<p>JHS - I don’t know where you get your information. The inspiration for the hymn, which was written as a church processional by an Englishman (Sabine-Baring-Gould) in the mid 1800’s, was the writings found in II Timothy 2. The song is about enduring hardship and remaining strong through faith. </p>
<p>2 Timothy 2 (New International Version)</p>
<p>1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 3Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs?he wants to please his commanding officer. 5Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor’s crown unless he competes according to the rules. 6The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. 7Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this. </p>
<p>8Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s Word is not chained. 10Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. </p>
<p>11Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with Him,
we will also live with Him;
12if we endure,
we will also reign with Him.
If we disown Him,
He will also disown us;
13if we are faithless,
He will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself</p>
<p>“Christian soldier” is an oxymoron. For the first 300 years of post-Jesus history, those closest to Jesus were absolutely unanimous that one could not use violence of any kind to defend oneself, even to defend wives and children. Even 300 years after Jesus’ death, the First Council of Nicaea (that’s where the Creed come from) called soldiers who became Christians and continued to serve “dogs who eat their own vomit.”</p>
<p>here’shoping , I think it was made clear to everyone but you that my comments on this thread were expressly limited to Christian Fascists.Oklahoma City ring any bells?</p>
<p>In reponse to a post attempting to change the topic to fundamentalist, I posted " And the topic is Christian Fascists , not Fundamentalists. I’m assuming they are not the same."</p>
<p>Should have been pretty clear but whatever. It’s up to your usual standards.;)</p>
<p>Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings , right? But that particular bell ringing was just a quote from the previous post of mine. Not a new bell-ringer. Sorry to disappoint.</p>
<p>I think we all need to be very careful with our words (as I lovingly tell my children when they are arguing). </p>
<p>What makes ME uncomfortable is ‘extremism’ of any kind…a word which allows for abuse on both ends of the political spectrum…because doesn’t it always seem to boil down to our personal politics in these debates? When someone substitutes the word ‘fascist’ for ‘extremist’, I immediately am on to the fact that they are making a ‘not so subtle’ bash at all things not liberal. And when I know that an agenda is in play, I find myself diggin’ in and tunin’ out. </p>
<p>So, I know the thread is titled ‘Christian Fascism’, but wouldn’t the book author have been smarter if he had used the word ‘Extremism’ in his title instead? Especially if his goal was to be persuasive? After all, it is about getting people to listen and hear your pov, is it not? </p>
<p>And along the lines of choosing words carefully. Some of the comments made here about Christians are pretty harsh. Why do we never seem hold such ‘no holds barred’ debate about Judaism, Islam or any other religions? For pete’s sake, I wanna get down on the Wiccans for a change. (JK!!)</p>
<p>“I always love these debates on the poor christians and how oppressed they are. Hasn’t it been since about the 13-14th century that christianity been the world’s dominate religion? How oppressed are they really compared to other religions?”</p>
<p>Who said anything about Christians being “oppressed”? Now really, who leveled that claim on this thread? I don’t believe Christians are in anyway oppressed in this country. But I do believe that some intellectually dishonest people who are, in truth, OFFENDED by Christianity (but, just refuse to admit it, even as many of them claim to be “christian” —albeit with a little “c”—themselves), use the theology of the most extreme Christian right to “prove” that we should all be very afraid. They have to stretch facts to fit their claims that all sorts of “violence” IS being carried out in the name of Christ by brainwashed agents of the Christian Right, that this category of Christian is just as Dangerous as Al Quaida or Hezbollah. The idea that Timothy McVeigh’s actions were bankrolled and endorsed by the likes of Dobson, Falwell, and Christian Neo-Conservatives is ludicrous in the extreme, and well they know it. Just because such claims are made with a straight face, does not make them legitimate.</p>
<p>ldmom, I know YOU were not calling me out in your “harsh words” group but hh sure did. (And if so please point them out to me.) I am very precise in my word choice. If I had wanted to ding Christianity, you can rest assured I know the right words. I didn’t want to, although hh always assumes I do. I don’t hate Christians or Christianity. I have only 16 college credits in Christian Religion courses so I’m no expert like some on this thread believe themselves to be . I just hate religiosity and hypocrisy and tend to point it out when I see it and that just makes’em see blood.</p>
<p>^No…not all curmudgeon. There are just a few other posters here who tend to whip out the ‘fascist’ word a little too frequently for my taste. I even take issue with the title of the book (with which you had nothing to do, my dear ). I think the author has valid points, but the title is a turnoff.</p>
<p>“I have only 16 college credits in Christian Religion courses so I’m no expert like some on this thread believe themselves to be.”</p>
<p>Chuckle…well that’s far more than me…but I’ll put my three years of Martin Luther Catechism classes up there and pray they haven’t made me come off as ‘overly pious’ (had to look up ‘religiosity’ ).</p>
<p>Most people who bandy about the word “fascist” don’t know what it means. “Neoconservative” is another one. Yes, I used the term several times in my last two posts, but I am well-versed in the history and fine points of this ideology. Most people, however, seem to think that it is some kind of “super” or “ultra-conservatism.” Nothing could be further from the truth.</p>
