What? Branding Obama as Hitler? The extreme fundamentalist and Republican right act far more like Hitler than Obama!

This is what they call "freedom of religion".  When they utter death threats against Obama they are being faithful to the bible just as the suicide bombers are being true to their "faith".

They think that if it's in the bible, then it's god's holy word and the spirit is moving like a mighty wave to inspire Americans to kill the president.

If those morons succeed in killing Obama the USA will be plunged into a crisis from which it may never recover. 

Objectionable and scary as that is, I don't hear or see any angry and/or concerned retorts from the WonderCafe crowd. AAMOF, only four responses? What does that tell you?

If nothing else, the least we can and should do is retell and reword/image the story on which Christianity is premised.

Remember the conference of not too long ago in Toronto (?) where (Rev) Connie DenBock asked why (Rev) Gretta Vosper is still a member in good standing among the ranks of United Church ministers? Well?

So, maybe we should follow Sheafers lead and ask our members: Where the hell are you?

Shalom.

It tells me that the crowd here at WonderCafe is being true to its culture of acceptance.  According to that culture, all beliefs are welcome, and should be accepted, even those that demand the deaths of others.  It would be hypocritical of the community to behave otherwise.

I think this is probably the article in question:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/

I'm one of those nice "normal" people who struggles with the problem of remaining silent - when often I know I should speak up.

It often comes down to being unwilling to meet the cost.

I've wondered what would I have done in Hitler's Germany? To speak up against the treatment of the Jews could well have ended my life. Knowing me, I think I would have remained silent unless I was with others that shared my views, but made a committment not to personally mistreat anyone.

As such, I've a lot of empathy for Peter at the time of Christ's crucifixion. There have been too many times when I've cowardly withdrawn into the shadows like a dog with it's tail between it's legs.

But, LB, you make your point well. I can at least speak out in the many times when the cost is not so extreme. This pilgrim will ride off with you into the sunset of humanity and justice.

My family in the U.S. are on the far right, and having stood up to them or standing my ground on these issues, gets me shut down and you can tell in their faces and in their body language that acceptance of views opposite to their opinions is over their dead bodies. I have had them look me in the face and say that it is a Christian moral to denounce homosexuality and declare war on Muslims. I am always shocked by the garbage they spew out and all I can say is that I don't agree, and as soon as I start to give my position, it becomes an argument.  I don't know how to deal with that, when I don't believe fighting is the answer.

The right is the master of the sound bite. A verse, a statement, a "comeback", a bumper sticker. They can nail them all. Anyone remember when Peter Jennings objected to Toby Keith's inflammatory song being part of some event or other after 911? Jennings had all kinds of good reasons. He could, and did, expound them at - yawn - great length. Keith simply drawled "He's what? Canadian or something?" 

 I swear to god that the left couldn't write a sound bite if their life depended on it (which, come to think about it, it does) .

One of the recurring problems of the "left"/liberals/inclusives is that, though they are an awesome force indeed when they mobilize, they don't stay mobilized. This isn't only true in the US, but it is certainly the most prominent example. As soon as they'd sent Obama to the White House, they all went back to bed and left him out to dry to "fix everything".

The poor fella's been done in more surely by his own people than he ever will be by the right.

Did you have a meaningful response to my "rhetoric", GR?  I may be in error here.  I was under the impression that the culture here at WC was one of universal acceptance.  Is that true, or untrue?

For me, I don't like labelling people "crazies" and my reasons is simple. Those crazies are us. Sorry, lived in US propoganda long enough that I know how crazy it can get first hand. Look at Iraq being behind 911 or "weapons of mass destruction" and how many "believed" it because it was heard from a bigwig's lips and on the TV set. They will parrot the same nonsense long after it was WRONG. Facts do not get in the way of a good work-up.

We can bite and swallow hook, line and sinker as well as anyone else. So, the "crazies" get too much airttime and there are more crazies and we all get a little crazy before too long.

I see the problem as silence... a  lack of education, hatred and fear blossoms in ignorance and withers in knowledge. A little hard to gather knowledge in silence.

If we are handing over people, we cannot bitch about what they are taught. How many good news shows are there anymore? How many liberal televangelists do you see on TV? How many going door to door? How many having revivals? How many renting an auditorium and taking out newspaper ads asking you to bring questions about God or some current events? How many roaming educational stuff that is offered free of charge? Camp for kids that is affordable?

We are getting our arses handed to us on some fronts. As long as they have mouths, others have ears.

I watched a young evangelical come to town, to seed a church. Now, yes it was a little smarmy to attend UCC talks based on Wondercafe and gather folks. It was a little smarmy to cloak it in the relaxed, "tired of church the old fashioned way" sell. But, the truth is the church was seeded and has a following that beats most local churches Sunday after Sunday.

As easy as it is to point fingers, I see it as "us" falling down on the job. If our message is not out there, any farther than our own doorsteps, how out there is it? Can you twist a BIble verse when people know where it came from, what it spoke of, what it applied to....? It is tons harder than twisting what nobody knows.

When Biblical phrases are used ugly, who do we blame but those who did not think they were supposed to educate the parishioners or that thought it would be too boringor too controversial or just could not be bothered to teach what they mean?

When someone says "abomination" and homosexuality is still the first thing to come to mind for tons of folks, why is that?

What about the other 68 things called abominations?

Sure, we can say homosexuals are welcome and marry them, but until we educate people outside our own doors about WHY,  we hand over power to anyone who wants to seize it or weild it. Did we not realize that in the 1980's? Today, it would take nothing more than clergy to get most rural UCC congregations to be covenanting ones and if we don't get that, we are lost. Why? Clergy knows stuff.

So, why are we shocked people are listening to other clergy no matter how odd-ball what they say is? We taught them where clergy stood, on hallowed ground. Too many don't want to be on that pedestal but do not want to step back down off that pedestal either.

I have watched fundmentalists drain the pews by just talking about a "few things". Why? We got burned and we shut up, we prefer not to talk about all the "stuff" that people have questions about. We say it is over. That nobody believes that "stuff" anymore. And we run the checkist that is about everything anyone does have questions about and all they might believe.

We forget that we did not get burned by talking, we got burned by not talking first and trying to talk after the argument erupted. Sorry, we all know you cannot keep secrets, things tight to your vest, without people who trust you getting mad. You also cannot talk about something after you have already done it. I know that from dealing with a wife.  We still think we got burned for talking. We just don't get it.

No, your head won't come off for standing up... but nobody knows you are there when you are sitting down. You also can't take a stand with people on your lap without spilling them and without some of them getting pissed. It is pretty simple....  and if you do not stand for something, you stand for nothing and people can fall for anything.

Those crazies are us, if too many fall silent and their voice drowns out others.

amen, StevieG -- you put it better than I did -- we, corporately and individually, need to make our voices heard.  I'm not sure I agree spiritbear, that reasonable Christians "put their views forward all the time" -- where and when?  My point was that perhaps we need to step up to the plate and teach, preach, buy airtime and ads, and get the message out there that the Christian community includes articulate, intelligent, faithful, gay-positive, open-minded folks.

shalom

Point me to a post where anyone in the "culture" - of which you're a part, no? (unless of course, you lay claim to a superior observance from on high  ) has condoned groups calling for the death of others and we can discuss it.

Until then, it's silly fundie rhetoric, and no "meaningful response" is likely - of course, Brett is back with his whacked out attacks. I'm sure he'll be able to see the evil subterfuge in my notes. grin

Personally, I absolutely think these people hijacking the being I see as my God, and the Holy Scripture I use as my 'instruction manual', is disgusting. I am all for political disagreement; even as a 'lefty' I love and respect many conservatives, and I in fact hope both here in Canada, as in the US, that the conservative movement remains thoughtful and vibrant in order to keep those of us on the left honest and dynamic. No state should be run on a one-party or one-ideology system. I feel dissent is one of the highest and bravest callings of patriotism and wish more had done so through two wars, irresponsible tax cuts, etc. down south.

However, through that whole fiasco that was the last 8 years in the United States, I never once wished the man who called himself president dead. Voted out of office, or better yet impeached and publically shamed and humiliated, possibly facing criminal charges both foreign and domestic? Yes. But he had a family, and neither they nor he deserved death and I would consider anyone threatening his life treasonous; that is no longer patriotic dissent. Death threats are illegal in almost any other circumstance. We need to promote free speech, not hate speech, and that is exactly what this, as well as quotes in regards to "Watering the tree of liberty", is. Referring to Obama as a socialist or fascism is one thing - ridiculous, stupid, but unfortunately fair game, and go for it, it just makes you look foolish - but this is a whole other level, and personally, it scares me a great deal that what would have been seen even last decade as Tim McVeigh-ish wingnutism, is taking centre stage now in the form of such idiots as Glenn Beck, teapartiers, et al.

I'm only partly a part of it, GR:  I'm new, and don't necessarily subscribe to it.  I need to know what I'm getting into before I do.  My observances are, if anything, inferior here - I have much less experience to work with.  Hence my questions.  If one of the tenets of WC's culture is one of universal acceptance of religious ideas, then the idea that some people deserve to die is one that has to be accepted as well.  If not, then not.  I'm asking which it is:  Is WC's culture is one of universal acceptance of others' views?

I've been giving this topic some more thought.

As a starting point, why would anyone feel justified in wishing to have the President's wife a widow and his children fatherless? And it doesn't stop there - going on to publish it for a wider audience.

It suggests to me that there's a lot of negative emotion and pain lurking in the background. That pain is there in both the originator and the audience. Try listening to talk-back radio - whatever the topic, the same fear and anger is expressed. It is the frustration of folks, who, everyday of their lives are told they are "losers". They are desperate to feel better about themselves, and often the only way they know how is to lash out (cutting down tall poppies, as we say in Oz).

So, what to do?

We can make a start with the law - this behaviour is acceptable, this isn't. But, you can't legislate about morality, a lot more is required to change attitudes.

Education can certainly play it's part. At it's best , it can present other points of view to those that a child might hear expressed at home. It can provide opportunities to earn a good living, travel and encounter other people.

Basically, the task is to make unhappy folks feel good about themselves. Have you ever noticed that when you're feeling miserable yourself, how everything and everyone irritates you?

All to often, it seems to me, it's we, who in the main, are contented folks who criticise the talk-back-radio crowd.

But if we leave it there, and don't demand a fair wage, good education and health for all - not just us - then we have to face the fact that we are part of the problem.

(My, this hobby horse will soon require a step-ladder to mount.)

No.  I don't hold the views in question.  And I don't want to be part of a group that holds to "universal acceptance".  I was seeking clarification on that point, and I think I have it now.

I'm glad that others were able to clarify this for you adz. If I erroneously misconstrued your intent, my apologies. It's led to some interesting new side discussion though.

It's folks like you, Mate, who are a key to the solution. What influences in your later life changed the views you were raised with?

By the way, I agree with you about the death penalty. I once had a boss who, whenever he was annoyed about something, would earbash me about how he thought the death penalty was a good thing. He could count on getting a vigorous argument from me - which seemed to give him the excuse he needed to shout and yell.

Thanks, Mate. (So easy for an Aussie to say!)  

I'm convinced that to change people's views from a judgemental narrow stance to one of inclusion and univeral love - one has to provide opportunities through education and a change of environment. By change of environment I don't mean just change of location, but meeting people who have a different point of view than those initially expressed by your parents and family.

You have been given that opportunity - and are an example of how it can affect change.

Conversely, one could come from a more liberal background and end up conservative through a change of environment.

This leads me to think there has to be other factors at play. One key factor I suspect is related to a sense of satisfaction with your own life.   As a consequence, I'm disturbed by any faith that appeals to one's sense of guilt and sin. On the one hand this might lead you to seek forgiveness - but it's just as likely to make you look around for even bigger sinners than yourself to punish!

Pillgrims Progress

Just an interesting note.  When I originally responded to your question I had just responded to a question on another forum.  I was responding to "Aussie Pam" then when I started to respond to you I originally addressed it to Aussie Pam.  Aussies are great.  thanks.

Shalom

Mate

Namaste mate.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni