Christianity and Fascism
Dictionary definition of fascism: "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition."
Does Christianity, or do individual Christians behave like fascists?
Some people, who support the homosexual movement, accuse Christians of being fascists. They may know what they are trying to say, but most American's don't know what fascism is. They only know it's evil, and we defeated fascism in World War II. So let's take a look. Does Christianity meet the definition of fascism or even any part of that definition?
First we must recognize that anyone can call themselves a Christian. So pointing at someone who calls themselves a Christian and who acts like a fascist, proves nothing. We need to look at the Biblical definition of a Christian and what Christian behavior is like. Then we can see if any Christian behaviors fit within the definition of fascism.
The definition of fascism starts by saying it is "a political philosophy, movement or regime". There are some who will say Christianity is a political movement. That's a big topic and I'll take it up in detail in my next post. The conclusion of that post is that Christianity is involved in government, but it is not political nor is it a political movement. To be a political movement would mean Christianity was "of or relating to government or politics" (dictionary definition). The fact is Christianity is of and relating to God.
If you are brand Christianity as a political movement, then you must even more so label trade unions as political movements as they are much more involved in politics. In my view I don't think trade unions are a political movement. They are organizations who have an interest in the outcome of politics because that outcome affects them. Christianity is the same; we have an interest in politics because what comes out of politics affects our lives.
Does Christianity exalt a nation or race? No and yes.
Christianity exalts no nation. Because of the strong historical ties between Christianity and our nation, there are some who equate being American with being Christian. But Christianity has never been tied to any one nation or culture (this is a major difference between Christianity and all other religions). The truth is that if American Christians took their blinders off they'd discover that America is a second-rate Christian country and the spiritual strength of Christianity has moved on to South America and Asia.
Does Christianity exalt a race? Yes--the human race. The Bible sees no difference in people based on their inherited traits. We are all the same. We are all sinners in need of God's grace. Yes, we are all different in some respects, such as: we have different leaves of skills and gifts. But in our human worth and value, we are all the same before God. We are all loved by God. And God desires that we all be with Him.
The point of fascism is that it "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". I can't even imagine how anyone could think that this is what Christianity stands for. The Bible tells us that ALL governments are from God-- democracy or dictator--and we are to okay our government in all ways unless they conflict with God's commands. There is nothing in the Bible that supports any specific form of government.
Fascism means "severe economic and social regimentation". It's interesting to note that in economics there is a term called the "redemptive lift". History has shown that wherever the Gospel of Jesus Christ is introduced people's lives improve. They improve economically, living conditions improve, education improves and health improves. This does not fit a description of economic regimentation--the facts show Christianity brings economic freedom.
Concerning social regimentation, look at the world and you'll not see any group as socially and culturally diverse as Christianity. Unlike religions such as Islam and Hinduism, which enforce cultural customs as a part of their religion, Christians freely participate in their cultures. The only exception is that if there is a cultural practice that results in disobedience to God. That practice must be given up. For example, when a headhunter becomes a Christian, he must give up collecting heads.
Fascism means "forcible suppression of opposition". This is a characteristic of the opponents to Christianity, not a characteristic of Christianity. In thinking of the debates that are now going on in America, there are no instances in which Christianity is preventing the opposition from respectfully presenting their views (in other words, no public nudity please). On the other hand, Christians are being forcibly suppressed exactly as described as a characteristic of fascism. For example, by law Christians may not discuss political candidates in church. If we talk about a candidate, the church loses its tax exempt status. No other tax exempt or charitable organization is subject to such a law--only the free speech of Christians is restricted.
The only conclusion one can come to is that Christianity has none of the characteristics of fascism.
Anyone want to look at any other groups to see if they have any of the characteristics of fascism?
Does Christianity, or do individual Christians behave like fascists?
Some people, who support the homosexual movement, accuse Christians of being fascists. They may know what they are trying to say, but most American's don't know what fascism is. They only know it's evil, and we defeated fascism in World War II. So let's take a look. Does Christianity meet the definition of fascism or even any part of that definition?
First we must recognize that anyone can call themselves a Christian. So pointing at someone who calls themselves a Christian and who acts like a fascist, proves nothing. We need to look at the Biblical definition of a Christian and what Christian behavior is like. Then we can see if any Christian behaviors fit within the definition of fascism.
