing polarisation in the Bishop Krenn
    	affair.  But I also associate with gays, lesbians and prostitutes
    	and they, too are feeling greater than ever opposition from those
    	who are not for them. As a result, they tend to move closer
    	together for self-protection and this, in turn is seen from outside
    	as antisocial behaviour which releases a new wave of opposition.
    	An ever turning spiral.
    
    	The end, if we are not very watchful, will be very nasty indeed.
    	It is thoughts like this that make me wish, sometimes, that I had
    	a God too.
    
    	Greetings, Derek. 

    I think the folks in New York were simply trying to save
    money.

    Our school district is about as cheap as they come.  The 
    ones who complain the loudest about taxes are mostly from
    the same church.  Religion, or lack thereof, does not
    seem to be a determining factor in "cheapness".

    Children need help to be educated.  If the child does not
    go to school the school cannot be expected to help him/her.
    New York doesn't owe the children anything if the children
    do not go where it is offered.

    It's not anti-Christian.  It's anti-taxes.  BTW: are those
    special services offered by the city to non-sectarian private
    schools?

    As I think Bob said, in some places it's unadvantageous to be
    Christian and others it unadvantageous not to be Christian.
    In my town dancing is considered a sin.

    Tom

Re: .8 Derek

>	Everthing seems to be done to extreme: a sort
>    	of "big is beautiful" mentality.  Exagerating a little: you're
>    	either teetotal or a lush; you're atheist or fundamentalist; you're
>    	for us or you're against us.

This isn't really true, although it might seem like it sometimes,
especially looking at the U.S. from the outside.  I think the majority of
people in the United States still belong to mainstream, moderate churches
and have middle-of-the-road political and social attitudes.  What dominates
the news, though, are the special interest groups of all stripes: the
fundamentalists, the atheists, Operation Rescue, Act Up, etc.  Even though
they represent a small percentage of the population they are visible
because they make a lot of noise.

				-- Bob

    >    I think the folks in New York were simply trying to save
>    money.

    I don't think so. The City did not want this to happen. It cost the
    tax payers quite a bit of money. Both in court costs and in
    implementation. The mayor at the time publicly said that the
    sectarian schools are absolutely necessary and save the City millions.
    The cost to return those students to public schools would bankrupt the
    city. This sounds like a way to save money? I'm missing something
    here. It seems to me that if the City paid say $500 to help a kid in
    a religious school that would be less then the $6-7,000 they'd spend
    on a kid in a City owned school. How does this save money?

>    Children need help to be educated.  If the child does not
>    go to school the school cannot be expected to help him/her.
>    New York doesn't owe the children anything if the children
>    do not go where it is offered.

    Not correct. At least not according to the laws in New York. Some
    services are required by law to all students regardless of what 
    school they attend. This is true in New Hampshire and I am sure other
    places as well. BTW, why should children *have* to go to government
    controlled schools to be served? Their parents pay the same taxes and
    yet by attending religious schools their net expense to the taxpayers
    is thousands of dollars less. Anyone seriously interested in saving
    tax money would have fought this ruling and in fact worked to find
    ways to encourage *more* students to attend religious and other non
    government controlled schools.


>    It's not anti-Christian.  It's anti-taxes.  BTW: are those
>    special services offered by the city to non-sectarian private
>    schools?

    Why yes! As a matter of fact non-sectarian private schools are
    unaffected by this ruling. BTW, I never said it was anti Christian.
    It's anti religious. NYC has a large number of Jewish schools. Many
    of which were hurt worse than Christian schools by this ruling.

    			Alfred

    I will make Alfred's point more explicit: the city of New York public
    school bureaucracy will spend millions dollars in order to avoid the
    need to cooperate and coordinate with the private and parochial schools
    of New York City.

    This separate school system each year with a less that 20% of the
    funding of public schools produces smarter kids more ready for high
    school, college, or employment.

    School choice even among the schools in the public school system is
    systematically opposed.

    By the way, the New York City Public Schools will open 3 to 4 weeks
    late because of an widespread asbestos problem.  All Catholic schools
    will open on time.

Re: .5 Jim

> IMO the antagonism appears to me to be more directed towards mainstream
> Christianity than religion in general.  I can state to someone that I'm a
> Buddhist and get smiles and nods

I think Buddhism might get a favorable reaction because it's considered
harmless.  Other religions might draw a more hostile response from some
people based on a perceived threat.  Try telling someone that you're a
Muslim fundamentalist, for example.

