Now here’s a delightful group: “Christian Reconstructionists.” Let’s just call them Recons. Recons prove you can never over-educate yourself about the wonderful Rapture-Righties. (I just know Elmer Fudd would call them the “Wacky Wighties,” bless his little heart.) These guys are the Real GodFather – you know, the one that shows up late at night when Daddy God thinks no one is looking -- after he removes the human-face mask, the false teeth, and drops down onto all fours?
“…According to Reconstructionist belief, the Bible allows liberal application of the death penalty for crimes including homosexuality, abortion, adultery, child disobedience, and witchcraft. Acceptable forms of capital punishment supposedly outlined in the Bible include burning, stoning, and hanging. Slavery is also acceptable, according to Reconstructionists who claim that the Bible does not outlaw all of its methods.”But my dears! You haven’t heard the worst. Oh, no. Worse even than their aliens-from-Mars belief system, these Recons are actually making inroads into our national capital – at least according to this (admittedly old) article from feminist.org:
“Jeffrey Ziegler, President of the National Reform Association (NRA), a Pittsburgh, PA based Christian Reconstructionist organization, has announced plans to form a political action committee and public policy organization, officially entering Washington’s world of politics…. The NRA and Christian Reconstructionism, however, already have close ties to Washington. NRA members have met with several Republicans in the House and Senate during three trips to Washington, DC made since July 2000…. President Bush may be considering J. Robert Brame III, board member of Reconstructionist group American Vision as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Brame has written that the “only sure guide is Divinely-inspired Biblical law superintended by the God Who watches over His Word.” MORE >>>Could this be why Congress hasn’t been worth a hill of beans lately? – they’ve been kidnapped by Daddy God?
Anyhoo! All this reminds me of the whole point of this blog, which is, "SAVING THE PLANET -- by gently replacing god the Father with God the Mother by the year 2025." We need to get serious about this, people. 2025 minus 2005 is only 20. And in less than a month we'll hafta subtract 2006 from 2025, leaving only 19 years to rid the planet of Mr. Daddy god.
8 comments:
leaving only 19 years to rid the planet of Mr. Daddy god
Lol, you know, if someone were to substitute everytime you used a condescending reference to "Big Papa God" or "Big Bad Daddy Jehovah," with an "evil Satan" or something, this website would sound pretty much exactly like one of those crazy fire-and-brimstone fundie sites...
You call them Recons, I call them Chippies (Christians who use hippie tactics).
Jesus delivered the last word on stoning, said nothing about homosexuals, said nothing about abortion, and said nothing about slavery. He lived in one of the most warlike environments on the planet and yet promoted nonviolence of a sort that dwarfed Gandhi. Who are these God people, and what are they reading???
PS - I think St. Paul was nutty.
Lol "chippies," I love it! You know, I've heard of Christian Reconstructionists, but they sounded nothing like this... They were saying the same stuff anne said, and were trying to get the fascist elements out of Christianity. Ah, religion....
Lol, Lisa, I thought I was funnier than those “crazy fundies.” But seriously. I don’t mind criticism if it feels polite. Your comment, here, though, doesn’t feel polite to me. I’m not sure you meant it to be impolite, but it comes across that way to me. I really like and respect Rebecca Blood’s Weblog Handbook; maybe you’d want to take a look at it. Here’s what she has to say about blogging criticism: “Even relatively mild criticism of another weblogger or her site design will reflect very unfavorably on you. Linking to another site simply to make a negative comment is analogous to walking into a party and announcing within earshot that another guest’s dress is hideous or joining a conversation to advise one of the participants that he is a dimwit for complaining when his MG breaks down….” (Rebecca Blood, The Weblog Handbook, 2002, p. 103). As I’ve said before, I really enjoy your challenging comments and want you to visit this site as often as you can. However, I don’t get paid to do this every day, so it at least has to be fun. And I won’t have much fun if I get compared to “crazy sites” too often.
The thing is, such condescending language to refer to another's deity is something I find impolite, and I guess this was a passive-aggressive way of yet again reffering to it. You're not funnier than "crazy fundies," you can be just as hurtful. I hate when such language is used, especially by people who complain of intolerance toward their own beliefs. That's hypocritical, not reactive.
But fine, let's take out the part where I call them "crazy" sites... I think that is a valid point to make, that your blogging against these horrible, immoral fundies that you deplore so much for their tactics of spreading religion-- you sound just like them sometimes.
If pointing out a blogger's fault in logic is considered impolite, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the point of your writing was just to talk only to people that take part in and appreciate name-calling.
I know what you mean about it not being fun, I stopped reading your blog and morgaine's, and stopped writing on mine, after weeks and weeks of being told that I need to do my feminist research and telling me that I'm repressed by my patriarchal university, which are both silly and demeaning statements. I would put my time and effort to read your statements, digest them, and think critically about them, and offer serious answers, and so many of my responses are scoffed at because you don't know about things I learned in my intro to religion classes, like the Desert Theory.
While I'm checking out this handbook, I'll get you an extra copy, thanks for the tip.
Lisa: Again, you’ve said several things that feel rude to me:
“The thing is, such condescending language to refer to another's deity is something I find impolite…”
Would you go to someone’s party and say, “You’re impolite.”?
“You're not funnier than ‘crazy fundies…’”
Would you go to someone’s party and say, “You may think you’re funny, but you’re not.”?
”…You can be just as hurtful.”
Would you go into someone’s home and tell them they’re “hurtful.” ?
“I hate when such language is used, especially by people who complain of intolerance toward their own beliefs. That's hypocritical, not reactive.”
Would you go into someone’s home and tell them you hate the language they use and then call them hypocritical?
“I would put my time and effort to read your statements, digest them, and think critically about them, and offer serious answers, and so many of my responses are scoffed at because you don't know about things I learned in my intro to religion classes, like the Desert Theory.”
Would you go into someone’s home and tell them “You scoff at me because you don’t know the things I know.”?
Again, Lisa, I’d like you to visit this blog, and often, but only if you’re as polite as you’d be to someone – someone you respected -- who invited you into their home. And maybe even politer than that. And if you don’t respect me, then why would you want to come here? To reform me? That would be a waste of your time, I can guarantee you that, lol!
BTW, I love debate and differences of opinion.
If I was a guest in someone's home and they were being hurtful and condescending, why would I not let them know it bothered me? If I went to your home and felt demeaned because we have different knowledge yet was made to feel I had inferior knowledge and was therefore inferior, well, yes, absolutely, I would have to let you know that is not a way I like to be treated. I believe AA calls this "boundaries?" What is wrong with that?
But I respect your boundaries, and I won't bother you again.
Post a Comment