Join the Christian LARP!
102 views
Skip to first unread message
go4tli
Feb 20, 2012, 6:38:22 PM2/20/12
to CNX-men
To some prominent figures, life must look like one big LARP. That's
all I can figure.
LARP, for those who actually had lives in high school and/or college,
is short for Live Action Role-Playing. Think of those kids who used
to play games like D&D around a table eating Cheetos and gulping down
Mountain Dew (raises hand). Now take away the table, the Cheetos, and
the Mountain Dew, but add the option of costumes, and have everyone
pretend to be their characters. That's a LARP. Some of us geeks did
that, too (raises hand, a little more sheepishly). If that's what you
like to do *for fun*, hey, that's okay. Some people like to bounce a
ball and try to throw it into a hole deliberately positioned over
their heads. Since this is worth a lot more compensation in our
society than LARPing if you can do it *really well* (even if the
maturity required is somewhat similar), I can't judge.
When I start crying foul is when some people seem to want to treat
*all of our lives* as if it's some big game, and pay no heed to the
consequences of their actions, even though they and their words
influence literally millions of people.
Take Rick Warren and his ministry in Lake Forest, California, offering
brave words of protest over the new birth control policy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that
violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://twitter.com/#!/RickWarren/status/167071139280072706
Such brave words! Such a valiant stand against oppression! What
lessons we all could learn in not fearing persecution and living
courageously!
Except, of course, that you can't take a valiant stand against
oppression or persecution *when no one is oppressing or persecuting
you*. That's why I think he's treating this like one big LARP. He's
reacting to a threat that isn't real, like preparing to fight a thing
dreamed up by a Game Master with too many dice. It lets him stroke
his own ego, but as with LARPs, it all appears a bit ridiculous to
those of us who are not playing the game with him, and who are still
out in the real world living real lives.
Because in the state where Rick Warren is based (California), ever
since 1999 -- yes, *thirteen years ago* -- it's been allowed for
religious organizations to opt out of contraceptive coverage (check
out Insurance Code section 10123.196 and Health & Safety Code section
1367.25):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_39_bill_19990928_chaptered.html
... and the federal law was modeled after this exemption offered by
California and more than half of the other states (New York and Oregon
are specifically mentioned here):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/10/146662285/rules-requiring-contraceptive-coverage-have-been-in-force-for-years
So somehow, Rock Warren has apparently been persecuted for thirteen
years *without noticing it*. Or else he's puffing himself up over
something he knows will engender loyalty, even though it's entirely
fabricated. But he's willing to go to jail to fight this one! He's
just been, um, busy, for the last thirteen years. Books to write,
lectures to give, people to rally. You know how it is.
Even if he believed his own rhetoric, he's got to notice that *no one
is trying to put Rick Warren in jail*. The law does not threaten him
in any way. There's no law for him to break! There's no "government
mandate" that would force him to violate his conscience or what he
believes to be the commandment of God. There never has been.
But he's not the only guy who brought a character sheet.
I'm a little concerned that I see Chuck Colson joining the game. I
mean, Evangelical Christians *love* Chuck Colson. There's that whole
powerful redemption story thing there -- he was in prison for a
national scandal and became a Christian -- which is so iconic of the
redemption that's part of our religious understanding and heritage(1).
I've mentioned before in this email group that it appears that he's
willing to tell certain demonstrable untruths in order to promote his
political vision. This is more of the same.
He appeared on James Dobson's radio show a couple of weeks ago and had
this to say about our President:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama is trying to replace the freedom of religion with the more
narrow "freedom of worship," telling Dobson, "I have not seen 'freedom
of religion' mentioned by an official in the Obama administration."
Colson also claimed that President Obama "used 'freedom of religion'
only once, and that was when he was talking about the mosque in Ground
Zero."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colson-calls-obama-contraception-mandate-greatest-threat-america
See, here's the thing. Stuff the President says gets written down and
made part of an official record. And we can check this record.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-president-obama-destroying-our-freedom-religion
Turns out that Obama et al. have spoken of "freedom of religion"
hundreds of times; and many former Presidents have spoken of "freedom
of worship" without Chuck Colson saying boo.
