Video: Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism
posted at 12:37 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I went looking on YouTube for clips from “Friends of God” to peg to NRO’s review, but the pickings were slim. We’ll have to make do with this, which is useful insofar as its subject lies on the cultural fault line and useless insofar as it implies not only that Christianity = creationism but that all Christians approach the subject with the comic illogic exhibited by Buddy Davis.
It’s not as derisive or nasty as it could have been, but Pelosi’s obviously presenting it as a type of freak show. Rewarding as entertainment, not so much as documentary.
The movie re-airs today at 1:30 and 10 p.m. and at various times over the next month. Exit question for our Christian readers: Agree or disagree with the following paragraph from the NRO article?
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “I am a friend of God,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Christ,” or even an impassioned sermon, those familiar with evangelicalism see nothing odd. However, your average New Yorker or San Franciscan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a church, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to Haggard about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to many liberals. In an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of evangelicalism, the lingo, the constant referrals to the Bible, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their biblically imposed limits, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Evangelicals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 Next »
The apple, or peach as the case may be, doesn’t fall far from the tree!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 30, 2007 at 12:49 PM
As Hot Air’s resident evangelical, I mostly agree. Although in this case, it’s really on Pelosi as the “Christian hunter” to understand her subject rather than just mock. And it’s very telling that the Speaker’s daughter has this view of mainline Christians who number around 50 million around the country. What was that about the Democrats reaching out to conservative Christians? Pelosi’s doc is Exhibit A that we’re just a bunch of nuts and freaks to them. Any outreach to us on the part of the Democrats is about party power, nothing more. It’s an entirely cynical enterprise.
This evangelical has spent a great deal of time around liberals so I know for the most part how they think and what makes them tick. Liberals like Pelosi would do well to spend some quality time around evangelicals. Not as anthropologists studying in the wild, but as fellow humans and Americans who live on the same block and share most of the same dreams. It might help these liberals to differentiate between us, and, say, the Islamists who are trying to destroy us all. I get awfully tired of liberal ignorance lumping me in with the Osama bin Ladens of the world.
Bryan on January 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I would venture that there is plenty of evidence that speaking in a language that liberals understand would not do anything to sway their little secularly dogmatic outlook one iota.
bbz123 on January 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM
AP,
I’m fine with people finding a, let’s call it a “subculture”, uncomfortable to experience for the first time. The use of the term proselytizing is wrong, it’s a throw-away word to help scare the reader.
Many parallels can be made with other lifestyles and worldviews that are not universally adhered to, such as the rabid football fan.
The lingo, the constant referrals to the , the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their Saturday/Sunday/Monday imposed restrictions, team spirit passion, even the pure power of thousands crowded into a stadium, can be terrifying…
It’s easy to do, with many dozens of possible choices to pick on. But only when Christianity is the subject is it supposed to be really awful, terrible, or dangerous to society.
Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Nice… she corners some kids to try to get them to explain evolution vs. creationism. Way to approach those on your level.
So evangelicals are now supposed to conform to ‘mainstream’ views of religion? Who will be the ultimate arbiter of how a religion should conform?
Oh, and any of you libs out there who discuss this viz-a-viz the Islamic conditioning of children… I didn’t see anyone in this video preaching hate. Conversely, Christian religions teach love.
dalewalt on January 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Nuts, I made the mistake of using tags instead of parentheses, and that part of the comment got emptied out as HTML code….
The lingo, the constant referrals to the [nuances of football that only serious fans understand or care about], the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their Saturday/Sunday/Monday imposed restrictions, team spirit passion, even the pure power of thousands crowded into a stadium, can be terrifying…
Yes, Christians refer to the Bible. You see, its God’s love letter to his creation, and our operator’s manual.
Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM
‘Friends of God’ is on par with the Michael Moore trash.
I’m a Christian who believes in evolution and the big-bang so I guess I’m considered deranged by both sides.
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 12:58 PM
The NRO reviewer isn’t calling on evangelicals to conform their faith to any worldly standard. She’s calling on them to keep in mind that most liberals see evangelical churches as alien worlds and all these Christian skaters and such as bizarre denizens of those alien worlds. I think it’s only wise to try to see how the other guy sees you. It might help you figure out how to win him over, for one thing. For liberals like Pelosi, that’s a positively terrifying thought.
Bryan on January 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM
What’d Pelosi use? Fish-eye lenses and nostril angles?
Gee, Jane Fonda and all the other Leftis icons get gauzy cheesecloth fuzzy to hide the wrinkles, always with warm lighting and rich color.
You could film a guppy this way and end up with something that resembled a yawning jawed great white shark.
Bias? The word is hardly up to the magnitude of this hatchet job.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 1:06 PM
The darkness knows the light, but doesn’t understand the light.
Savage on January 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I not sounding a conspiracy bell here or anything, I’m just thinking aloud… Ms Pelosi goes to some unheard of Georgia mega church and gets the pastor of said church to be a (Key?) part of her movie then just before the movie is set to air the pastor is implicated in a sex and drug scandal with a San Francisco gay man…. Not that It had anything to do with Ms Pelosi… I was just thinking aloud.
Gwillie on January 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Definitely a freak show entertainment angle.
“Look at the frizzy-haired one! Gawk at the lip-pierced and bad-teeth! Watch him talk! Behold the wonders of people that may be your neighbors!“
JamesVersusEveryone on January 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I understand both Bryan and Rebecca Cusey of the NRO. As a Catholic and a scholar, I’m often confronted by agnostics, atheists, ex-Catholics, and even evangelicals about what the Church believes. There are even many Catholics who don’t understand what their faith and religion are all about. (Find a Catholic friend of yours and ask them to explain ‘transubstantiation’. I guarantee most don’t know what the word even is, even though it is process that drives the central Catholic Sacrament of Eucharist.) But the surprisingly little people know about Catholicism doesn’t stop them from launching a broadside against my faith. And it’s something that Pelosi seems to marvel at in her film– essentially a “what the heck are these people smoking?” reaction to anything Christians (or I’ll say any religious) do.
For example, today is the Muslim Holy Day of Ashura, when the grandson of Muhammed, Husain, was killed in battle by Muslims who didn’t recognize his claim to be the rightful leader of Islam. It’s celebrated by men of all ages wearing white robes and cutting themselves with swords and beating themselves so they bleed, guilty that they could not protect their prophet (it should be noted that the rivals who killed Husain are now known as Sunni).
Now, as an outsider looking in, I see that and think, “Ok, yeah, no Islam for me, thankyouvermuch.” But it’s perceived as something perfectly normal– even revered– to show your devotion to your faith in public by beating yourself with a dull blade.
On the opposite end, I look at atheists and see them with a similar wonder. I cannot see how they would apply themselves to any moral standards when they do not have a concept of sin. A little thought gets me to that answer, but most people aren’t interested in contemplation.
The Muslims think the Catholics are polytheists and must be destroyed.
The Catholics think the Mormons are a dangerous cult.
The Mormons think atheists are heathens that need evangelizing.
And women like Ms. Pelosi think the Evangelicals (all Christians?) are a bunch of weirdos.
The question I have for Ms. Pelosi– why not throw in some bonus footage of your mother and ask her why she attends Church and how she reconciles her position on abortion with that of the Holy See?
Or can we only request fights like that over Christmas?
Nethicus on January 30, 2007 at 1:19 PM
What? No snake handlers?
Evangelical Christianity is a very diverse (to use the sacred terminology of the left) movement. Much more so than leftist secularism. I’m sure those protesters from the various groups in Washington over the weekend had more in common with each other than the various evangelical churches throughout the US.
Not every evangelical identifies with every evangelical leader or worship style. People like Pelosi will choose the examples that most confirm their own stereotypes of Christians and run with it. They don’t have the time or desire to get a complete picture.
Coyote D. on January 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Everyone’s willing to admit that Christian wrestling is freaky deaky, though, right?
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM
It would be nice to have a “documentary” on Pelosi’s crowd. What a freak show that would be!
Oh wait. We do.
CrimsonFisted on January 30, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I was gonna say….does this trope even discuss Christians that believe in Intelligent Design? Or does Pelosi stick to casting Christians as ignorant rubes?
Kid from Brooklyn on January 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Talk in a language that liberals understand ? Someone get me a moonbat to english dictionary.
The problem isnt that evangelicals dont communicate well to liberals the problem is that liberals smear evangelicals with an extremist brush and always try and paint them as some kind of wackos.
And remember this is the same group that thinks “Truthers” are rational people.
William Amos on January 30, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Here’s a quick ‘n’ dirty edit of that NRO quote. Try it now and see if it makes more/less sense:
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “Allahu Akbar,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Muhammed,” or even an impassioned fatwa, those familiar with Islamism see nothing odd. However, your average South Carolinian or Texan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a mosque, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for Islamic proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head and feeling really creepy. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to a respected Muslim cleric about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to decent non-Muslim people. In an interview with the magazine The Weekly Allah, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the mega-mosques come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of Islamism, the lingo, the constant referrals to jihad and naqba, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their strict adherance to Islamic law, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Islamists would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
Enrique on January 30, 2007 at 1:28 PM
In Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, there is a big statute in front of the National Museum. Now, remember, the Leakeys made many of their big discoveries in Kenya and Tanzania so it’s rich with early man talk.
The statue is a depiction of small monkey, ape, then primitive man, then modern man.
Consider that the idea of race, and primitive man evolving to higher man all come from the concept of evolution. Biblically, men are identified by their nation, not by their color. The Apostle Paul is sent by God to the aid of an educated Ethiopian man, a member of a high court, who is wrestling with the understanding of a piece of scripture as he sits roadside, parked (literally) in his chariot. Unless one has been taught with outside info, the casual reader would not know the Ethiopian man was a black African.
Back to the statue. It doesn’t seem very noble or impressive to see this depiction of the human “race” in Africa; because one of the fruits of the evolutionary worldview is that Africans have always been considered more primitive. Slaves have always existed, but they were considered spoils of war, and with that, people knew that what goes around can come around. It took the corrosive concept of evolution which came into prominence in the mid-1800s that was employed to argue in defense of American slavery on the grounds that Africans were of a lesser race and could be enslaved.
Evolution bears a certain kind of fruit. Ideas have consequences.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Amen Bryan, well said.
infidel4life on January 30, 2007 at 1:31 PM
The entire “sport” of watching oversized men in stretchy pants (it’s for fans) arguing and rolling around is freaky deaky. Putting a gloss of religion on it just amps all that up a little bit, imho.
Bryan on January 30, 2007 at 1:31 PM
“Snap into a communion wafer…oooh, yeah!”
James on January 30, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I don’t get it, people making fun of people for seeking God. I don’t dance in the aisles or speak in tongues, but if someone else wants to and it brings them closer to God, then great.
Except for Christian wrestling. I’m with AP, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
BTW, “Friend of God” is a great song.
Matticus Finch on January 30, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I’m always upset about Christians focusing on the freaky things that turn people off such as saying the earth is 10,000 years old when time would be much better spent on salvation issues.
frankj on January 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM
All good points, actually. However, the only response I have to this:
…is: I understand what you’re trying to say, but life has taught me that there’s no point in wasting your time trying to explain yourself to people who have neither the time, intellect, nor inclination to as much as listen to you.
I commend those who try, though.
I just don’t have time to argue with imbeciles.
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Yes, but you have a lot in common with the average Christian. I don’t know if the name Francis Collins is recognized by anyone here, but he’s the NIH director of the human genome project and somewhat of an expert on evolution. He’s also a Christian who beleives in the Creation. He wrote the book, “The Language of God” which deals in part with the myth that creationism and evolution are mutally exclusive.
taznar on January 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM
As an evangelical, Christian wrestling is something I may have dimly heard of a while ago, but I really can’t even remember.
It’s as if she had her preconceived notions and that’s what she saw. I did think this statement is very telling:
I’m glad she seems to have at least one stereotype smashed.
Christians do many kinds of things as a way of reaching out and helping their community. Some may be serious service and aid while some may be seen as lightweight. They work homeless shelters and plan recreation and parties for teens. I would say probably most usually try to build relationships with people for the purpose of being a witness to the grace of God to be found in the Lord Jesus. That grace and love can be expressed in actions and/or words. Proselytizing is a word with bad connotations; Christians see sharing the gospel as “one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.”
If we don’t get the language right, it’s not because we’re not trying. Sometimes it’s just that the listeners are deaf.
INC on January 30, 2007 at 1:54 PM
There is something wrong with people who think it is “scary” to see a large number of people who are “happy” and unashamed in their faith.
Why on earth would we evangelicals want to conform our behavior to make non-believers comfortable?
If they are happy in their godless existence, we can be happy in our walk with God.
Don’t we always here them preaching “tolerance”? Can they not tolerate seeing joyful people?
LonelyMassRepublican on January 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Mostly. I mean I get it that people who don’t go to church are uncomfortable with a church worship service.
We addressed the issue extensively at my own church and made every attempt to make people like that comfortable on their own level.
In fact, that’s one of the reasons why Christians have so many different outlets like the Christian skaters. See, this is where I divert from NRO.
That’s not the point at all. The point is that no matter who we are, no matter what we do, we’re Christians. It’s like saying, I’m human. It’s who I am.
As Christians, we’re supposed to reach out to others. If they’re more comfortable coming to a skate park than stepping into a church, then that’s where Christians should be. It’s what Paul said:
And it’s nothing new. Some of the hymnals churches still sing today were actually bar songs that were given new lyrics.
It’s not about trying to trick someone. It’s about doing exactly what the NRO article said. It’s about trying to speak to people on their own level.
I’ll agree with Bryan that the sport itself is a little out there, but beyond that, no, I don’t think it’s odd that Christians have their own things.
But I do think it’s weird that we have to, at least in this country.
Even “7th Heaven,” one of the shows with the double package of the worst actors and the worst scripts, routinely does shows that teach morality against what Christians believe.
There is nothing, that I’ve yet seen, in the secular world that accurately represents Christians and Christian values.
So, like Michelle did with “The Vent,” Christians quit complaining and took the matter in their own hands.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I can agree with this statement. It’s a function not of Christianity, but of the theological consequences of Arminianism in Christianity.
If you don’t believe, you go to hell. If you don’t know about Christ, then you can’t believe, therefore you go to hell. It is the responsibility of Christians to spread the gospel of Christ to as many of their fellow humans as they can, so that as few as possible can claim ignorance on the day of judgment (even if they can’t ultimately anyway, as teleology is sufficient for belief).
If you felt responsible for the souls of millions around you, wouldn’t you at least do something to save them from everlasting damnation? Even better, why not do what you love (skateboarding, biking, etc.) while saving a few souls from hellfire? Makes sense to me.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Whatever happened to the wonders of “multiculrualism?”
Is Pelosi’s next doc about some of the weird, out of the mainstream beleifs held by some San Fanciscans? Wiccans? I doubt she’d ever produce anything like that.
Mig on January 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM
naliaka…
How the heck do you figure that the theory of evolution puts race on a ‘worthiness’ scale? Now I admit that some people might have used evolution to fit their viewpoints, but the theory itself is not the blame. Long before the Origin of Species men enslaved ‘less worthy’ men.
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your statement, but I want to take issue with your premis.
Isn’t that a bit like saying conservatives shouldn’t spend time discussing Pelosi’s spawn when there are more important issues like the Iraq aftermath and terrorism to discuss?
As far as I’m concerned, Christians, like conservatives, can do both. Humans are talented creatures that way.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Are Enrique and I the only agnostics/atheists here?
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I searched and searched for this since it was tugging at my memory. Seems an appropriate fit.
Is this the future Pelosi envisions?
CrimsonFisted on January 30, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Eugenics is among the long list of bad ideals traced to evolution. No God…Humans are just intelligent animals… therefore no reason not to try to make humans better just like we do our cattle/horses/dogs. If a few people (millions) die, no problem.
Gwillie on January 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM
naliaka,
It wasn’t Paul that was sent to the Ethiopian, it was Philip in Acts 8:26-40.
Pelosi doesn’t get that when we “a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing” we are trying to speak the language of those outside the church. While I agree to some extent that “churchspeak” is rampant in evangelical circles, that is too much stereotyping.
Gwillie,
Haggard isn’t from Georgia, he was from Colorado Springs, CO and the gay man was from Denver.
Centurion68 on January 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM
What really baffles me is that a very large segment of the African-American population is very religious (and mostly Christian). The left just leaves them alone about this fact. Liberals basically humor and patronize them when it comes up. Either that, or it’s flat-out hypocrisy. Personally, I think it’s both. Perfect example of the left’s elitist mentality.
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Is referring to Pelosi’s daughter as her “spawn” the conservative or the Christian influence. Either way, it’s damned talented.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:05 PM
We really need a third party. Soon.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 2:05 PM
How would the third party look, AP?
Matticus Finch on January 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM
My bad I wasn’t sure about the Georgia part, but I was sure the guy was from San Fran. Maybe I just read it from a San Fran source?
gwillie… Who should fact check
he post
Gwillie on January 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM
before not
Gwillie on January 30, 2007 at 2:15 PM
You mean like the Green Party??
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Spawn is another word for offspring. Pelosi spawned another Pelosi.
And I won’t claim it was either influence. The moment I claim to be an either perfect Christian or a perfect conservative is the moment you can call me on some perceived insult.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM
One church is doing that kind of marketing, with these PC/Mac style commercials for a Christian and a “Christ follower.”
Laura on January 30, 2007 at 2:19 PM
You did specifically ask for Christians to respond.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:19 PM
One church is doing that kind of marketing, with these PC/Mac style commercials for a Christian and a “Christ follower.”
That was one of the best threads Hot Air has ever seen, in my opinion.
Matticus Finch on January 30, 2007 at 2:21 PM
By “We”, do you mean atheist/agnostics who are fed up with craven sucking up to religious types for political gain (on both sides), or social libertarians that want to limit government intrusion in our daily lives? No snark, that’s a straight question.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
If you think referring to someone’s child as their spawn is not an insult, well I can only assume English is not your first language. If that is the case, I apologize.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
You mean like the Green Party??
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:15 PM
I think he means the “The Whole Christianity Thing Was Nice When a Fledgling Secular Government Needed a Moral and Wise Population to Develop It Fully Without Eating Itself Alive, But Now It’s Just Passe and Lame… Where’s the Wet Bar?” party.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Yes.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM
We have third, fourth and fifth parties. They’re all worse than the main two parties, which is pretty bad. If we Christians who vote Republican are so bad, I’m sure the Libertarians or the Greens will welcome you with open arms. Good luck getting anywhere with them though.
It’s one thing to put up with Pelosi’s sneers. I expect no less from people who are making whole careers out of smearing anyone they don’t understand or disagree with. I do expect a little bit more than “we need a third party” out of you, though, Allah. I guess that’s a mistake.
Bryan on January 30, 2007 at 2:24 PM
AP
You asked for Christian readers to respond.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 2:24 PM
How very insensitive and unliberal of you.
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Actually, we need one so that I can get away from attitudes like that.
Some of you guys are awfully good about complaining when you feel insulted, not so good at noticing how insulting you are to others. Which was honora’s point, I guess.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Something like the Perot Effect, only more permanent?
Coyote D. on January 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Ouch.
