Posts Tagged “christianity today”

When the Fail is so strong, one Facepalm is not enough / Picard & Riker / HaHaStop.ComNote: There’s been some news about this; please see below.

Once in a while some religious person or group does something in the name of his/her faith that’s simultaneously so ridiculous and surprising, that I’m rendered almost speechless by it. Today was one of these times. I read on the Friendly Atheist blog that Leadership Journal — a “sub-publication” (if you will) of Christianity Today — actually published a Christian youth pastor’s justification for having sexually abused one of his young charges (WebCite cached article). This confession/rationale is anonymous, of course … since, like most criminals of his kind, the creep is too much of a coward to take responsibility for anything and actually admit who he is. The crux of this creature’s admission is here:

A few years into my marriage and ministry I began to believe a lie. The realities of parenthood and marriage were sinking in, and I felt unappreciated at home. From my perspective, I was excelling at work and at home—and this perceived lack of appreciation led me to believe I deserved more.

Meanwhile, there was someone else in my life that appreciated me very much—one my students. Seeking approval and appreciation, I gravitated toward her. Before long, we were texting each other and interacting through social media. Nothing scandalous or questionable—a Facebook “like” or comment here, a friendly text there. Things friends do.

But I knew what appeared innocent was, in reality, wrong and very dangerous. Red flags kept popping up. Why was I not talking about this “friendship” with my wife? Why was I being secretive and sneaky about it? Why didn’t I, in the earliest stages, when I knew the “friendship” was rapidly escalating beyond what it should be, slam on the brakes?

(Please note how the creature threw his wife under the bus … just like Dinesh D’Souza, another devout Christianist.) In his answer to this question, the creature attributes his fall to being consumed by “sin”:

The answer: I had failed to address the sin in my life. Sin that is not dealt with doesn’t fade away. It destroys us from the inside.

There is a huge difference, of course, between merely “sinning” — as awful as one might think that is — and “criminality.” According to Christian scripture, all human beings are “sinners” … but not all of us are “criminals” like this creature. Calling his crimes mere “sins” is the creature’s way of whitewashing what he did — not to mention, implying it’s something almost anyone else might have done in his place (since, of course, all human beings are subject to “sin”).

The Friendly Atheist article goes on to explain how an online activist (Becca Rose) tried to get the Journal‘s editor, Drew Dyck, to explain why he thought this article was appropriate, but he inexplicably replied, “I don’t answer rhetorical questions” (cached) There was nothing “rhetorical” about Ms Rose’s question (“What exactly was the editorial process in publishing a rapist’s justifications for being a child molester?”) so I’m baffled by his reply. It makes no sense!

Please note, though, that the Journal has apparently not missed the (very understandable) shitstorm they kicked up. The article I linked to above, and cached using WebCite, has been modified, both to include an editorial disclaimer, and apparently to alter some offensive language used by its author. But that disclaimer, too, makes little sense. Their intention had been to provide a warning to pastors and churches. And I suppose it might be good for them to know something about how pastoral child-molesters think. However, the Journal could have provided that sort of information either from third-party experts or by brief excerpts from an interview with a child-molesting pastor (or by both means). They didn’t need to give such a creature a full article-length pedestal to stand on. That creature didn’t need to be given that much of a voice. If anything, we as a society need to work harder to not grant people like this creature any voice; they don’t deserve to be heard or understood, and only deserve revulsion and condemnation.

I’d also like to note, this is yet another example of how clerical child abuse isn’t solely a Catholic problem — not that I’ve ever said it was, but lots of Catholic apologists love to trumpet that canard every time some priest or bishop gets his sorry ass hauled into court over it. So all you Catholics, go ahead and jump up for joy over a Protestant publication giving a voice to a Protestant pastoral child-molester. Go ahead. Have a blast!

Update: It looks as though the editors of Leadership Journal finally got the message; they pulled the offending article and replaced it with an apology (cached). I’m not sure what caused them to change their minds, but I’m glad they did it.

Photo credit: HaHaStop.Com.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Christian Magazine Publishes Apologia For Pastoral Statutory Rape

Stop and ThinkYesterday I blogged about Indiana’s Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s claim that rape-pregnancies are “something that God intended to happen.” In the wake of the understandable shitstorm this kicked up, Mourdock claimed he hadn’t said what he clearly had said, and whined that he was being criticized. It’s true that some Christians — including GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney — disavowed Mourdock’s statement, but some are actively defending the guy. For example, we have this piece from Christianity Today (WebCite cached article):

According to CBS News and a number of other outlets, last night Republican candidate for an Indiana U.S. Senate seat Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended to happen.”…

Then again, it may be even more “disrespectful to the survivors of rape” to fail to tell them about the wondrous redeeming power of God, even in the most horrible circumstances.

Actually, yes, it would in fact be exceedingly “disrespectful to the survivors of rape” to tell them, “It’s OK, God is great, so everything is fine!” Or, “You were raped and are now pregnant? What a wonderful gift God gave you, you must be so thrilled!” Would it be appropriate to say anything like this? What if the situation weren’t a rape or rape-pregnancy, but something else … say, losing a child in an auto accident, getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer, or having one’s home wiped out in a wildfire? Do Christians really think it helps anyone dealing with any of these situations to tell them that whatever happened to them is OK because God is still around? Is it in any way “respectful” to them?

Of course it’s not. What’s more, Christians know it! Any Christian who says it would be appropriate, is lying.

Of course this is not the first time a Christianist’s idiotic or reprehensible statement is defended by other Christianists. Back when Marion “Pat” Robertson declared that the Haiti earthquake had happened because Haiti had been cursed, he had no small number of fellow Christians defending him.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Christianist tribalism … where nothing any Christian says is ever out of bounds, and where everything a Christian says is rationalized and justified, no matter how horrid or untrue it is. These people just can’t help themselves. The idea that a fellow Christian could have done something wrong, is an admission they cannot and will not ever make. Theirs is a harsh black-&-white world, one in which it’s them against everyone else, where “the Enemy” will revel in their every misstep, thus they defend their fellow Christians at all costs, because they can’t abide the idea that “the Enemy” might get an occasional “win” now and then. It’s all very irrational and even childish … but hey, what can you expect?

What this really shows us, is that these people have no integrity or character. They can blather on all they want about their morality and ethics and how their belief in God makes them great people — but they have no reservations about defending the indefensible whenever they need to in order to protect one of their own. If they did have any integrity, they’d have been willing to say, “Mr Mourdock was out of line. His words are unacceptable and I will not defend them, or him. Until he atones for what he’s said and offers a contrite, sincere apology, we will have nothing more to do with him.” It can’t damage them to say something like this, even though they think it will kill them. That’s because fierce religionists don’t have any integrity, nor do they have the courage to admit one of their own might have been wrong. They just have their primitive, reflexive tribal instinct.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Photo credit: mikmikko, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Christians Are Supporting Mourdock’s Reprehensible Words

I’ve blogged before on the disingenuous “Joe the Plumber” (whose name is Sam and who is not a plumber), whose appeal to the Religious Right I truly do not understand. Since the R.R. is growing dissatisfied with the Republican party (even if they haven’t given up trying to remake it into an arm of theocracy in the US), they’ve turned to non-politicians as spokesmen for what it means to be a Christian in the US. And for some reason, one of those now happens to be Joe the Plumber Sam the Unemployed.

Toward that end, Christianity Today interviewed him. The resulting gibberish and drivel are a train wreck, as you can see in these selections:

Every state has “In God we trust” or “With God’s help” in their constitution.

Although I haven’t looked at all the state constitutions, I do know the constitution of my home state, Connecticut, contains neither of these phrases. (Don’t believe me? Have a look for yourself. They aren’t there, even if it does contain the word “God” once in the Preamble, and once in the text of the oath legislators take when they assume office.) So Sam is factually wrong on that score.

CT: Who do you see as the emerging Christian leaders?

SW: James Dobson. I love Dobson.

Uh, Sam … James Dobson cannot be an “emerging” Christian leader. He is, rather, a past Christian leader; you see, he retired around three months ago!

CT: Who are you people you look to for advice?

SW: Ken Holder from fairtax.org, who is working hard to spread the fair tax.

Now there’s a great bastion of Christian thought. A tax reformer. I’m not sure how this is possible, though, since Jesus himself disavowed any opinion on the nature of taxation (see Matthew 22:15-21, Mark 12:13-17, and Luke 20:20-25). Tax reform, therefore, cannot ever be an expression of one’s Christianity since it’s not Christian to care about taxation. At least, not according to Jesus’ own words.

I noted that Christianity Today posted a blog entry about this interview in order to separate itself from his views. I have no idea why they would do so; it seems rather unusual. I can only surmise that CT‘s own editors recognize what a train wreck this interview was and are trying to undo the resulting damage.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Joe the Plumber, Voice of Christianity?

The Religious Right loves to hold itself out as the sole arbiter of morality in a world full of increasing hedonism and selfishness, fostered (of course) by evil secularists trying to “push God out of the ‘public square’.” Unfortunately for them, however, it turns out that their own morality is a bit specious. Christianity Today offers an article about a book published last month about charity among Christians in the US. The picture is not a good one:

This could be the worst moment in our lifetimes to discover that American Christians give away relatively little of their money.

The economy is in the midst of the worst downturn in at least 17 years and the most serious U.S. banking crisis in at least 20. It has the potential to be as painful as the Great Depression. Banks are failing. Workers are losing their jobs. Homeowners are losing their homes. …

More than one out of four American Protestants give away no money at all—“not even a token $5 per year,” say sociologists Christian Smith, Michael Emerson, and Patricia Snell in a new study on Christian giving, Passing the Plate (Oxford University Press). …

American Christians’ lack of generosity might not be as shocking if it didn’t contrast so starkly with their astounding wealth. Passing the Plate’s researchers say committed American Christians—those who say their faith is very important to them and those who attend church at least twice a month—earn more than $2.5 trillion dollars every year. On their own, these Christians could be admitted to the G7, the group of the world’s seven largest economies. Smith and his coauthors estimate that if these Christians gave away 10 percent of their after-tax earnings, they would add another $46 billion to ministry around the world.

Wow. That’s a damned lot of uncharitability! More to the point, however, is that it’s the wealthiest of these American Christians who turn out to be the stingiest:

In addition, America’s biggest givers—as a percentage of their income—are its lowest income earners. The widow who gave out of her poverty rather than her wealth (Mark 12:42; Luke 21:1-4) has a lot of company, it seems. …

“Americans who earn less than $10,000 gave 2.3 percent of their income to religious organizations,” Smith, Emerson, and Snell write, “whereas those who earn $70,000 or more gave only 1.2 percent.” While the actual percentages are slightly higher for Christians who regularly attend church, the pattern is similar. Households of committed Christians making less than $12,500 per year give away roughly 7 percent of their income, a figure no other income bracket beats until incomes rise above $90,000 (they give away 8.8 percent).

In fact, in absolute terms, the poorest Christians give away more dollars than all but the wealthiest Christians.

Guess these folks are spending too much of their time complaining about “wealth redistribution” to worry about being charitable themselves.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Christian Charity In The U.S.