Thanks for the post. I had never hear of The Fellowship. Talk about right-wing conspiracy!
But I understand that they have tried to distance themselves from what they helped unleash in Uganda.

Oops. "By their fruits ye shall know them".
All in the name of one whose only recorded act of anger was against those who sought status, power, and wealth through religion.

The greatest guilt today is...the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"

-Ayn Rand

I doubt very many American evangelicals support the Uganda legislation.

I won't generalize about them, although I would remind them that 31% of American gays voted Republican:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/gop_gay_old_party_more_gays_vo.html

Yes, of course, these people reflect your average evangelical "friends." The self-righteousness drips from your arrogance. At the same time, isn't it soooo easy to tar others by attributing the worst you can find and making it out to be the norm? You're either extremely dishonest or incredibly stupid. I'm leaning toward dishonest at the moment . . .

Look! Two can play your game! You and Meghan Fox, preachers of hate and violence. And don't give me any "that's not what I mean" crap. You preach hate, what else do you expect? Doug quoted Ayn Rand for you, embrace it!

And while we're at it, how well did your classical values treat Christians in, say 300AD? It's all the same, you self-righteous hater who wants everyone killed who doesn't agree with him--which is obvious, since you preach the same hate as Meghan Fox. I also blame you for the killing of the Ft. Worth Christians, many teenagers, in 1999, and the 2007 killings in CO (and that's just the US). Have the courage to own it, since you want evangelicals own responsibility for everything done by anyone who might hear anything they might preach!

In the end, I see that you're no different than Diocletian: If evangelical Christians and their god are the problem, it's a short step from you to Diocletian and his solution, since, using your logic; the synonymity is obvious.

You tar every one who practices "Evangalism" (if you're going to be self-righteous, at least edit or spell correctly) with the same brush and gaze longingly at yourself in the mirror, proud of your high dander.

At the very least, you're worth little but contempt in your dishonesty, though you're probably more dangerous to others whom you hate than you think. Those as self-rightesous as you usually are. See the above linked article.

I read here often; fortunately, I don't use your logic and tar the whole blog by your intemperance and obvious hate. Why you want others dead (using the logic you use) is beyond me. But I'm sure you're proud of yourself for your hate . . .

I'm not going to bother with caveats about what was preached and how it was used in Uganda. You're not worth it.

BTW, that World Vision, I hate that group. They are so in cahoots with "the family." They want to kill everyone. I'll bet they come somewhere with food and it's all poison.

Your link to "The Fellowship" was a link to a biblical exposition on the word fellowship and not anything about a group. Do you have another link?

"I'm not going to bother with caveats about what was preached and how it was used in Uganda. You're not worth it."

Am I worth it?

The reviews of that book you link trigger my BS detector. "Unknown", "secretive", "influential". About the only buzz phrase left out is "____ they don't want you to know about!

rrr,

Well it in fact does reflect the evangelicals who I e-mail with regularly and who comment on my other blog. I dunno. Maybe I have the wrong kind of friends.

===

BTW I wish I could find the quote but Ayn Rand has a nice one I saw in the last day or so.

It discusses the social mischief people do politically. And ends with the disclaimer by the mischief maker: "It is not what I intended."

====

Hatred always reflects badly on the hater. And the fact that I have more than a few evangelicals who comment on my other blog and who I correspond with is some evidence I'm not much of a hater. My attitude is more: "don't go there - it will lead you astray." Not that my advice is taken much. But I give it anyway.

====

And it is not a right wing phenomenon only. Fred Phelps is a Democrat.

====

If you want my opinion we have far too many Old Testament Christians.

Jews don't even fall for that stuff any more. We have thousands of years of interpretation or re-interpretation to fall back on.

Take death penalty crimes. There are now so many conditions that have to be met that for all practical purposes the sentence can't be carried out. In modern times only Adolph Eichmann was ever ordered to death by a Jewish court.

So for all practical purposes all the death penalty crimes listed in the Torah are now either lesser crimes or no crimes.