This has been pointed out to Colson several times, and publically.
But he still continues to repeat this line.
The reason this relates to the birth control brouhaha is that Colson
went on to pretend on this show that a national mandate requiring
contraception coverage in health insurance was new and was the
harbinger of Bad Things, saying, "This is the most important issue --
I really think the most important I've faced in my ministry, and the
greatest threat to America, the greatest threat to us as Christians."
If and when Obama's mandate goes into effect, religious employers in
Virginia will, for the first time, be allowed to opt out of directly
providing this coverage through a conscience clause. As it stands
*now*, they *have to* offer this coverage now; there's no exemption
for conscience or religious employers.
I note that Colson's ministry headquarters are in Virginia. Chuck
Colson himself was an employer in Virginia in 1996 -- and that's
important because that's when Republican Governor George Allen signed
the current state's mandate into law.
That's an interesting data point. Consider what it looks like from
Chuck Colson's point of view. In 1996, the governor signs a mandate
*requiring* employers to offer contraceptive coverage -- with no
exemptions on the basis of "religious liberty". Not even for
employers like Chuck Colson. Then for *fifteen years*, Chuck Colson
remains silent on "the greatest threat to America, the greatest threat
to us as Christians". Not a peep.
Then, suddenly, Obama announces that under the Affordable Care Act, a
contraceptive coverage mandate will apply to every state -- but
religious employers can opt out. Colson goes ballsitic about the new
threat to America.
Not to mention that we're not talking about the rights of *Americans*
(i.e., individuals) here one way or the other. We're talking about
the rights of *organizations*. Individuals can opt out of their
rights, but organizations cannot opt out of those rights *on behalf
of* individuals without making it law. If you opt out of
contraception because of your religious beliefs, that's voluntary. If
you are compelled to opt out of contraception because a religious
organization won't let you have it, that's not.
Or am I missing something here?
Of course, this wouldn't be complete without Chuck Colson claiming
that he's bravely willing to endure nonexistent persecution as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have come to the point -- I say this very soberly -- when if there
isn't a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be
called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our
own government. ... I've made up my mind -- sober as that decision
would have to be -- that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what
my state tells me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382
This just piggybacks on the whole "Manhattan Declaration" thing, where
people with enormous power and influence took a moment to pause,
reflect, and bemoan their oppression at the hands of the homosexuals
and the religious minorities who apparently run things.
When overlords get to role-play as underdogs, they can pretend for a
few moments that they're brave and heroic. It doesn't matter that
they have no idea what "civil disobedience" means(2). It doesn't
matter that it's impossible for them to disobey a law that does not
apply to them.
Of course, it's possible that I'm simply not getting the big picture,
and that they are bravely opposing the Affordable Care Act,
courageously standing up for the rights of insurance companies to deny
coverage to sick beneficiaries. Maybe they want the right not to have
to provide *any* coverage for their employees. In that case, even
though they're factually wrong there, too, I'd have something to say
about the Bible and employers who deny their laborers their wages --
which starts with advice to weep and wail and then gets *really* harsh
(James 5).
The final man in this gallery of the Courageous Without Need For
Courage is Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest. I include him because
even though he's not as influential as Warren or Colson, he follows
their example and produces even more flowery, pointless rhetoric in
response to a nonexistent threat than either one of them.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/father-jonathan-morris-doubles-down-willin
See, Jonathan Morris is, in his words, "ready to die" to oppose
Obama's mandate that doesn't apply to him. Even though no one is
threatening to kill him, or even harm him, or even look at him
sternly. Or even make him pay taxes(3).
In order to be persecuted, someone has to be harming you for your
faith. In order to be martyred, someone has to be trying to kill you
for your faith. These things aren't happening to these men. The
government is stubbornly refusing to oblige these people and
participate with them in their fantasies.