The definition of fascism starts by saying it is "a political philosophy, movement or regime". There are some who will say Christianity is a political movement. That's a big topic and I'll take it up in detail in my next post. The conclusion of that post is that Christianity is involved in government, but it is not political nor is it a political movement. To be a political movement would mean Christianity was "of or relating to government or politics" (dictionary definition). The fact is Christianity is of and relating to God.
If you are brand Christianity as a political movement, then you must even more so label trade unions as political movements as they are much more involved in politics. In my view I don't think trade unions are a political movement. They are organizations who have an interest in the outcome of politics because that outcome affects them. Christianity is the same; we have an interest in politics because what comes out of politics affects our lives.
Does Christianity exalt a nation or race? No and yes.
Christianity exalts no nation. Because of the strong historical ties between Christianity and our nation, there are some who equate being American with being Christian. But Christianity has never been tied to any one nation or culture (this is a major difference between Christianity and all other religions). The truth is that if American Christians took their blinders off they'd discover that America is a second-rate Christian country and the spiritual strength of Christianity has moved on to South America and Asia.
Does Christianity exalt a race? Yes--the human race. The Bible sees no difference in people based on their inherited traits. We are all the same. We are all sinners in need of God's grace. Yes, we are all different in some respects, such as: we have different leaves of skills and gifts. But in our human worth and value, we are all the same before God. We are all loved by God. And God desires that we all be with Him.
The point of fascism is that it "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". I can't even imagine how anyone could think that this is what Christianity stands for. The Bible tells us that ALL governments are from God-- democracy or dictator--and we are to okay our government in all ways unless they conflict with God's commands. There is nothing in the Bible that supports any specific form of government.
Fascism means "severe economic and social regimentation". It's interesting to note that in economics there is a term called the "redemptive lift". History has shown that wherever the Gospel of Jesus Christ is introduced people's lives improve. They improve economically, living conditions improve, education improves and health improves. This does not fit a description of economic regimentation--the facts show Christianity brings economic freedom.
Concerning social regimentation, look at the world and you'll not see any group as socially and culturally diverse as Christianity. Unlike religions such as Islam and Hinduism, which enforce cultural customs as a part of their religion, Christians freely participate in their cultures. The only exception is that if there is a cultural practice that results in disobedience to God. That practice must be given up. For example, when a headhunter becomes a Christian, he must give up collecting heads.
Fascism means "forcible suppression of opposition". This is a characteristic of the opponents to Christianity, not a characteristic of Christianity. In thinking of the debates that are now going on in America, there are no instances in which Christianity is preventing the opposition from respectfully presenting their views (in other words, no public nudity please). On the other hand, Christians are being forcibly suppressed exactly as described as a characteristic of fascism. For example, by law Christians may not discuss political candidates in church. If we talk about a candidate, the church loses its tax exempt status. No other tax exempt or charitable organization is subject to such a law--only the free speech of Christians is restricted.
The only conclusion one can come to is that Christianity has none of the characteristics of fascism.
Anyone want to look at any other groups to see if they have any of the characteristics of fascism?
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
17 Comments:
Ok, you are convinced that you are not a fascist, and now you're free to campaign for the supression of gay rights in a guilt-free and self-justified manner.
Sounds reasonable to me - what was I thinking?
Thank you. I'm glad you agree.
I took the time to respond to you. Can you prove in the same manner that you have none of the characterists of fascism?
You got me - i'm fascist through and through. Did you forget to ask me when i stopped beating my wife - that's always a crowd pleaser. If you want to take time out from addressing the facts I can just come back when you've finished destroying my character :)
What do you do with your towering intellect when you're not thinking up fallacious arguments?
As anyone can notice from your posts, you do met several of the criteria of being a fascist. But I don't think you are a fascist, nor would I ever call you one. The point I was getting to was that, even if there should be some characterists that fit the definition, there are some words we should be slow and careful about applying to others.
Contrary to your assumption, I propose a link between your actions and fascism neither quickly, nor without care. The overriding indicator for me is your use of christian dogma as justification for opression.
The links between christian theocracy and fascism are not an idea that I lay claim to, but something that has been under discussion for some time.
For your edification here are a few links to online resources which have drawn this parallel.
http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html#Clerical%20Fascism
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5648.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascism_and_Christianity
The Encyclopedia Columbia mentions 'christian morality' as one of the attributes espoused by the first champions of fascism.
Let me stress again that I'm not trying to change your mind or viewpoint, just to show you that there is more to the world than what you learn in your church. A lot of it is actually about christianity, and given your track record as a group it's not surprising that you don't want to talk about or acknowledge it.
You seem to very badly want homosexuals to be an seen oppressed people in opposition to reality. To be oppressed there would have to be "unjust or cruel exercise of power or authority" being brought against them. This seems to be more of a definition of what is happening to Christians not the homosexual community.
Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. No one is trying to take away their rights. Homosexuals are trying to establish a new right that has never existed. A new right that is in opposition to the existing rights of other people. The fact is that homosexuals are trying to forcefully take away the right to marriage from everyone else by changing the meaning of marriage--that's oppression. That's wrong.
If you want to look at oppression, which group -- homosexuals or Christians -- is restricted by Federal law in what they can say, even when they are saying it privately inside their own privately owned facilities? Christians! Homosexuals can talk about anything they want, anywhere, anytime. But Federal law defines what Christians may and may not talk about in church. That's real, true oppression!
I've looked at the articles you've referenced.
They talk about the behavior and opions of people who are not acting or speaking in accordance with the Bible. People are not perfect, not even close. We tend to be ruled by our own selfish desires. The farther we are from Christ, the more our selfish desires rule us. And past Popes (referenced in your links) as well as the other people referenced, are no diferent.
I also noticed the articles regularly mix fact with fiction. I'm not going to critic every fictional point in these articles, but the PublicEye did hit on one of my favorite false historical facts--that the Puritans were uptight and straight laced. Whoever wrote that article should have read some of the Puritan's diaries, they had some riotous parties involving music, food fights, and unusual uses for chickens. A good non-academic historical book that covers the Puritans, and all of early North American history, is "The Light and The Glory".
And just because some people have used Christianity to further their own (sometimes fascist) objectives, does not make Christianity fascist. It only makes those people fascists. Christianity is defined by the Bible. Please read the Bible (I can send you one free) and see if you find even a hint of fascism--you won't. You'll find God's love.
By the way, if you'd like to compare who has the broadest education and experience (certifications, completed degrees or certificates from accredited institutions with the greatest variety of viewpoints, travel, and life experience) I'll be happy to. You'll find Christians are more involved and aware of the real world than you think.
You can put it away big boy - I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you.
"The fact is that homosexuals are trying to forcefully take away the right to marriage from everyone else by changing the meaning of marriage--that's oppression" -- If you seriously think that then there really is no point continuing here. You're applying a lot of fallacious logic to get to your point. Good luck with that.
I have been continuing this conversation in the hope that you might come up with some arguement that might have some basis in logic or fact. Please show me in what way I've been using "fallacious logic".
You only arguement has been to present articles about people who claim to be Christians, but their actions show they are engaging at least in part in fascist actions. I've said that's meaningless.
Here's why:
Mr. Johnson claims he is a civil engineer. A city hires him to design a bridge. Within days after the construction of the bridge was completed, the bridge collapsed. Do we:
A) Say civil engineers are dangerous incompetents who don't know how to design bridges.
B) Say that Mr. Johnson is a fraud, or a dangerous incompetent who does not know how to design bridges.
You are trying to use the web references you sited in the manner of "A" above. Taking actions of individuals who call themselves Christians, and using that to define what a Christian is. That doesn't hold water.
The correct way to use those references is in the manner of "B" above. In my example we would even say that Mr. Johnson is not a civil engineer, even though he claims to be one. Most importantly, his actions do not reflect on all civil engineers -- even if Mr. Johnson is the president of a large civil engineering firm (ie. he's the Pope).
So, give me an arguement; some logic; some facts that can stand up to at least a simple analysis. Cut out the name calling and address the issue.
Firstly, I'm not using references to make assertions about what christians as a group are or aren't. I'm saying that your actions are fascist in nature.
Secondly, you cited the tearing down of your signs as evidence that homosexuals (as a group) deny christians (as a group) the right of free speech.
You said that homosexuals (as a group) want to take the right of marriage from heterosexuals (as a group).
I took issue with both these things, now you're giving me the same lecture about faulty inference? You're not backing up your point - you've abandoned it.
As I've asked before, then show me. What is the evidence that I am acting in a fascist way? What you seem to be saying is that because I oppose your views, I'm a fascist. But the more important question is, where do rights come from? What is the source of a "right" to homosexual marriage?
In both of your next two points you are completely misrepresenting what I've said.
I never cited the tearing down of our signs as an indication that homosexuals (as a group) deny christians (as a group) the right of free speech. I said this was a tactic homosexual-activists (a group that includes homosexual people and heterosexual people) engage in and that such activities are an effort to denied someone/group the right to free expression of their opinions (free speech). Another tactic with a similar objective is holding County Commission meetings in the middle of the night and not informing pro-marriage coucilors about the meetings (as was done here).
I never said homosexuals (as a group) want to take the right of marriage from heterosexuals (as a group). I said that what those who favor homosexual marriage (includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals) are doing is to take away marriage from heterosexuals. I never said they want to do that, but that is the result of what they are asking for. What I did say is that what homosexuals want is to take something good and use it to legitimize their relationships. The want the imprint of marriage on their relationship so they can feel those relationships are good, and moral and right.
The problem is, homosexual marriage will not accomplish that. Homosexual marriage will not legitimize homosexuality. Homosexual marriage will not solve the problems of homosexuality. (The mental health problems, the physical health problems, the homosexual on homosexual abuse problems...) Homosexual marriage will not make homosexuals feel better about themselves, because marriage will become meaningless--and you can't get something positive from something that no longer has meaning.
Homosexual marriage will do one thing, destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage will no longer be marriage, it will become just an agreement of convience that allows people to get government benefits.
This is just getting silly. You said "The fact is that homosexuals are trying to forcefully take away the right to marriage from everyone else by changing the meaning of marriage--that's oppression." Just have a look a couple of comments back.
Do I have to keep quoting you to yourself so that you can remember what you stand for?
You're taking a bunch of different positions here, and (watch out there's name calling ahead) I must admit you come across as a bit of a clueless monkey.
How about you stick to saying what you actually mean - I don't want to be argue with all of your alter-egos.
So based on this statement you've concluded my actions are fascist?
"The fact is that homosexuals are trying to forcefully take away the right to marriage from everyone else by changing the meaning of marriage--that's oppression."
I apologize in that I made a typo. It should read (add the word activists as I've consistently done when describing those pushing the homosexual marriage issue):
"The fact is that homosexual activists are trying to forcefully take away the right to marriage from everyone else by changing the meaning of marriage--that's oppression."
I perfectly understand that no one will correctly understand what I've said if I do not say it correctly. I apologize.
Also, by way of clarification, I do not intend to imply that the purpose of promoting homosexual marriage is to oppress others. I am saying that oppression will be the result, however.
As far as homosexual activitists (that includes homosexuals and heterosexuals) "forcing" homosexual marriage on everyone else--I use the word forcing because it is being done through intimidation, midnight meetings, exclusion of opposing views in government meetings, and destruction of property.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. Those questions are:
"As I've asked before, then show me. What is the evidence that I am acting in a fascist way? What you seem to be saying is that because I oppose your views, I'm a fascist. But the more important question is, where do rights come from? What is the source of a "right" to homosexual marriage?"
If you've answered the first question, I did not get it the connection. Please explain how my actions meet any aspect of fascism. Yes, I am very dense, so you'll have to lay it out in plain, simple english. And please do the same with the second question.
You are campaigning to restrict the rights of a group based on their sexuality. As much as you would like it to be so, you are not trying to prevent crimes, or improve society - you are simply discriminating against those different to you.
If potential cost to society was a reason to restrict rights, there are a lot of things that would probably go before gays marrying; first and foremost the right to bear arms. If potential domestic violence bothers you so much then perhaps you should stop it by removing every living person from their domestic situation. But do you want to do these things? No.
You mask your intent with false concern. You are not concerned about the wellbeing of homosexuals - you just don't want them to be able to do the things you do.
Let's not forget that we are talking about adults who have made their own decisions. It's not up to you to deprive them of any opportunity - regardless of whether they use it in a positive way or not. That would be like me telling you to shut up 'in case' you said something stupid; or telling you not to drive in case you had an accident.
I drew the parrallel between your actions and fascism because you want to dictate what others can do. I get it that you're upset - boo hoo. Try as you might to divert this into a semantic dispute, I still feel the same way.
In regard to your second question, 'where do rights come from?'
Short answer - I don't know. People way more worthy than me have pondered this for thousands of years in one form or another, and the debate still rages.
What I do know? Well, it's a fluid thing - what's seen as a right today may not always have been so, and vice versa. You seem to think that shooting your mouth off about what is/is not a human right makes a difference one way or the other.
I am not an authority on the origin of human rights, and I don't always recognise discrimination when I see it. But I'll tell you something Mr. Christian man - you have a problem with gays and you are discriminating against them.
Your ploys to play the victim, to demonise homosexuals, to couch your views as simple concern, and to assume the moral high ground are nothing except transparent.
Thank you for answering my question about fascism. Now I understand. Anyone in favor of a law you don't like is engaging in fascist actions. Anyone in favor of a law you agree with is not. That doesn't sound good, but that's what you are saying.
After all, that's what all the laws of this country do: dictate what we can do and can not do. It seems to me that's how our country works and how we maintain a civilized society. Thank you for clarifying this. Now I know you are in favor of allowing me to pray in a school. And you are in favor of allowing me to bring a Bible into a school (just carrying it around). And you are in favor of allowing me to meet my son for lunch at school and talk with him about Jesus. These are all things I can't do now, apparently because some people, acting in a "fascist" way (your definition), supported banning such things.
So rights are a fluid thing that changes? This leads me to the question, what is truth? Do truth and morals change also? If things such as this change with time, how do you plan your life? If what is morally wrong today is morally right tomorrow welcome to the world of anarchy and survival of the fittest--in which the fittest are those who make the rules (and that won't be you or me).
But this is a whole different topic--that of post modernism. It's one of my favorite topics.
The author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson), and all those who signed it, identified where rights come from--our creator. The reason why some people have fruitlessly searched long and hard to understand where rights come from and did not find the answer is that they were looking in the wrong place. You can't find something if you insist on looking in places it does not exist. But our Founding Fathers knew where to look, they didn't have to give it a second thought when signing the Declaration of Independence and in creating our Constitution. Our rights originate with our creator.
As far as guns and domestic violence, I'd be happy to get into those. If you are serious about discussing them, I can start a new topic.
Again, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that your actions to try and restrict the lives of others are fascist in nature. You can try generalise as much as you like, but I am perturbed by you, your actions, your motivations.
I am greatly worried that you would drag your child into this. I don't understand your motivation in using your son as a foil to exercise your religious muscles. I can think of a few reasons why you would want to expose your child to the unwelcome attentions that a lunch-time bible study session at school would bring, and none of them are for his benefit.
People like you end up with kids who avoid or fear them because they treat their children like tools, value them for their utility rather than the people they are and will grow up to be.
You have 20 or so years to get whatever mileage you can out of your son, to use him to prove points that are important to you in your religious crusade. I just hope that at the end of it he will have enough memories of things you did for his sake to make him want to continue a relationship with you as an adult.
Your suggestion that human rights originate from the declaration of independence is laughable. Try to think past the fodder they shovelled into you in pre-school. The founding fathers were a lot of things, and produced a serviceable document, but they were no more than men with a common cause, and certainly not divinely inspired or even particularly philanthropic.
So, right now i'm thinking that you're not only homophobic. You are zealous enough to send your own child into the breech for the sake of your cause, and your education has its foundations in proof-read and patriotically skewed dogma that you were forced to learn by rote as a child. I'm guessing your grounding in religion was formed around the same time - hence the unshakeable belief you have in a system so patently absurd.
It's easy to be sure of yourself when you only acknowledge facts you agree with.
I'm having trouble responding to your most recent comments because I can not find one thing in them that is based on reality. You didn't respond to what I wrote previously--you made up something different that you attributed to me and then you responded to that. And then you went on about my background--which is something about which you know nothing.
What is the point of continuing a discussion? Can you not get around your ideological blindness for just a few moments and make contact with reality?
Your opening sentence seems to advocate anarchy -- but I'd guess what you really mean is that there only should be laws that you agree with. Any law that restricts what you, or your friends, or your family want to do is a bad law put into place by fascists. You obviously don't care about what is good for society or individuals, as long as you get your way. That can't be true. Are you really thinking about what you are saying before you say it?
And once again I ask: what are the facts; the hard scientific evidence that supports your position?
How DARE you say that all governments are from God!!!
Who killed Him?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home