> A few weeks ago I was carrying
> my Bible in the hall at work enroute to a Bible study during lunch..a guy says
> to me "What's that, a Bible?" "yes" I responded..the guy laughed.

Maybe he laughed because he thought that it was unusual for someone to
bring a Bible into the workplace.  Or maybe he laughed because he thinks
that the Bible is a joke.  Who knows?  You can't really judge the mood of
the country by the reactions of a few people.  There were probably far more
people who didn't laugh when they saw that you were carrying a Bible.

> A few recent exchanges in another conference leaves me with the feeling that
> its OK to be anything but a Christian.

Maybe what the people in that conference believe is that it's OK to be
anything but intolerant.  If their impression is that Christianity is an
intolerant religion then this could translate into a belief that it's OK
to be anything but Christian.  That is too sweeping a generalization,
though.  *Some* Christians are intolerant, just as some Jews are
intolerant, some atheists are intolerant....

Another possibility is that they disagree with specific Christian
teachings, such as the Catholic positions on abortion and birth control.
Since the Church supports ideas which they oppose, they attack the Church.

				-- Bob

    Bhuddism, Native American Religions, Islam etc. all are ineffective in
    challenging the secular trends that oppose the moral positions held by
    Christianity.  They lack the critical mass in terms of people and
    media access.

    So, it isn't so much that non-Christian religions take the side of
    those who deny the relevance of the Christian response to the problems
    presented in society, it's just that they are still safe to ignore and
    Christianity is the main threat.

    Presented with a clear challenge, people of all religious faiths got
    behind the opposition to the Rainbow Curriculum in New York City which
    of course championed "diversity" while at the same time denying the
    relevance to religion to society.

    I think the media tend to take a stern, if not antagonistic, approach
    toward religion.  At least insofar as they view religion in the role of
    social activism.  Mainstream religion is otherwise pretty much ignored
    by the media, be it entertainment or news programming.

    The governments (local, state, federal) tend to view their role as
    shunning involvement in any religion or religious organization.  Rather
    than treating religious organizations as it would any other private
    nonprofit organization, the government actively avoids any mixing of the
    secular and non-secular.  The conventional constitutional
    interpretation leans toward secular/religious segregation rather than
    taking a "religion-blind" approach toward its activities.
    
    Just my view of things...
    		Eric

    re: 722.15
    
    "...ignored by the media"? case after case of depiction of people with
    sincere religious beliefs are ridiculed and their beliefs mocked.  When
    was the last time in a contemporary film was an American priest or a
    minister who was faithful to his faith portrayed sympathetically or
    heroically?
    
    The idea of avoiding "mixing" the secular and non-secular gave birth to
    the idea that a school auditorium open to Nazis and Communists needed
    to protected from an organization that wanted to show a film produced
    by a Christian with a Christian content.
    
    One more time: the so-called "separation of Church and State" is not a
    Constitutional concept.  The prohibition applies to the government
    alone not to establish a religion.  It does not demand that the
    government suppress religion in public places.

    re .16

    Well, I admit that I wasn't really thinking of cinema when I used the
    term "media".  I was thinking of news outlets and prime-time TV.  I
    haven't been to a cinema in *years*.  None of the videos that I have
    rented lately have had priests or ministers (American or otherwise) as
    characters.  "Leap of Faith" is the only recent movie that I can think
    of, off the top of my head, that had religion as a premise.  Although it
    was pretty stinging in it view of road show evangelism, it's overall
    message of the power of the divine was a positive one.

    Which movies have been antagonistic toward mainstream religion?


    > It does not demand that the government suppress religion in public
    > places. 

    While you and may agree with the above, the Supreme Court seems to
    think otherwise.  It's a Constitutional concept if they say it is.

    	-Eric

re Note 722.16 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     One more time: the so-called "separation of Church and State" is not a
>     Constitutional concept.  The prohibition applies to the government
>     alone not to establish a religion.  It does not demand that the
>     government suppress religion in public places.
  
        Oh, I will agree that the concept "separation of Church and
        State" is not in the constitution.  Rather, it is part of the
        solution, worked out over many years by the courts, of how to
        in practice accomplish the constitutional mandate.  If
        another solution to achieving the constitutional mandate were
        available, it would be equally acceptable.

        As with all implementations of a principle, there are
        side-effects not mandated or warranted by the principle. 
        Real-world solutions are like that.

        It's kind of like safe sex:  some people think that the use
        of a condom is an adequate solution to the problem of keeping
        pathogens from crossing the line from one person's body to
        another.  Another solution is avoiding sexual contact
        altogether.  Some people seem to think that that is far too
        extreme a measure to take given the goal of avoiding disease
        transmission.  Their opponents, however, know that condoms
        just don't work well enough in practice, even if they are "in
        principle" sufficient to prevent disease.

        My take is that adherence to a standard of "separation of
        Church and State" is the most reliable way of ensuring that
        the first amendment principle isn't violated, even though one
        could, in theory, argue that a closer relationship, with the
        proper safeguards, would be adequate.  I wouldn't bet my
        freedoms on it.

        Bob

    Bob, the "separation of Church and State" conceptually, for the courts
    and the public never had a precise meaning, which is why it is no
    important to reflect on what the Constitution actually has to say
    regarding establishment and religious freedom.

    The confusion in people's minds of what is "state" and what is "public"
    has led people hostile to religion to assert that the suppression of
    the religious expression in public or suppression of dialog in which 
    religious principles are invoked faces is compatible with "separation
    of Church and State".

    In my mind at least, this position is contradicts the guarantee of
    religious freedom.

Re: .16 Patrick

>    "...ignored by the media"? case after case of depiction of people with
>    sincere religious beliefs are ridiculed and their beliefs mocked.  When
>    was the last time in a contemporary film was an American priest or a
>    minister who was faithful to his faith portrayed sympathetically or
>    heroically?
    
It's true that the movies don't do much to advance the cause of
Christianity, but when they show an American priest or minister in a bad
light it's usually because the priest or minister is abusive, greedy or
manipulative, not because of the priest or minister's sincerely held
mainstream beliefs.

IMO, some sincerely held religious beliefs deserve to be ridiculed and
mocked.  Monty Python did a great job of this, e.g. in "Life of Brian"
and the "Spanish Inquisition" sketch.

				-- Bob

    Bob, are you saying that it is a random selection that all fictional or
    adapted-from-true-life American priests or ministers are portrayed as
    abusive, greedy, or manipulative, or that the number of such characters
    reflects their actual number in proportion to reality?
    
    If such the same of sort of criteria were used, _every_ mother
    portrayed on television would be a part-time prostitute, _every_ father
    a molester of baby- sitters, every cop on the payroll of the Mafia.
    
    The selection of priest or minister characters to be abusive, greedy,
    or manipulative cannot be explained by chance or by an absence of
    American priests or ministers that could be portrayed sympathetically
    or heroically.
    
    This isn't a conspiracy but the promotion of a world-view that among
    other things, is hostile to Christianity.  Defending Hollywood's
    world-view is something that not even Hollywood itself bothers to do.

    Yes, the depiction of the hypocracy of religious institutions
    has been used in many movies.  So has the greed of businessmen.
    "DALLAS" was based on this premise.

    Politicians don't fare much better nor do bureaucrats.
    
    "Good guys" are boring unless they have a very nasty "bad guy"
    to fight against.  And what could be a nastier bad guy than 
    someone who betrays the trust of others.

    I wouldn't take it so personally.

    Then again, some behavior of the clergy *does* deserve ridicule.

    Tom

Re: .21 Patrick

>    Bob, are you saying that it is a random selection that all fictional or
>    adapted-from-true-life American priests or ministers are portrayed as
>    abusive, greedy, or manipulative, or that the number of such characters
>    reflects their actual number in proportion to reality?
    
No, it certainly isn't random.  My guess is that greedy, abusive priests
and ministers are frequently portrayed in movies because their stories are
more sensational than those of generous, helpful clergy.  The Hollywood
script writers are probably hostile toward people like Jimmy Swaggart and
Jim Bakker.  As far as I know, they aren't hostile toward priests and
ministers in general, although I wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood script
writers were far less religious than the average American.

It seems to me that there have been positive portrayals of priests and
ministers, but possibly not in the biggest movies or not in leading roles.
I'd have to study a large number of movies to make a more definite
statement about this.

Even if every single portrayal of a priest or minister were negative,
though, that wouldn't prove that American culture as a whole is
anti-religious, because movies are just one part of public life.

>    This isn't a conspiracy but the promotion of a world-view that among
>    other things, is hostile to Christianity.  Defending Hollywood's
>    world-view is something that not even Hollywood itself bothers to do.

Well, to a large extent my own world view is hostile to Christianity (or
at least right wing Christianity) so that certainly isn't a reason for me
to be ashamed of defending Hollywood.  Unfortunately the country as a
whole isn't as anti-Christian as you say Hollywood is.

				-- Bob

    Bob, you still don't understand that this is a world-view problem:
    writers are grateful for the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker
    because it supports there view that all ministers are greedy,
    manipulative, and abused which is promoted in their portrayal of any
    American priest or minister.
    
    It's not that the Hollywood establishment considers the religious
    beliefs of Americans as irrelevant, rather they seek to eradicate them.
    
    OK, take the challenge: what film has portrayed a contemporary American
    religious priest, minister or other Christian leader in a heroic or
    sympathetic role emphasizing their faithfulness to the gospel.  There
    hasn't even been a complete film biography made of Martin Luther King,
    Jr. yet.
    
    Theatrical film releases and network television represent a huge
    impact.  More than anything else they form the popular culture. I'm not
    implying that they have an obligation to "balance", I'm attempting to
    show that an anti-religious bias exists, not merely an "anti-right wing
    Christianity" bias.

Re: .24 Patrick

>    It's not that the Hollywood establishment considers the religious
>    beliefs of Americans as irrelevant, rather they seek to eradicate them.
    
If that's their goal then they haven't been very successful.

>    OK, take the challenge: what film has portrayed a contemporary American
>    religious priest, minister or other Christian leader in a heroic or
>    sympathetic role emphasizing their faithfulness to the gospel.

Other than "The Bells of St. Mary's" it's hard to think of any.  I'll keep
my eye out for such roles as I watch movies over the next few months and
post my results here.

				-- Bob

re: Note 722.24 by Patrick "Keep back 200 feet" 

>    OK, take the challenge: what film has portrayed a contemporary American
>    religious priest, minister or other Christian leader in a heroic or
>    sympathetic role emphasizing their faithfulness to the gospel.  There
>    hasn't even been a complete film biography made of Martin Luther King,
>    Jr. yet.
    
There was a movie produced in the fifties, I think it was called _A Man Named 
Peter_ or some such.  It was the biography of a minister in Washington, D.C. 
during World War Two.

It's been years since I've seen it (on television).  Of course one could argue 
that the spiritual climate of the U. S. has changed somewhat since the 
Eisenhower administration. .-)

Perhaps a perusal of the Christianity in Movies topic in this file would be 
interesting...

Peace,

Jim

    Earlier I mentioned "Leap of Faith" which, although it portrayed a bad
    image of road show revivalists, had a positive portrayal of the divine
    and the goodness of spiritually committed people.  "Sister Act" is
    another movie which I feel had a positive view of religion, without
    removing the humanity of the individual characters.

    On TV, "Highway to Heaven" and "Amen" are two shows that I can think of
    that portrayed religion and a religious community in a positive way. 
    More recently, "Quantum Leap" dealt with the concept of a benevolent
    deity or higher being (they didn't use the word "God") in a positive
    manner.  Not your particular flavor of religion, but religion
    nonetheless.

    I still feel, however, that by and large mainstream religion is ignored
    by the news media, TV entertainment, and cinema.  The exception being
    when religious leaders act to affect socio-political changes; this is
    news whorthy in that it affects the general public and not just members
    of a particular church.   
    
    Please cite movies that have been negative toward religion and American
    priests and ministers in the main.  
    
    	-Eric

    Is "A River Runs Through It" a recent enough film to qualify?
    
    Or were its characters perhaps not contemporary enough?
    
    Peace (like a river),
    Richard
    

    Don't forget "Boys Town", starring Spencer Tracey and Mickey Rooney. 
    Of course that was done in the forties.  Hollywood doesn't have the
    mental capacity to write and direct a movie as masterful as that one!
    
    -Jack

For relevant entries, also see
15.50 "Boys Town"
15.86,.87,.88 "Leap of Faith"

Peace,
Richard

    Yeah, but... where are all the antagonistic movies?
    
    Eric