The only out I can see is if Morris is planning some kind of suicidal
protest -- like the Buddhist monks who used to self-immolate -- but
I'm pretty sure Catholicism frowns on that (and, technically speaking,
it's not martyrdom when you do it to yourself). No matter what, it's
just kind of... sad.
Seriously, guys. If you're going to play this game, at least make it
*entertaining*. (<comic book guy> Worst. Campaign. Ever. </comic
book guy>)
----------
(1) For the record, I wish I could end paragraphs like that with
something more like this: "Evangelical Christians *love* X. I mean,
he embodies what Jesus Christ was all about." But there is just no
way that anyone familiar with the American Evangelical political
machine could take that reasoning seriously. It saddens me that so
many of the people Evangelical Christians hold up as their dollar-
appointed leadership can be trusted less and less to reflect the clear
commandments and reasoning of Jesus.
----------
(2) Civil disobedience is refusing to obey an unjust law that applies
to you. Breaking that law can actually get you arrested.
There are plenty of *actual* unjust laws that *actually* apply to
people. Some of them -- such as the indefinite detention of people at
Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial -- I cannot disobey, *because
they do not apply to me*. By the definition of civil disobedience, I
cannot commit civil disobedience against these laws, no matter *how*
unjust they are.
If I demonstrate my opposition by breaking *other* laws -- protesting
Guantanamo Bay by trespassing onto Fort Bragg, say -- that's *still*
not civil disobedience. It still falls under the umbrella of
theatrical politics, and it may serve my purpose in drawing attention
to the injustice I meant to protest, but violating a just law in order
to protest a different, unjust law is not civil disobedience.
So Chuck Colson is not advocating civil disobedience. If anything, I
would argue he's advocating carrying out the sort of actions that, in
the minds of some, make civil disobedience seem like a necessary
response; it looks like he's attempting to make the rules that apply
as an option to a small group into a lack of permission for everyone
else. (In other words, it looks like he wants health plans to be
*prevented* from contraceptive coverage, not simply to allow those who
don't want to not to.)
----------
(3) Since I mentioned taxes, it's not even the case that people are
being forced to pay money to an institution that might spend money on
things they don't want them to spend money on. There's always been
the opt-out where employers can just not provide insurance and pay a
fine instead -- which amounts to less than insurance would(4). And
anyway, the idea that a religious group -- *any* religious group --
can have some kind of right of approval over how other people spend
money is a little bit creepy.
(Apparently, it's okay if an employee of yours spends their own money
on it, but you're suddenly "complicit" if the health insurance company
does it. I don't get it. And besides, coverage is not the same thing
as usage.)
Oh, and don't believe the rhetoric that the federal health plan
includes abortifacients. It doesn't, and even says so in its
definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive
methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and
counseling, not including abortifacient drugs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html
(It should be obvious that it doesn't provide them anyway, since
abortifacients are, by definition, *not* preventive care.)
In any case, I still don't see why other people get to decide what's
in my health care because they're uncomfortable with it. If someone
decides that cough syrup is deeply immoral, does that mean that no
comprehensive health service should ever offer it?
----------
(4) The tax penalty is $2,000 per employee, which works out to about
$167/month per employee. I've never worked at a place that spends
that little for an employee's family insurance. Maybe I'm lucky.
all I can figure.
LARP, for those who actually had lives in high school and/or college,
is short for Live Action Role-Playing. Think of those kids who used
to play games like D&D around a table eating Cheetos and gulping down
Mountain Dew (raises hand). Now take away the table, the Cheetos, and
the Mountain Dew, but add the option of costumes, and have everyone
pretend to be their characters. That's a LARP. Some of us geeks did
that, too (raises hand, a little more sheepishly). If that's what you
like to do *for fun*, hey, that's okay. Some people like to bounce a
ball and try to throw it into a hole deliberately positioned over
their heads. Since this is worth a lot more compensation in our
society than LARPing if you can do it *really well* (even if the
maturity required is somewhat similar), I can't judge.
