If you frequent enough lefty websites, you'll see referece to Christians as being Taliban-like. For an example of how this plays out, here's part of a comment from Mary on one of my threads at Common Sense Political Thought:
If the history text honestly explained that America was founded as and has historically been a secular state in which many religious individuals live, and then put forth the opinion that separation of church and state ought to be set aside in favor of a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy (emphasis mine), I doubt UC would have a problem with it. Instead of doing that, however, the book lies repeatedly about easily determined facts. No self-respecting UC history professor is going to pass such a textbook as college-prep material, any more than a UC biology professor is going to pass a creationist biology text...
Mary had made some decent points up till this time about why the University of California might have rejected certain courses from Calvary Chapel (the Association of Christian Schools International has since sued the U of C for viewpoint discrimination). Contrary to what certain trolls would have you believe, I try not to be rude to them until they give me reason to. So, when Mary started turning up the heat with this "Fundamentalist Christian theocracy" stuff, I answered her politely that I was looking forward to more information. My theory is that give a lib enough time and all the polite veneer will come off and you'll see what they really think of conservatives, Christians, etc.
I guess for Mary, saying that I was "looking forward to more information abou this 'Fundamentalist Christian theocracy' that some people want to set up" was a green light to turn loose on the anti-Christian (and more pointedly, anti-fundamentalist Christian) meme:
Calvary Chapel is part of the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist movement. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm for a concise summary of their beliefs, including the necessity to take over the government so they change United States law to criminalize all activities and religions of which they disapprove.
It’s pretty scarey stuff. Among other things, some Dominionist groups appear to advocate reinstituting slavery.
Slavery?! It turns out her source is far from objective about any Christian group and has been rejected by many because of it. I gave her a Wikipedia citing which was far less vituperative. But that wasn't enough...
You’re quite right that only a small fraction of Fundamentalist groups subscribe to the theocratic philosophy expounded by Rushdoony and the other influential Reconstructionists (since you don’t like the term “Dominionists”). The fact that this small minority is unlikely to succeed in their goal of reforming the United States into a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy doesn’t make that goal any less objectionable.
Because freedom of religion only applies to religions we like, right? But there's more...
Sharon, the Taliban are Muslim Fundamentalists who believe that all civil laws should be based on a strict interpretation of the Koran, including the death penalty for “heresy”, which they define as not being a member of their particular sect, stoning for adultery, relegation of women to strict second-class status, and so on.
The Reconstructionists are Christian Fundamentalists who believe that all civil laws should be based on a strict interpretation of the Bible, including the death penalty for “heresy”, which they define as not being a member of their particular sect, stoning for adultery, relegation of women to strict second-class status, and so on. At least, that’s clearly what the leadership of the Reconstructionist movement is proposing in their published works. Read them for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
The primary difference between the Taliban and the Reconstructionists is that the Taliban has been more effective at gaining the political power to actually implement their agenda.
I am not advocating that the Reconstructionists be suppressed as a national menace. They are too small a group to ever gain power as long as we have a functioning democracy, and if we lose that, we’ll have bigger problems to worry about. However, don’t assume that I am making the comparison between the Reconstructionists and the Taliban lightly, or out of ignorance about either group’s philosophy and goals. The “Christian America” the Reconstructionists want would be very like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
No, she isn't advocating suppression, but smearing any group that might be connected is ok, I guess. There was more, but you get the idea.
Why do I bring this up? In my tangential way, I'm getting to the point. Dana has a post at CSPT titled This is why I laugh when some of our liberal friends complain that America is becoming a theocracy which then links to a story about foreigners in Saudia Arabia getting 20 lashes for dancing.
The point being that for all the rhetoric we hear about Christian intolerance or "Taliban-like" behavior on the part of some Christian sect or other, these sorts of things don't happen in America.
I tried pointing this out to Mary. There's no Christian sect that I know of that saws off the heads of "infidels" or enforces wearing of a burka by women. None of them stone people or cut off hands or stop anyone from practicing whatever religion they desire.
But to the Marys of the world, the idea that some tiny fraction of Christians have such a strict interpretation of the Bible that they advocate using Leviticus as law is only a matter of degree, not kind. There's no questioning why literally millions of Muslims agree with Sharia law but only a tiny handful of Christians would agree to the severe limitations some kook fringe group advocates. It's sad, really.
|