Blogged
Bibles and fascist banjos: A lesson in taxonomy
Loose canon
I’ve never been terribly fond of the term “Christofascism,” as its always seemed clumsy, overwrought, and generally mean to non-fascist Christians (some of whom are friends and family members). Even the mavens at Wikipedia have argued over whether the word is actually a word, or whether it’s fair, or whether it’s useful. The final determination was that “Christofascist” and its ilk are just propaganda terms, which has generally made sense to me.
However…
In an age where Bible-minded revisionists force thinly-veiled creation myths into public classrooms (with the public support of the Scientist-in-Chief and pandering presidential wannabes), where religious bigotry demands encoding discrimination into as many constitutions as possible to prevent gay men and lesbians from getting married, and where dangerously unstable televangelists can openly call for the assassination of a foreign leader…
I’m coming to realize that “Christofascism” is less of an epithet and more of an actual classification.
Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson, Religion, Christofascism
« « George Bush, father of the Islamic Republic of Iraq | No. No, no, no. » »
Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Advocated
Offered
Linked
Commented
- Phil Barron on Again with the collards
- Saoirse on Again with the collards
- brian on The vitriol vote gambit
- Burr Deming on The vitriol vote gambit
- amandaw on Kitty City: Population, eight
Tagged
Afghanistan Ars Domestica Barack Obama Baseball Blogging Bush Administration Business Cats Congress Consumerism Cooking Crime Crime and Punishment Day Job Democrats Economy Fantasy Football Football General News Humor Iraq John McCain Journalism LaVena Johnson Media Meta Missouri Movable Type Movies Personal Politics Race Religion Republicans Sports St. Louis St. Louis Cardinals St. Louis Post-Dispatch Technology Television Waveflux Web White House 2008 WordPress Writing
This man is cracked! I have no patience with Robertson and the Christian right who subvert their own religion to politics. Unfortunately, no one ever puts this man in his place. The republicans will not speak harshly as they don’t want to lose the votes and the mainstream media cowers to the right. What would Jesus say?
Apparently an administration spokesman denounced Robertson’s comments today, but this wasn’t a “name” spokesman. He was someone I’d never heard of before.
No wonder people abroad think we’re nuts.
The international damage control needs to be done by the president. HE needs to denounce the comments, and I don’t see that happening, for domestic political reasons.
Re Dennis’s comments–I’m not sure Robertson is familiar with Jesus, at least not the Jesus I read about in the Bible.
Exactly. The whole point of living a Christian life is to emulate Christ’s behaviour–to strive to be Christ-like in word, thought, and deed–knowing all the while that our human imperfection will cause us to fall short of this goal. The sacrifice that Jesus made–to suffer and die for all of mankind’s sins–is what saves the faithful from this failure, by bridging the gap between earthly limitations and Heavenly redemption. I’m not sure that Jesus would call for anyone’s execution–not even a false prophet like ol’ crazy Pat. :o)
Every religion has radical fanatics on the so-called left and the right sides, with the moderates milling about in that huge gray area somewhere in-between. . Robertson is just Christianity’s wackjob version of a bloodthirsty Islamic cleric–presenting a distorted and warped view of what his faith is supposed to represent.
As for Bush not commenting on Robertson’s call for Chavez’s head–why would he? He’s got to be hoping that Chavez will get snuffed by some third-party covert operation. This would give Dubya the chance to take some kind of indirect credit for his removal, while dodging the actual blame for it.
Dennis:
Jesus would probably say what Chavez reportedly said: “Who is this Pat Robertson?”