When I start crying foul is when some people seem to want to treat
*all of our lives* as if it's some big game, and pay no heed to the
consequences of their actions, even though they and their words
influence literally millions of people.
Take Rick Warren and his ministry in Lake Forest, California, offering
brave words of protest over the new birth control policy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that
violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://twitter.com/#!/RickWarren/status/167071139280072706
Such brave words! Such a valiant stand against oppression! What
lessons we all could learn in not fearing persecution and living
courageously!
Except, of course, that you can't take a valiant stand against
oppression or persecution *when no one is oppressing or persecuting
you*. That's why I think he's treating this like one big LARP. He's
reacting to a threat that isn't real, like preparing to fight a thing
dreamed up by a Game Master with too many dice. It lets him stroke
his own ego, but as with LARPs, it all appears a bit ridiculous to
those of us who are not playing the game with him, and who are still
out in the real world living real lives.
Because in the state where Rick Warren is based (California), ever
since 1999 -- yes, *thirteen years ago* -- it's been allowed for
religious organizations to opt out of contraceptive coverage (check
out Insurance Code section 10123.196 and Health & Safety Code section
1367.25):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_39_bill_19990928_chaptered.html
... and the federal law was modeled after this exemption offered by
California and more than half of the other states (New York and Oregon
are specifically mentioned here):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/10/146662285/rules-requiring-contraceptive-coverage-have-been-in-force-for-years
So somehow, Rock Warren has apparently been persecuted for thirteen
years *without noticing it*. Or else he's puffing himself up over
something he knows will engender loyalty, even though it's entirely
fabricated. But he's willing to go to jail to fight this one! He's
just been, um, busy, for the last thirteen years. Books to write,
lectures to give, people to rally. You know how it is.
Even if he believed his own rhetoric, he's got to notice that *no one
is trying to put Rick Warren in jail*. The law does not threaten him
in any way. There's no law for him to break! There's no "government
mandate" that would force him to violate his conscience or what he
believes to be the commandment of God. There never has been.
But he's not the only guy who brought a character sheet.
I'm a little concerned that I see Chuck Colson joining the game. I
mean, Evangelical Christians *love* Chuck Colson. There's that whole
powerful redemption story thing there -- he was in prison for a
national scandal and became a Christian -- which is so iconic of the
redemption that's part of our religious understanding and heritage(1).
I've mentioned before in this email group that it appears that he's
willing to tell certain demonstrable untruths in order to promote his
political vision. This is more of the same.
He appeared on James Dobson's radio show a couple of weeks ago and had
this to say about our President:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama is trying to replace the freedom of religion with the more
narrow "freedom of worship," telling Dobson, "I have not seen 'freedom
of religion' mentioned by an official in the Obama administration."
Colson also claimed that President Obama "used 'freedom of religion'
only once, and that was when he was talking about the mosque in Ground
Zero."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colson-calls-obama-contraception-mandate-greatest-threat-america
See, here's the thing. Stuff the President says gets written down and
made part of an official record. And we can check this record.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-president-obama-destroying-our-freedom-religion
Turns out that Obama et al. have spoken of "freedom of religion"
hundreds of times; and many former Presidents have spoken of "freedom
of worship" without Chuck Colson saying boo.
This has been pointed out to Colson several times, and publically.
But he still continues to repeat this line.
The reason this relates to the birth control brouhaha is that Colson
went on to pretend on this show that a national mandate requiring
contraception coverage in health insurance was new and was the
harbinger of Bad Things, saying, "This is the most important issue --
I really think the most important I've faced in my ministry, and the
greatest threat to America, the greatest threat to us as Christians."
If and when Obama's mandate goes into effect, religious employers in
Virginia will, for the first time, be allowed to opt out of directly
providing this coverage through a conscience clause. As it stands
*now*, they *have to* offer this coverage now; there's no exemption
for conscience or religious employers.
I note that Colson's ministry headquarters are in Virginia. Chuck
Colson himself was an employer in Virginia in 1996 -- and that's
important because that's when Republican Governor George Allen signed
the current state's mandate into law.
That's an interesting data point. Consider what it looks like from
Chuck Colson's point of view. In 1996, the governor signs a mandate
*requiring* employers to offer contraceptive coverage -- with no
exemptions on the basis of "religious liberty". Not even for
employers like Chuck Colson. Then for *fifteen years*, Chuck Colson
remains silent on "the greatest threat to America, the greatest threat
to us as Christians". Not a peep.
Then, suddenly, Obama announces that under the Affordable Care Act, a
contraceptive coverage mandate will apply to every state -- but
religious employers can opt out. Colson goes ballsitic about the new
threat to America.
Not to mention that we're not talking about the rights of *Americans*
(i.e., individuals) here one way or the other. We're talking about
the rights of *organizations*. Individuals can opt out of their
rights, but organizations cannot opt out of those rights *on behalf
of* individuals without making it law. If you opt out of
contraception because of your religious beliefs, that's voluntary. If
you are compelled to opt out of contraception because a religious
organization won't let you have it, that's not.
Or am I missing something here?
Of course, this wouldn't be complete without Chuck Colson claiming
that he's bravely willing to endure nonexistent persecution as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have come to the point -- I say this very soberly -- when if there
isn't a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be
called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our
own government. ... I've made up my mind -- sober as that decision
would have to be -- that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what
my state tells me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382
This just piggybacks on the whole "Manhattan Declaration" thing, where
people with enormous power and influence took a moment to pause,
reflect, and bemoan their oppression at the hands of the homosexuals
and the religious minorities who apparently run things.
When overlords get to role-play as underdogs, they can pretend for a
few moments that they're brave and heroic. It doesn't matter that
they have no idea what "civil disobedience" means(2). It doesn't
matter that it's impossible for them to disobey a law that does not
apply to them.
Of course, it's possible that I'm simply not getting the big picture,
and that they are bravely opposing the Affordable Care Act,
courageously standing up for the rights of insurance companies to deny
coverage to sick beneficiaries. Maybe they want the right not to have
to provide *any* coverage for their employees. In that case, even
though they're factually wrong there, too, I'd have something to say
about the Bible and employers who deny their laborers their wages --
which starts with advice to weep and wail and then gets *really* harsh
(James 5).
The final man in this gallery of the Courageous Without Need For
Courage is Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest. I include him because
even though he's not as influential as Warren or Colson, he follows
their example and produces even more flowery, pointless rhetoric in
response to a nonexistent threat than either one of them.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/father-jonathan-morris-doubles-down-willin
See, Jonathan Morris is, in his words, "ready to die" to oppose
Obama's mandate that doesn't apply to him. Even though no one is
threatening to kill him, or even harm him, or even look at him
sternly. Or even make him pay taxes(3).
In order to be persecuted, someone has to be harming you for your
faith. In order to be martyred, someone has to be trying to kill you
for your faith. These things aren't happening to these men. The
government is stubbornly refusing to oblige these people and
participate with them in their fantasies.
The only out I can see is if Morris is planning some kind of suicidal
protest -- like the Buddhist monks who used to self-immolate -- but
I'm pretty sure Catholicism frowns on that (and, technically speaking,
it's not martyrdom when you do it to yourself). No matter what, it's
just kind of... sad.
Seriously, guys. If you're going to play this game, at least make it
*entertaining*. (<comic book guy> Worst. Campaign. Ever. </comic
book guy>)
----------
(1) For the record, I wish I could end paragraphs like that with
something more like this: "Evangelical Christians *love* X. I mean,
he embodies what Jesus Christ was all about." But there is just no
way that anyone familiar with the American Evangelical political
machine could take that reasoning seriously. It saddens me that so
many of the people Evangelical Christians hold up as their dollar-
appointed leadership can be trusted less and less to reflect the clear
commandments and reasoning of Jesus.
