Tag Archives: American Family Association

Why I loathe the “convenience” of religion

by

As a Christian brought up in the Baptist Church, I listened to quite a few sermons and delivered a few messages myself.  I don’t discuss religion openly with many people because I personally think that religion is best expressed between the individual and their choice of deity.  That said, I really bothers me when people wrap themselves in the guise of being a Christian while their words and actions run counter to what they’re claiming to be.

I don’t think there is one true definition of what makes a Christian.  However, it seems as though there are a few principles that should be a given.  Looking out for those in need and trying to help all people, even those who do not believe, would seem to be part of that given in my view.  At the same time, attempting to force others to follow your beliefs would not be one of those principles as I don’t recall reading anything where Jesus forced people to follow him.  He talked with people, helped those in need, and his good deeds caused people to want to follow him.

There are groups, such as the American Family Association, who wrap themselves in this religious fabric as a way to explain their actions.  According to their website:

PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT
The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.

In the Bible, there are passages that describe the punishment handed down by those who worship idol gods, so you would think that a group that has such a philosophical statement as part of their guiding principles would not have people actively encouraging people to bow down to idols, right?  Guess again…

“The top one percent are funding 30 percent of the government.  So rather than the poor, the low-income and the middle class being resentful of these people – they should be kissing the ground on which they walk.

“Who’s paying for the EBT cards?  Who’s paying for food stamps?  Who’s paying for the women and infant children program?  Who’s paying for subsidized housing?  Who’s paying for Medicaid?  It is the top one percent.  So they ought to be given ticker tape parades once a week in all of our major cities to thank them for funding welfare for everybody.” — Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy

You say they’re funding 30% of the government, then that means that 70% of it is coming from somewhere else.  What makes you or anyone else so self-assured that you can honestly tell where tax dollars are spent?  For all we know, China could be funding all those things and not the 1%ers.  We were borrowing almost 40% of our budget, so we borrow more than what the 1% contributes, even though they’re amassing almost 100% of the income gains since the economic collapse.

Sorry Mr. Fischer, but I don’t worship money, and I won’t worship the 1%.  I choose to worship the same God that I grew up knowing.  If you can find where Jesus worshiped the money changers and kissed the ground they walked on, then please bring forth the news.  Otherwise, don’t taint Christianity with idol worship and other misdeeds.  It’s people like you who help to paint Christianity in such a bad light.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Phil Robertson, Martin Bashir, and the right to free speech

by

It’s astonishing, to say the least, when you look at the responses of many people to things said in the media nowadays.  Not astonishing for what’s said, but astonishing for the reactions generated by the individuals doing the speaking.

Martin Bashir resigned from his job at MSNBC after making a statement about Sarah Palin in response to her equating the financial issues of our country to slavery.  His statement, was for all intents and purposes, was an exercise in free speech.  The very free speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  That right to free speech did not exempt him from the repercussions of expressing himself though, hence the eventual resignation.

Now, we have Phil Robertson from A&E’s Duck Dynasty on the hot seat.  He said quite a bit in an interview with GQ magazine that has stirred up quite a few people.  He also has engaged in the exercise of his free speech, and as a result, A&E suspended him from the show.  Once again, there is no protection from the repercussions of exercising that free speech.

You can go on and on and on with names of people who have opened their mouths over time and have had to face the consequences.  The Dixie Chicks spoke out about Bush and were ostracized.  Alec Baldwin opened his mouth a few times and ended up losing his show.  The one common thread is they all opted to exercise their right to free speech.

The response by Americans, however, is a tale of two cities.  When Bashir spoke about Palin, the Right went gathered torches and pitchforks and went in pursuit of his job.  From Sean Hannity all the way to anonymous commentors on websites, I don’t recall anybody on the right stepping out in front of him waving the First Amendment in his defense.  There may have been someone  who did, but I don’t personally recall such, and Google has not found anybody to help me out either.  Robertson, on the other hand, has people defending his statement and trashing A&E for exercising their rights to remove him from their network for the time being.

A gathering of comments about Robertson’s comments posted at Raw Story show lots of support for him.

Fox News host Megyn Kelly said the decision to place Robertson on hiatus was made in haste.

“Is he ever coming back? It remains to be seen, but that will certainly shut down debate,” Kelly said. “There really won’t, I mean, he’s a Christian man — I grant you, he did not say this in the kindest way – but why can’t there be a debate about it? Why can’t there be a back-and-forth, a discussion — you know, that’s how he feels, and you say how you feel, instead of saying, ‘You are fired, you are basically canned.’”

[…]

Another Fox News host, Sean Hannity, complained the disciplinary actions against Robertson established a “slippery slope,” while a Christian broadcaster called the TV star an “American hero.”

“Phil Robertson is a new American hero,” said broadcaster Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, in a series of Twitter posts. “He said exactly what the great majority of Americans believe. Phil Robertson is right. It’s a simple matter of plumbing. Easy to figure out what is supposed to go where. And where not.”

Sarah Palin, a reality show star herself, also weighed in.

“Free speech is endangered species; those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all,” Palin tweeted.

On the other hand, when it came down to Bashir’s First Amendment rights…

I guess it’s all about what you say and who agrees with you as to who will come to your defense of your right to free speech.  I don’t understand it at all, nor do I agree with the sometimes defense of the right to free speech.  Either you believe in the First Amendment or you don’t.  There is no exception based on whether or not you agree with the speaker.  The First Amendment to the Constitution does protect our right to free speech, but it does not give us protection for the responses to what we say.  When you decide to speak, you also decide to be responsible for your words.

 

Related articles