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Are you seriously trying to take issue with this one word here? The word in and of itself is not offensive. It only literally means child of, offspring, etc… So the denotation of the word is not offensive.
Clearly you see a harmful connotation in the word.
Hmmm… Little Pelosi makes a documentary that makes Christians out to be a freak show, and you’re finding fault with my connotation while giving hers a pass? Is that your liberalism fueling your hypocrisy or is there another cause?
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:31 PM
How are evangelicals supposed to speak the language of the “unwashed?” I am a member of and worship at a traditional church (The Covenant denomination). We sing alot, but there isn’t any carrying on. Just some raised hands at the most. When visitors attend, they are made to feel welcome, and we try to put them at ease. The pastor even makes a point of saying that visitors are not expected to contribute to the offering, just enjoy time as a guest. Nobody is made to feel like they are walking into a cage from which they will not be released until they hear the testimony of five other believers.
We do mission work in the community, meaning helping the poor and those who are in need. This is done with no strings attached or prosetlyzing. Occasionally, groups will go into a neighborhood to knock on doors and invite the residents to church or hear about the gospel. That type of ministry is not for me, but people can say no thank you and close the door.
I guess what I am trying to say is it seems as if Pelosi is showing the fringe and representing it as mainstreams. Most beliveing Christians will share their faith if asked, but they do not force anything on people. We try to just live life with the love and grace towards others that Christ taught us. If that is an alien concept, whaddyagonna do?
Mallard T. Drake on January 30, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Are you coming on to me? I am a happily married woman I’ll have you know!!!
honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Never – you’re a Steelers’ fan, for crying out loud.
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:35 PM
…and when did you stop beating your wife?
LOL
honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:35 PM
This format (blog commenting) seems to take the normal niceties out of conversation. It’s like we’re all shrill or something. Or people don’t read what they wrote before they post it.
PRCalDude on January 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM
The one part of the film that interested me the most was when the woman was speaking about how creationism was simply easier to explain and comprehend to her children. This simplicity and understanding is why she accepted it as true.
Shockingly, this is how most people make decisions. In other words, prejudice. No logical thought, no deliberations, nothing.
This is why I openly distrust democracy. It’s bad enough that the intelligent design movement influences science curriculum to some extent.
Would you want to live in Barney Frank’s imaginary kingdom where the people get to vote on interest rates?
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Honora! There you are! I’ve been looking for you. You told me your literary hero a couple of weeks ago, someone I didn’t recognize…who was that?
Matticus Finch on January 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I wasn’t complaining about the insult, only explaining it from my perspective.
Yes, what I wrote about Pelosi’s kid can be seen as an insult. I do actually get that. But it doesn’t have to be seen as anything other than a description, the same way she expects Christians to take this film.
Afterall, she didn’t seek out Haggard knowing he’d ruin his career like he did. She just got lucky on that one. And maybe she didn’t even realize how much of a freak show she was making Christians appear to be. According to her, she simply studied these foreign people and reported on them in accurate terms.
Spawn is an accurate term by definition.
But hey, I’ll back off and take it out of my vocabulary. To be honest, it was just a slip that I didn’t even give a second thought the first time anyway.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I agree somewhat with the excerpt from the NRO article. Christians do have a lot of terms we use freely in a church setting or with other christians that non-christians would find confusing. We also speak a lot more about Jesus and God in those settings.
Some christians, especially new christians, can kind of freak non-believers out because they are so excited to have found Christ that they talk about Him a lot. Fellow christians don’t think anything of it but I know when I first was telling friends and family that I had become a christian, I did scare some of them. The vast majority will calm down eventually and realize that while they are spreading the gospel by doing that they are also often turning people away.
I now prefer to witness (there’s one of those terms) through my actions more than my words. If you act like a christian, people will ask you why you seem so happy or content. Then the door is open to share you beliefs. Not that that approach is best for everyone of course.
Benaiah on January 30, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Are there wack jobs in religion? You bet! Witness fred phelps and his looney tune cultists.
Are there liberal wackjobs? Amen! Witness howard dean and all them screaming deanie babies. Or all the mad (tinfoil) hatters lost from the mother ship crying about the jews & GW creating 9-11.
As for the paragraph from the NRO article….
The obvious non sequitur is derived from a pejorative description of hobbyists (skate boarders) utilizing a fun (and legal) activity to incorporate a little mixing up to talk it up versus a final criticism flung at the ‘holy rollers’ (no pun) “to speak a language those outside the church can understand.”
Which is it, NRO? Head in the clouds or too down to earth?
Ultimately, it is neither. It is not the method or the perception of those outside looking in at ‘them bible thumpers’. It is the very message itself – the Gospel of Jesus Christ – and the many millions of people’s belief that He is God incarnate, come to earth, sacrificed for the sins of mankind, risen from the grave and currently residing in Heaven only to come back and pass final judgement on the terminally wicked.
Nasty business, judgement and vengence.
Most people don’t want to hear it, so people like Ms. Pelosi make soon-to-be-forgotten vid-flicks which highlight the left’s intolerance & prejudice of those who are different.
But, Jesus said, “No worries. The world dissed me long time til it trashed my posse. If they not be lunchin and stay true blue, my kin have it tight in the crib up high. Fo shizzle!”
locomotivebreath1901 on January 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I can’t legally have a wife. That’s Clinton’s fault.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I love The Message translation. Is that the Snoop Dogg edition?
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)
Translation: Why give fodder to the people who’s sole purpose in interacting with you is to rip your faith to shreds? Serious debate is helpful to know what you believe, but if the other persons only intent it to distort what you say and believe, why give them ammunition?
jman on January 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM
To those who have never been a part of
evangelicalismliberalism, the lingo, the constant referrals tothe Biblevaginas, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by theirbiblicallypolitically imposed limits,religiousanti-religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying.EvangelicalsLiberals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside thechurchcult can understand.To everything, turn, turn, turn…
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 2:50 PM
According to an article in Christianity Today printed for the Feb 2007 issue 41% of white evangelicals were “unhappy that the democrats won the midterm elections” and 41% of white evangelicals were “happy that the democrats won”.
Wonder what the collective reaction is about Pelosi’s documentary?
It should not be a surprise that evangelicals put God before political party — something I think some of the “Republican and Democratic base” forget when convenient.
Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Spot on brilliant.
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Want a “Big Tent”? – need a “Big Mind”.
Holding to rejection of evolution and dinosaurs (for God’s sake!) is a rejection of God’s essence. I wonder if people still hold to the earth being flat, and the Sun orbiting the Earth?
God’s essence is in the magnitude of everything. The vast universe. The complex atomic structure. The expanse of time. Scientists praise God every time they look at images from the Hubble.
That might be an interesting documentary – scientist who believe in God. Never gonna see it – challenges the Left’s claim to them. They are happy to trot out their atheist scientist though.
I do not “believe” in God. I “know” God. I feel him, and no barbaric human, or natural disaster can change that.
The Left’s problem is they are petulant children. They want God’s attention. While I do not agree with religious folks who reject science, at least they “seem” to have faith. I am not sure their strict adherence to “small” beliefs is any less a challenge to God than that of Lefties.
Agrippa2k on January 30, 2007 at 3:00 PM
The Greens? Am I a socialist now?
I didn’t say Christians who vote Republican are “so bad.” In fact, I knocked Pelosi in this very post for painting them as freaks, did I not? It just seems to me that most conservatives these days are religious, and in that case, yeah, I’d like a party that represents my own interests a little better. So would a lot of people in the blogosphere, from what I’ve read of them these past few years: Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon, Charles Johnson, probably Jeff Goldstein, Bill Ardolino, etc etc. And no, the Libertarians aren’t a perfect fit either. They’ve retreated into dovish idiocy. I’ll pass, thanks.
I direct your attention to this comment again, since it’s a lot more insulting than anything I’ve said here about Christians:
I’ll be at the wet bar if you need me.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Ignatius OReilly, the protagonist in “A Confederacy of Dunces”; absolutely the funniest book I have ever read.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Are Enrique and I the only agnostics/atheists here?
AlluhPundit on January 30, 2007 at 2:00PM
I’m agnostic, but very supportive of Christianity.
Scot on January 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Editor and parent settles the “spawn” fight: “Spawn” does not just mean offspring. It means a mass of offspring and is more typically used to refer to fish and mushrooms. It is also, significantly, used to refer to the offspring of some “stock” or “idea”, but usually in the verb form, as, for relevant: “Pelosi’s skewed-left vision of the world helped spawn, in her daughter, an attitude toward Christians that hampered the making of an objective documentary.”
It most certainly is an insult to call somebody’s child “spawn.”
Now for the NRO paragraph: I’m a Christian and I’m uneasy with inserting a “Christian angle” into everything. Christianity is for me both more private and something far more available to intellectual debate than to shiny-eyed enthusiasm. I guess that’s just the long version of saying I’m not an evangelical, but the fact of the matter is that all Christians are commanded in the Bible to “go forth and make disciples”–i.e. evangelize. It’s unfortunate that the categories have become so sharply defined (largely by the left, I might add) that captial-E-vangelical can be so separated out from the mass of Christians to be mocked, but that does not change the fact that for anybody not raised in church, and even for some who were, yes, that culture of overbearing enthusiasm can be severely off-putting. It’s when it goes from off-putting to “something to be killed at all costs” that you spawn (heh) the dangerous ideology of the left that would like to have the power to shut down all of Christianity based on its fear of these mostly harmless Christians.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Seems like the problem with Christianity is mostly the un-Christian-like behavior of….Christians.
I say this as one myself. Twas ever thus I suppose? Yet another reason for a visit to the wet bar…..so it’s not ALL bad!!
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Actually, never mind the wet bar crack. The invitation to join the Green Party was easily the most insulting thing said in this thread. Because non-Christian = faux conservative, see?
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM
You took that a bit out of context, did you not, AP? The person was describing the kind of party he/she thinks you want, not making that statement for himself/herself. I.E. that commenter was not insulting Christianity, as you seem to be saying. Unless I’m misunderstanding you.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Does anyone else think the last chick interviewed in that clip was hot?
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I don’t know what it is about us that makes you fear us so much, AP, nor am I quite clear about exactly where it is that our interests conflict.
I’m not trying to convert you, I’m not trying to say that your non-beliefs make you a lesser human being, as a matter of fact I’d much prefer it if we could quit bickering about religion. I don’t care about anybody else’s beliefs, because they truly don’t matter to me. I know what mine are, and that’s enough for me.
And, right up until this whole “the Fundo-Christianists are Subverting the Essence of Conservatism” blah became the main talking point of certain areas of the Blogosphere, everybody were perfectly happy to leave well enough alone.
Oh, and if there’s room at the wet bar still, could you make mine a double Scotch over two rocks, please? :-)
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I know he wasn’t insulting Christianity. He was defending it — by insulting me. It’s okay to insult the non-Christians, but suggest that there should be a third party for nonreligious hawks? Horrible.
I’m tempted to extrapolate from the wet bar comment what the author might say to the idea of a non-secular, i.e., Christian government. He’d denounce it, I’m sure; power would corrupt the faith, etc etc, but I don’t quite see why that is given how moral and wise the Christian population is. They were able to prevent those nutty secularists from eating themselves alive. Why wouldn’t they be able to do the same with a Christian government?
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Bryan said:
I agree with the NRO review, and with Bryan, to a certain extent. As an evangelical (doctoral candidate in Practical Theology), I have become increasingly annoyed in recent years with the effort evangelicals put in to adapting popular cultural practices for conservative Christian faith. When you take popular cultural practices, and wed them with conservative Christian themes, it most often times, in my opinion, turns out cheesy and ridicule worthy. I think that the mac/pc ads done by a church are a prime example.
At the same time, Christian faith encompasses all of life, or at least it should. As Auerbach (20th c. literary critic) stated – the Bible seeks to subject us, and if we refuse, we are rebels. Faith in Christ, ideally, envelopes every aspect of a believer’s life. Therefore, popular cultural practices and products such as skateboarding, music, art, movies, even wrestling, are not exempt from a person’s Christian convictions. However, I would add that there are probably some popular cultural practices that a person’s faith would preclude.
On the one hand, I agree with Bryan that speaking the language of those outside of the church (I would never, use the term “unwashed” as one person did above), is the way to see the world from another perspective, as well as make the tenets of Christian faith understandable and appealing to those not familiar with it, or even aggressive towards it. In this sense, I would like to distance myself, and Christianity in general, from certain aspects of Christian pop culture, seeking to adapt to people in a manner which speaks to them.
On another, Christianity sets out to teach the world a new language. To change the way we view the world, each other, God. I’m not saying that the language Christ aimed to teach us was couched in wrestling in spandex. I am also not ruling out the possibility that some people find meaning in such activities – as weird as that may seem to me. But, this says two things to me – 1) That I become deeply skeptical of attempts to adapt the message of Christ to popular cultural media and mores, and 2) Doing so, despite my skepticism, might be beneficial to some people.
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM
The bar is closed during voting. Fundamentals of Democracy. No exceptions.
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
ITs funny that Pelosi can’t quite grasp the concept that everything is about faith, when to libs everything is about politics. It would seem that everything revolves around one’s core beliefs.
I agree with the article in that there is a communication breakdown between Christianity and the secular world. However it is very hard gap to overcome, when the secular world explicity rejects most of the message of Christianity. The secular world views Christianity as a force of oppression because it has rules on behavior that the secular world doesn’t want to follow; gays, abortion, sex, etc. Evangelicals view Christianity as a source of liberation. More precisly THE source of the ultimate liberation.
As a non-evangelical Christian I’ve no problem rectifying evolution and creation, call it a form of ID. Science isn’t a problem as we’re supposed to explore the universe to achieve a fuller understanding of God’s plan. So even science isn’t the enemy, its just a tool. Its how that tool is used that can cause problems.
Iblis on January 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Enrique – We like having a resident athiest around here. It spices things up. :) However, we might have to turn you in for a new model if you continue to do intellectually dishonest things. Editing the quote about Evangelicals to reflect Muslims so that everyone here can see….? Well, I don’t want to put motives in your head, but, in the past, I’ve seen that done so that people can see that Christians are just as freaky as Muslims….just as brainwashed. We can debate about whether having faith in a higher power = brainwashing or not; however, I’d like to think that all can agree that skateboard punks cum evangelical Christians are less damaging to a society than a suicide bomber.
Allah – I’m not an evangelical Christian, I’m one of those stranger and often more misunderstood LDS Christians. However, I did live with and attend church with an evangelical family for a year. I can’t speak to the brand of Christianity, but, I can speak about the people. They were some of the kindest people I’ve ever met. The kind that befriended homeless people and would REGULARLY (not just a one off) bring them hot meals and conversation. They were constantly performing acts of charity and kindness. I realize that there are many non-evangelicans and non-Christians that do this too. My point being, if a good portion of the evangelicals are similar to the people I stayed with, evangelicalism is a good thing (Christian wrestling and all).
Side Note: Does anyone else find it funny that liberals, the very people who pioneered the multiculteral movement and shoved it down the rest of our throats, are now saying that evangelicals need to learn how to address the rest of the country and explain themselves to them….Isn’t that supposed to be the other way around in liberal land? Since the evangelicals are the minority, shouldn’t we all do our best to immerse ourselves in their ‘different, yet completely equal’ culture? Funny how that doesn’t work when it’s Christian culture they’re talking about.
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
As an Evangelical Christian, I see where some of you may come from with that take, but am forced to disagree just the same.
We still need (as then) the Judeo-Christian values that shape our society, as reflected in our Founding Documents. Those statements of faith, however, are a far cry from today’s shameless pandering to people of faith, and they should not be misconstrued as such. When Howard Dean dropped the “WWJD” after explaining his resignation from his church due to a bike path, I vomited a little on the inside. I’m saddened at the amount of churches lined up at the trough of “Faith-Based Initiative” money, as if they couldn’t accomplish the same ends through private charity.
The fact is, parties are in place merely to win elections, and will pander to anyone who might give them an edge. They’d probably support Sharia or man-boy love if it kept them in power. It’s true, as Bryan mentioned, that the B-tier parties suck; but the major parties suck even worse.
I’d take a long, hard look at a loose coalition of 536 like-minded independents that support Friedmanesque economic principles, Reaganesque foreign policy, and Goldwaterian libertarianism. Give me that over an elephant and a donkey any day of the week.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
AllahP: I want a party without so much religious influence.
Commenter, bitter about religious influence being thrown under the bus: It was helpful in the early going but you’re ready to ditch it now, eh?
AllahP: I’ve been maligned.
Sorry, Allah, I’m not sure what to make of this one. You implied that religion has too much influence in the modern Republican party and that you’d like a party with less of it, which is pretty damn close to the “Evangelicals control that other party” howls of the anti-religious left. Why not take up the debate about whether religion *was* helpful in the early going, eh?
Meantime, my main thought is: Religion doesn’t have even half the influence on the party as the left believes it does.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I’ll see you there. First round’s mine.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM
1. Yes, it generally refers to a brood of some type, but it can apply to just one offspring.
Especially, but not limitted to…
2. I acknowledged that it’s used as an insult. I only stated that by pure definition, the word doesn’t have to be perceived as one. That was the whole connotation and denotation thing.
3. I’ve backed off of it. If Pelosi’s child wants to make Christians out to look like freaks in an HBO special, it gives me no right to use a word with a negative connotation to imply that she is our speaker’s daughter.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Well I for one have never subscribed to that idea.
All I ask of my non-Christian friends is they not snicker at my shrine to the Virgin Mary of the Grilled Cheese Sandwich.
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Another version of the dreaded litmus test.
What’s interesting to me is the eagerness of some Christians to embrace the fiction that they are a persecuted minority. Don’t get the appeal of that myself– but by keeping the tent small as possible, well that makes it more easy to buy into.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
LOL. You can now buy (I am not making this up) an iron device that is designed to imprint the Virgin Mary or the face of Christ (your choice) onto your sammies.
What a country.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Saying that the party has too much religious influence is tantamount to saying that it’s controlled by that influence? I don’t follow that at all, sorry. And once again, I’m being smeared as a de facto leftist because I dare to say that the party as currently constituted doesn’t represent my interests as much as I’d like.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I grew up in a pretty conservative Christian home but strayed away from organized religion in high school. I respect Christianity a great deal and many of the people I admire most are good Christians, but was turned off by off by many things being preached. Issues like homosexuality, that at best got a few words mention in the Bible, were viewed as catastrophic to civilization, while similar issues such as divorce and adultry, discussed and condemned much more often in the same Bible, were generally accepted or at least tolerated simply because they were more familiar and less obscene.
This attitude of arrogance and certainty displayed by many Christians, not all of course, is one of the primary reasons I was turned off. I have absolutely no idea what will happen when I die, no clue, I know what I believe, but no matter how much I believe it it won’t make it true. Many Christians may believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they will go to heaven, and that piece of mind is wonderful and must be respected; but no matter how much you believe it you must have the intellectual humility to admit we just can’t know how we got here or where we go. It is simply beyond the capacity of the human mind. And until we die and get to heaven, or wherever we go, we will be stuck here wondering and fighting about it.
JaHerer22 on January 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 Next »