----------
(2) Civil disobedience is refusing to obey an unjust law that applies
to you. Breaking that law can actually get you arrested.
There are plenty of *actual* unjust laws that *actually* apply to
people. Some of them -- such as the indefinite detention of people at
Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial -- I cannot disobey, *because
they do not apply to me*. By the definition of civil disobedience, I
cannot commit civil disobedience against these laws, no matter *how*
unjust they are.
If I demonstrate my opposition by breaking *other* laws -- protesting
Guantanamo Bay by trespassing onto Fort Bragg, say -- that's *still*
not civil disobedience. It still falls under the umbrella of
theatrical politics, and it may serve my purpose in drawing attention
to the injustice I meant to protest, but violating a just law in order
to protest a different, unjust law is not civil disobedience.
So Chuck Colson is not advocating civil disobedience. If anything, I
would argue he's advocating carrying out the sort of actions that, in
the minds of some, make civil disobedience seem like a necessary
response; it looks like he's attempting to make the rules that apply
as an option to a small group into a lack of permission for everyone
else. (In other words, it looks like he wants health plans to be
*prevented* from contraceptive coverage, not simply to allow those who
don't want to not to.)
----------
(3) Since I mentioned taxes, it's not even the case that people are
being forced to pay money to an institution that might spend money on
things they don't want them to spend money on. There's always been
the opt-out where employers can just not provide insurance and pay a
fine instead -- which amounts to less than insurance would(4). And
anyway, the idea that a religious group -- *any* religious group --
can have some kind of right of approval over how other people spend
money is a little bit creepy.
(Apparently, it's okay if an employee of yours spends their own money
on it, but you're suddenly "complicit" if the health insurance company
does it. I don't get it. And besides, coverage is not the same thing
as usage.)
Oh, and don't believe the rhetoric that the federal health plan
includes abortifacients. It doesn't, and even says so in its
definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive
methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and
counseling, not including abortifacient drugs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html
(It should be obvious that it doesn't provide them anyway, since
abortifacients are, by definition, *not* preventive care.)
In any case, I still don't see why other people get to decide what's
in my health care because they're uncomfortable with it. If someone
decides that cough syrup is deeply immoral, does that mean that no
comprehensive health service should ever offer it?
----------
(4) The tax penalty is $2,000 per employee, which works out to about
$167/month per employee. I've never worked at a place that spends
that little for an employee's family insurance. Maybe I'm lucky.
go4tli
Mar 3, 2012, 6:06:17 PM3/3/12
to CNX-men
Somebody needs to hold Chuck Colson accountable for his lies. And
it's such a strange lie in particular:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Clinton [...] and other officials repeatedly use
the term "freedom of worship" (a private act) versus "freedom of
religion", (which the Constitution protects, which is the freedom to
live out one's faith in public).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colson-rails-against-gay-and-reproductive-rights-threats-freedom
He keeps saying this, even though he knows it's not true. Even though
other people have pointed out to him in public that it's not true.
The whole claim is pinned on this imagined great distinction between
the meanings of the phrases "freedom of worship" and "freedom of
religion", and it's so weird because it's so easily falsified. We can
disprove it with statements from Secretary of State Clinton. We can
disprove it with statements from Obama's staff, or from Obama
himself. We can disprove it by looking for who has said "freedom of
worship" and when, even when it's religious leaders or prior
Republican Presidents.
It's easily falsified because Google exists.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22freedom+of+religion%22+site%3Awww.state.gov
So what gives? Is he under the delusion that disproving his lie is
hard? Has he not kept up with technology?
Or, more nefariously, does he know that if he talks the Jesus
Talk(TM), that he will never be brought to task? That if he speaks
out against abortion and homosexuality, he will be allowed to lie with
impunity -- that no one willing to do his homework will speak out, and
that the gullible will be left naked and vulnerable and free to be
fleeced? (If he were to speak out against evolution, he'd even be
able to make racist, anti-Semitic remarks and advocate that people not
pay taxes to the government, and even have people insist on his holy
character after the feds drag him off to prison. I'm not just making
this up. Lies are apparently okay if they only hurt Those People(1).)