<p>For the record, neoconservatism could be accurately defined as a mixture of social and economic liberalism (with some heavy socialist influences) and hawkish, interventionalist foreign policy. The very fact that it is revolutionary and utopian in nature (“liberal democracy will save the world!”) disqualifies it from being a legitimate son of Judeo-Christian conservatism.</p>
<p>Neoconservatives see robust secular democracies like America and Israel as being the Saviors of the World. Paleoconservatives and social conservatives (true conservatives) believe that this role has already been filled, in the person of Jesus Christ (or Yahweh). Paleo/socons believe that Western civilization has been heading down the wrong path for a long time and want to see us re-connect with our traditional religious and moral values; neocons see those cultural roots as being outdated and irrelevant.</p>
<p>The actual neoconservative movement (to be considered apart from their pawns) is glaringly lax on pro-life and pro-family issues, as well as the traditional conservative principles of small government, frugal spending, minimal social programs, non-interventionism, and immigration. Which begs the question… just what the hell is conservative about neoconservatism?</p>
<p>From what I understand, this is true. So is it the Zionists that we should be concerned about? How does one find an accurate label to describe the extremism found in Christianity? (of course not all Christians are extreme. I don’t know how anyone could think that any of us think that.)</p>
<p>Well I am but hh was complaining about us using the wrong terms to describe what we’re talking about…so I was trying to ask what should we do? Do we need to use the cumbersome ‘SOME people who happen to be Christian, but not ALL Christians, just the ones who are extremist and trying to push their views on the rest of the world, even if it means starting a war to do so, and don’t really care if people get killed because they’re going to hell anyway, and SOME of these even advocate violence against the people they are bigoted against…’</p>
<p>That’s quite a mouthful, er, keyboard full. We’re not supposed to use ‘Christian fascists’ or ‘Christian fundamentalists’ or ‘neocons’ so just how DO we clarify that we are referring to only extreme ‘christians’ and not ALL Christians?</p>
<p>One of the worst things that the religious right has done is to attempt to monopolize Christ…and to try to make Christianity synonymous with adopting a particular political agenda or keeping mum in the name of solidarity about the worst abuses of co-religionists. </p>
<p>According to the New Testament, whoever believes in Christ will share eternal life with Christ. I simply cannot accept that membership in the religious right grants an ordinary human the power to overrule Jesus on this issue.</p>
<p>If you are talking about war, how about ‘war-monger’; if you are talking about someone who imposes their views on others, how about ‘proselytizer’; if you are talking about someone who doesn’t practice what they preach, how about ‘hypocrite’, or for someone who is inappropriately pious, how about ‘pharisee’.</p>
<p>There are those of us who maintain the people you speak of in your cumbersome definition are not truly Christian, so maybe we should refer to them as ‘hijackers’ and not bring Christianity into it at all.</p>
<p>I don’t think ANYONE should be an arbitrar, but recognize that many Christians have the same beef as Hedges…we are not all the same. So when one starts throwing around pejoratives and the word Christian in the same sentence, you will undoubtedly offend someone. It shouldn’t be surprise.</p>
<p>You really went several steps over the line here, and your knowledge about neoconservatives isn’t quite as sophisticated as you think. I don’t know whether you meant to be as offensive as you were – I suspect you did, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – but you should be a lot more careful with your words and your concepts.</p>
<p>There is no Pope of neoconservatism. While you got some things right, especially about the earliest neocons, “neoconservatism” is not some monolithic, well-defined movement. Many neocons are social conservatives as well, although perhaps not usually religiously motivated social conservatives. Many are essentially libertarian insofar as domestic social policy is concerned, which can put them at odds with traditional and evangelical social conservatives. But, for example, I doubt there are many people who consider themselves neoconservatives who support any kind of broad view of abortion rights, although their reasons for that may differ from those of social conservatives (e.g., opposition to expansive judicial interpretations of constitutional rights). Some neocons are hostile to religion; some are quite the opposite. “Socialist” pretty much defines what they aren’t, although many of the early neocons came to neoconservatism by questioning socialist beliefs that they once held.</p>
<p>And, yes, many (not all) of the early neoconservatives were Jewish, and many (not all) of those were committed supporters of Israel and Zionism. Neither is true today to the extent it might have been true 25 or 30 years ago. To suggest, as you plainly did, that neoconservatism is a kind of front for Zionism is nothing but antisemetic libel. I am sorry if you feel you were duped at some point by neoconservative Zionists, but I doubt that is the real story, and I am certain that your experience is not generalizable.</p>
<p>And as for your claim that the neoconservative student organization at your school is completely funded by B’nai Brith . . . that is just ludicrous. It’s not even remotely what B’nai Brith does, and I don’t think there’s an organization anywhere completely funded by B’nai Brith that does not have the label attached and clear, transparent ties to its parent organization. Somewhere you have your facts very wrong. Perhaps the neocon Zionists are not the only ones who have been duping and exploiting you?</p>
when they are arguing). </p>