Now if only I could get Evangelicals to be less slavish to that old book. Perhaps a few lessons from Jews in that respect would be in order.

On the link - I'm going to change them.

Old link:

http://bible.org/article/christian-fellowship

new link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

I link to the wiki not so much for the truth - it does reflect the book I linked to - but for the references.

As to secrecy. I liked this from the wiki:

The organization has been described as one of the most politically well-connected ministries in the United States. The Fellowship shuns publicity and its members share a vow of secrecy.[6] The Fellowship's leader Doug Coe and others have explained the organization's desire for secrecy by citing biblical admonitions against public displays of good works, insisting they would not be able to tackle diplomatically sensitive missions if they drew public attention.[6]

So the descriptions Donna B. found to be problematic about the book may well be reflective of reality.

From the wiki (which provides links):

The Fellowship Foundation is linked to numerous other organizations:

* Wilberforce Foundation[1] IRS Form 990 filings confirm that Wilberforce is related to and shares common management with the Fellowship Foundation.[22]
* Traditional Values Coalition. Uses the C Street Center for faith-based diplomacy[14] in the fight against what Louis P. Sheldon calls the Marxist/Leftist/Homosexual/Islamic coalition.[23]
* Three Swallows Foundation[24][25][26]
* International Center for Religion & Diplomacy[27]
* Young Life International[28]
* Trees for the Future[29]
* National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise[29]
* Cornerstone Development[29]
* World Concern[29]
* Project Mercy[29]
* Timothy Trust[29]
* Associacion Desarrollo en Democracia[29]
* World Vision[30]

Note that the Faith Based Diplomacy mentioned above has started a pogrom against gays in Uganda. A Ugandan newspaper is outing gays who then get attacked.

It may not have been intentional. It was inevitable. The road to hell.......

And rrr, I don't see why you take such offense. All I posted was an old fashioned Jeremiad. Repent. What God wanted Jews to do then is not what he wants Christians to do now. In this Jew's opinion.

But if your fellow Christians offend you perhaps you ought to have a word with them.

Maybe it is past time for Christians to give up their anti-gay attitudes. Dick Cheney vs Alan Keyes (the contrast in how they treated their daughters is night and day).

BTW there is nothing I can do about 300 AD. There is more than a little I can do about today.

Take what is going on in Uganda as God's little joke on preaching against gays. By their fruits.....

M. Simon.

I think you may be mistaken.

First off, this looks like you are indulging in "barrel fishing", finding some apparent bad actors who cop to a name like "evangelism" and then smearing everyone who goes by that name. The same thing could be done to any other large group of people, given the right issue. Including libertarians.

Do not attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Many Americans have a hard time understanding other cultures and how they work - the same over-the-top culture-war rhetoric that produces little result in the US results in an unexpectedly draconian response elsewhere. Oops. Just because the result is horrible does not mean that ones who started the avalanche need be anything other than well-meaning morons. The road to hell and all that. Also, do not deny the Ugandans their own agency in this bad law. Brown people have the same responsibility as anyone else for their actions.

Do you totally trust the tone, slant and accuracy of a liberal-narrative-friendly article in the NYT? Don't fall victim to the "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect". Notice the phrase "Human rights advocates in Uganda say ..." (um, which ones?) at the beginning of one paragraph, also all the westerners directly quoted have every motivation to assign blame in the way they do (and of course, quotes of locals are difficult for US readers to verify). There is no way to know if the NYT treatment of the story is accurate or not, but the format is equivalent to some hit-job on Sarah Palin. The NYT has (or should have) no credibility when producing such reporting.

I have noticed recently, especially during the run-up to the recent election, that you have been getting pretty shrill about the presence of socons in the Tea Party and among the conservative movement. I find that a little off-putting myself, and I am dismayed - since I have a lot of respect for you, and I acknowledge your geek cred (like in the matter of polywell, etc.). I also agree with the point you made a while back (concerning the origin and motivation for the creation of the US public school system) that socon statism in the past has resulted in the creation of institutions that have later been taken over and used by the left to attack traditional morality and culture. I think this line of argument is much more useful in addressing the socons than the more current scolding you have been doing.

By way of background, I was once very religious in my youth, but after thinking about it a lot I came to the sad conclusion that whole proposition of the existence of God is dubious. I consider myself a reluctant atheist, and look upon the probably non-existence of God as a cosmic tragedy. So while I am no longer a believer, I am very sympathetic to that point of view. (I am also sympathetic to the libertarian critique of any use of statism for "good" causes.)

I know that in this day and age where the traditional western culture and everything that goes with the founding of the US is under siege internally and externally by the left and by expansionist Islam, that any source of strength to resist should not be discarded lightly. Because of their religious motivation, (which you really should make more effort to understand, instead of just taking the left's POV about it), these people are less likely to be intimidated, bought off, or turned from their purpose than any other component of the budding conservative/libertarian movement expressed (in one form) as the Tea Party. This is why the left attacks them at every turn. This is a political alliance, and it is not always comfortable. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hence my dismay at your recent tone. Just as we are accomplishing the very first successes, and anticipate the long-term effort to to come; you seem intent on egging on the latent faction fight that could break our coalition. Your effort would be better spent on persuading the socons to eschew the use of statist tools, like in the form of "DRUG WAR == BIG GOVERNMENT" (and in general, "X == BIG GOVERNMENT") than in scolding and fracturing our movement.

Another important argument to make is that the evident richness and intensity of of belief in the US is exceptional compared to all of Europe, the traditional heart of Christianity. That the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, in contrast to the European practice of state churches as led to decline of faith there. The reason should be obvious - to make a church an arm of the state ties God's credibility together with the state's. In the short term, this benefits the state, but in the long term, as states lose credibility (and they always do), it drags down the credibility of faith in God along with it. Lather, rinse and repeat for a few cycles, and the result is the currently faithless Europe, with little will to resist the creeping imposition of Islam. It will not end well there. Understanding this, weather one is a believer or not, reinforces the precious value of the US Constitution as a grand bargain for the ordering of civil society. That arguably (in religious terms), shows the hand of Providence in the founding of the USA and in it's subsequent works and fruit. It shows the value of faithful adherence to the original terms of that bargain.

I think you will come to regret the intemperate tone of the above post. The internet is forever, and posts like above in addition to causing long-term damage to our coalition, could be used against you personally. The comment by rrr above shows the kind of damage it causes. I once had a blog myself, and I understand the temptation of a quick and hot response to some perceived injustice, but recognize that "With great power comes great responsibility" - CV is not un-influential, the things you say matter.

In re: "You have to wonder why so many who think they are doing God's work end up doing the work of the Devil?". That's easy to understand. The primary temptation of believers who adhere to all outward forms of faith is spiritual pride. It lets them avoid the hard effort of double-checking and being skeptical of their own motivations and actions - and instead glide on autopilot assuming that all they do is good. It's a toughie, the sin of the supposed elect, and hard to avoid at all times.

In fact, the lack of double-checking and self-editing seems to be something that both you and they (on different scales) are both guilty of.

Eric E. Coe:
I can't speak for M.Simon, but to respond to some of your well reasoned points -

It is not just "barrel fishing" when evangelical Christians want to cure homosexuality through re-education and establish centers for that purpose. That one umbrella group got itself involved with crazies in Uganda is unfortunate, but telling.

You obviously take the position that the constitutional separation of church and state should be adhered to, but there are many who don't. It is that group that tars the rest. And some of us suspect the Tea Party movement is being used.

I'm not a particular advocate of the Tea Party phenomenon, but correct me here if wrong, didn't Joseph Farrah and his group try a take-over? And isn't Farrah and WND unabashedly anti-gay?

As a casual observer, it appears to me that the very lack of a platform and central ideological mooring has opened the Tea Party up to any hangers-on out there. That may be good short term politics, but eventually some group with a burning agenda will find this wide open group the perfect nest.

More to the point of M.Simons hard hitting post, there is no doubt that a majority of Christians - Catholic, Protestant, Mormon - take the position that homosexuality is a sin at the least, and an abomination at the most that needs to be stamped out. The intolerance of a Joseph Farrah or James Dobson and their millions of followers is real. And they are very politically active.

M.Simon will publish an article tomorrow that you may find interesting. It will shed some light on past events directly related to this post. Stay tuned.

how well did your classical values treat Christians in, say 300AD?

I think it is a mistake to conflate the name of this web site (which is hardly a blog advocating Roman paganism) with the worst aspects of antiquity. And there were many!

The Diocletian and other periodic persecutions of Christians are indefensible, but I think that if you look at the overall picture, ancient Rome was generally more tolerant of alternative religions than the early Christian church. A number of historians have observed that the number of Christians killed for heresy by Christian authorities exceeded the number of Christians killed by pagan authorities.

***QUOTE***

Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in two years [A.D. 342-343, during the Arian controversy] than by all the persecutions of Christians under the Romans during the previous three hundred years.
- Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4, The Age of Faith

In the century opened by the Peace of the Church [after the first Christian Roman Emperor began his rule], more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions.
- Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries

***END QUOTE***

I realize it may not be emotionally satisfying to say this, but no group has ever been innocent of wrongdoing.

Regarding the killing of Christians in Ft. Worth, if you are referring to the murders committed by Larry Gene Ashbrook at the Wedgwood Baptist Church, the shooter was a member of the Phineas Priesthood -- a radical Christian cult:
***QUOTE***

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chu_viol3.htm

On SEP-16, the Houston Chronicle reported that Ashbrook was an adherent of the Phineas Priesthood, a small, violent U.S. Christian Identity group that advocates killing Jews and other minorities. According to Baptist Press:

"That organization was outraged at Southern Baptists for their efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. At the time of the church shooting, Baptist churches in Fort Worth, were openly praying for Jewish conversions [to Christianity] during the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashana [sic] and Yom Kippur." 1

***END QUOTE***

Why anyone would blame "classical values" in any way for what happened is beyond me, but whatever.

Frank,

I'm more radical than you. I think the Christian Churches should quit preaching their gay hatred. If some one has to do it leave it to the Islamics. None the less it is none of government's business.

E.E. Coe,

I'm not fishing in a barrel. There is a rather large swimming pool out back with schools (heh) of these fish.

Really. I'm no Christian. The Jewish sect I belong to is VERY gay friendly. We elected a transgendered guy to be the head of our community center.

Jews are VERY sensitive about that tolerance thing. We know from personal experience where intolerance leads. Where the preaching of hate leads.

I know Christians are very sensitive about taking direction from a Jew. But maybe it is time to give it another try.

And OK. You are not one of "them". Excellent. But perhaps you are derelict in your duty by not giving them a piece of your mind.

The Christian Reconstructionist types would actually consider Uganda's move a step forward.

The site I linked is very biased - I haven't figured out yet whether they approve or disapprove of reconstuctionists. But their summary agrees with much of what I was arguing with Gary North about circa 1999. (They left out the parts about a woman's place...).

As a group, they aren't all that well known, but they have had a good bit of influence on other groups. Which is what scares me.

Kathy,

Interesting. I was arguing with Gary North in about the same era. I used to get his economic newsletter.

Is there any room in here for the separation of the personhood of someone who happens to be gay, and the "gay agenda" which I believe is another iteration of a victim-class extortion of the common weal?

And just by way of proportion, I am much more concerned with the true believers in the Global Warming Church as having killed far more Ugandans than any over-zealous Christian.

Get the "gay agenda" out of schools.

Vouchers.

===

Get the "gay agenda" out of marriage.

Get government out of marriage.

===

Gays as a protected class.

Everyone or no one as a protected class.

===

In all the above cases less government is THE solution or A solution.

===========================

The post was not about government. That was incidental. The post was about the dangers of preaching hate.

Keep your eye on Classical Values tomorrow. There will be more on the subject.

Joan:
Libertarian type gays don't have a gay agenda. I'm against hate crime laws, diversity programs in public schools, having the Boy Scouts run their own affairs, leaving churches to their own beliefs and not forcing them to marry same-sex couples, or provide adoption to single or married gays, or infringing on free speech in public schools or universities.

But, when it comes to tax paid public services, like civil marriage, then I believe there should be no discrimination. Ditto the military. I served in the Air Force, have VA benefits, and am gay. BFD!

Forget the victim/class crap. Liberals have been using gays for their own purposes, and raking in millions in the process. Enough.

BTW, where is Velociman? I've been missing him, and know you must too.

The only thing I like about this is Godwin's law but besides that the Evangelical Collapse has occured --- http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts

Evangelicals are way too hyper-politicized and not concentrated on the Gospel. Christian youth are leaving evangelicalism in droves.

Evangelicalism is superficial Christianity and too concerned with power (''Religious Right'').

Simon should compare this instead to the persecution that Christians have had at the hands of Muslims in Nigeria and the genocide in Sudan (?). Talking about Hitler and Jews doesn't work (Godwin's law).

Hopefully the Evangelical collapse is accelerated --- http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts

Sorry I meant the only thing I DISLIKE about this is Godwin's law.

Keita,

Thanks for the link. I'll probably do a post and give you credit.

Oh. Yeah. One of my favorite sections of the Torah WRT politicized religion is 1 Samuel 8.

Godwin I'm Jewish - it goes with the territory.

I like these folks on abortion:

Rockford Pro Life

They reject government involvement in the question.

I haven't gotten far into the articles but let me add something that may be covered in the future: Evolution.

Evangelicals have given way on microevolution. As the science learns more about how it works it is but a small step to macroevolution.

Anti-evolution has been one of the cornerstones of Evangelical faith.

The Catholics have learned their lesson from the Galileo debacle:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

If I understand the failure of Evangelicalism it is a focus on punishment vs healing.

Punishing gays.

Punishing dopers.

etc.

The above (re:gays) was alluded to in the first segment of the three part piece you linked.

I have focused here on the punishment aspect of the failure.

Perhaps you would care to expound on this further (with especial focus on healing).

My e-mail is on the sidebar at:

Power and Control

I loved this comment from:

Christianity gets weaker and will disappear because it has become fully Judaized, Zionized, and Jewified.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-coming-evangelical-collapse-3-good-or-bad

It sounds like a rejection of Christian ∅.

What better way to become more Christian than to observe many of the rituals Jesus observed? Starting with Passover.

That one always escaped me. How in the heck did Passover become Easter? How did a liberation ritual turn into a celebration of death? Well OK you get resurrection - but still.

A message I left at the IM site:

I was reading your post on “Collapse” and wish to make some points.

It is not the gospel of materialism that is most destructive.

It is the doctrine of punishment vs the doctrine of healing (and barring the ability to do that acceptance). And that is not a 50 year old problem. It is much older than that. It may have been there at the founding.

The abandonment of the rituals Jesus observed (esp. Passover) for the Pagan Ritual of the Dead and Resurrected God (Egyptian Theology or older). Easter? Really? Vs God’s liberation from political oppression – Passover. 1 Samuel 8 is also good on this.

Lust for power has destroyed the message of Jesus (IMO – but I’m just a Jew – what do I know?) and that change happened when the Roman Emperors adopted Christianity. It is a very old heresy.

Any way I’m available at Power and Control if you would care to develop these themes further through discussion or a series of blog posts.

Put me in the Wicca camp, as far as religion goes.

"An if it harm none, do as ye will."

Makes sense to me.

Bob,

I've never liked that construction. The invention of the mass production automobile put a LOT of hurt on the buggy whip industry.

I've always preferred: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Coupled with: Love is the law. Love under will.

Yin and yang.