Thousands of people will continue to support Chuck Colson and his
ministry because no one is willing to call him on this.
Radio stations will continue to carry his program ("Breakpoint").
Prison Fellowship will not call their leader to task. Angel Tree will
continue operating as if nothing dishonorable had ever happened in
their midst. The editors and directors of "Christianity Today" will
continue to give him a voice through his column.
I wish I didn't have to be so cynical about this. I wish someone in
those ostensibly Christian organizations *cared*. I wish some of them
would, at the very least, voice or print disclaimers around any words
that come out of the mouth of someone willing to show himself an
unrepentant bearer of false witness, regardless of the loss of
political impact they may have as a result. I wish some of them would
approach him with love and try to convince him to stop his habitual
lying.
I wish.
----------
(1) Remember, in "Left Behind", for example, it's not okay to lie to
the Antichrist, but it's okay to lie to your daughter. The rules for
lying that we accept are inexplicably strange and inextricably
convoluted. With that in mind, the possibility terrifies me that the
reason Chuck Colson keeps lying is *that it simply never occurs to him
not to*.
it's such a strange lie in particular:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Clinton [...] and other officials repeatedly use
the term "freedom of worship" (a private act) versus "freedom of
religion", (which the Constitution protects, which is the freedom to
live out one's faith in public).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colson-rails-against-gay-and-reproductive-rights-threats-freedom
He keeps saying this, even though he knows it's not true. Even though
other people have pointed out to him in public that it's not true.
The whole claim is pinned on this imagined great distinction between
the meanings of the phrases "freedom of worship" and "freedom of
religion", and it's so weird because it's so easily falsified. We can
disprove it with statements from Secretary of State Clinton. We can
disprove it with statements from Obama's staff, or from Obama
himself. We can disprove it by looking for who has said "freedom of
worship" and when, even when it's religious leaders or prior
Republican Presidents.
It's easily falsified because Google exists.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22freedom+of+religion%22+site%3Awww.state.gov
So what gives? Is he under the delusion that disproving his lie is
hard? Has he not kept up with technology?
Or, more nefariously, does he know that if he talks the Jesus
Talk(TM), that he will never be brought to task? That if he speaks
out against abortion and homosexuality, he will be allowed to lie with
impunity -- that no one willing to do his homework will speak out, and
that the gullible will be left naked and vulnerable and free to be
fleeced? (If he were to speak out against evolution, he'd even be
able to make racist, anti-Semitic remarks and advocate that people not
pay taxes to the government, and even have people insist on his holy
character after the feds drag him off to prison. I'm not just making
this up. Lies are apparently okay if they only hurt Those People(1).)
Thousands of people will continue to support Chuck Colson and his
ministry because no one is willing to call him on this.
Radio stations will continue to carry his program ("Breakpoint").
Prison Fellowship will not call their leader to task. Angel Tree will
continue operating as if nothing dishonorable had ever happened in
their midst. The editors and directors of "Christianity Today" will
continue to give him a voice through his column.
I wish I didn't have to be so cynical about this. I wish someone in
those ostensibly Christian organizations *cared*. I wish some of them
would, at the very least, voice or print disclaimers around any words
that come out of the mouth of someone willing to show himself an
unrepentant bearer of false witness, regardless of the loss of
political impact they may have as a result. I wish some of them would
approach him with love and try to convince him to stop his habitual
lying.
I wish.
----------
(1) Remember, in "Left Behind", for example, it's not okay to lie to
the Antichrist, but it's okay to lie to your daughter. The rules for
lying that we accept are inexplicably strange and inextricably
convoluted. With that in mind, the possibility terrifies me that the
reason Chuck Colson keeps lying is *that it simply never occurs to him
not to*.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages