Why Does Archbishop Desmond Tutu Hate Our Chirstian Moral Values

December 30, 2004 3:03 PM

Why Does Archbishop Desmond Tutu Hate Our Christian Moral Values?In an interview with MSNBC, the nobel prize winner slams George Bush. "I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view."
posted by expriest (95 comments total)

Go Desmond Tutu! As a sidenote, I once rented a house in Yonkers, New York that had previously been rented by Desmond Tutu's nephew. He skipped out on several month's rent and left a bunch of his stuff there.
posted by friendob1 at 3:10 PM on December 30, 2004

Apartheid is the new favorite political metaphor, replacing the holocaust.
posted by ori at 3:17 PM on December 30, 2004

Frequently, fundamentalists will say this person is the anointed of God if the particular person is supporting their own positions
To those, I'll ask; How do you know what God is actually thinking. Why it’s best keeping your mouth shut by being a humble witness.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:19 PM on December 30, 2004

They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.

What an unfortunate insult to the victims of real aparteid. There is no comparing peaceful, prosperous, and (still) free-as-hell America with violent, repressed and hellish South Africa -- as Rev. Tutu knows better than anybody. Sheesh!
posted by Faze at 3:21 PM on December 30, 2004

I had alwlays thought it was a mistake to let this chump out of jail....What is Winnie up to these days?
posted by Postroad at 3:24 PM on December 30, 2004

I agree with him. I still can't believe Bush was elected.
posted by Keurigirl at 3:30 PM on December 30, 2004

"X" - how is it you read that article and derived the conclusion that he hates our Christian Moral Values is beyond me (please elaborate). Tutu isn't talking fantasy; over and over again we've seen people who criticize this President fired, slandered, ruined.

As I suspect you are about to be handed your head, I will refrain from further comment.
posted by j.p. Hung at 3:32 PM on December 30, 2004

There is no comparing peaceful, prosperous, and (still) free-as-hell America with violent, repressed and hellish South Africa -- as Rev. Tutu knows better than anybody.

As you say, his credibility is FAR above your own.
posted by rushmc at 3:33 PM on December 30, 2004

Postroad: I had alwlays thought it was a mistake to let this chump out of jail....What is Winnie up to these days?

Um... Winnie was married to Nelson Mandella: we're talking about Archbishop Desmond Tutu who, AFAIK, never spent anytime in jail. Can you tell the difference?

I have a lot of respect for Desmond Tutu. He fought for what he believed in and he's survived more crap than most of us white bread, middle class keyboard tappers will ever have to experience in our lifetimes, he's an Anglican Archbishop who is OK with the gay and he's a pretty decent, funny and good natured guy. In certain circles, he probably commands more respect than any world leader I can think of.

I can imagine the neocon harpies in the White House took great delight in getting the knives out for him when he dared to criticise their great tourist trip around the sights of Arabia.
posted by axon at 3:40 PM on December 30, 2004

j.p. Hung-I don't think expriest was serious about Rev. Tutu hating "our values." It was probably phrased that way to be similar to Bush's favorite phrase, "They hate our freedom."
posted by Four-Eyed Girl at 3:41 PM on December 30, 2004

Go Desmond! Could all the USians cut out the "Our Christian Moral Values" crap please?

Christian moral values do no include AFAIK the invasion of other countries for political or monetary gain.

Excuse my minor rant, but there are more than US folks here, and I'm sure there are a fair number (myself included) that are non Christian.

Archbishop Tutu is a man far more deserving of respect that any politician here in the Uk or in the US as far as I can see.
posted by hardcode at 3:45 PM on December 30, 2004

j.p.hung:Good point. A simple "Why do you hate America?" would probably have sufficed to express the appropriate sarcasm :)
posted by kaemaril at 3:46 PM on December 30, 2004

Postroad, please tell me that was a short-sighted and ill-executed attempt at sarcasm.

Please?
posted by joe lisboa at 3:49 PM on December 30, 2004

joe lisboa, Postroad is a troll. Ignore at will.

I wish more religious people would speak out like this. It's terrible the way Bush has been allowed, even encouraged by the press and others, to co-opt God.
posted by nixerman at 3:54 PM on December 30, 2004

I interviewed a woman for a journalism class once. She had spent a great deal of time as a journalist in apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa. She is now the head of a non-profit agency in the Northeast. I asked her if she saw any parallels between the situation in apartheid South Africa and in America today. She looked at my tape recorder, said "I don't want to answer that question," and nodded vigorously.

Just FYI.
posted by fuzzbean at 4:01 PM on December 30, 2004

There is no comparing peaceful, prosperous, and (still) free-as-hell America with violent, repressed and hellish South Africa -- as Rev. Tutu knows better than anybody. Sheesh!

Yeah, we're not there YET, but if/when we get there, articles like that will not be published.
posted by c13 at 4:05 PM on December 30, 2004

>even encouraged by the press and others, to co-opt God.

Looks to me that the religious crowd goes for the conservative angle, afterall religion is conservative by its nature. To claim this is a media myth ignores the cold reality on the ground, the recent election, and how pastors and priests took it upon themselves this year to make sure their flock voted Bush. Of course this falls on demographic lines as many didn't do this, but of course the power of an authority with a connection to this god thing so many people insist exist is psychologially compelling.

I don't see why Xtianity shouldn't lead to social backwardness and justification for atrocities. The morals of the people who wrote the bible and developed the dogma of Xtianity is hardly progressive and the belief of being "saved" thus better than others leads to all sorts of nasty conclusions.
posted by skallas at 4:06 PM on December 30, 2004

I suspect that Archbishop Tutu has a far better perspective and more justifiable position than most of us in comparing certain U.S. government behaviors to those under Apartheid.

If the average jerk on the street were to compare some current event to the Holocaust, I'd probably just chalk it up to hyperbole. On the other hand, if an Auschwitz survivor did the same thing, I think I'd have to sit up and take notice.
posted by bshock at 4:25 PM on December 30, 2004

I don't see why Xtianity shouldn't lead to social backwardness and justification for atrocities. The morals of the people who wrote the bible and developed the dogma of Xtianity is hardly progressive and the belief of being "saved" thus better than others leads to all sorts of nasty conclusions.

The amount of naivete as to Christianity and Christians behind those statements is staggering. Seriously skallas, I enjoy your comments and find them thought provoking most of the time but you realize that you're basing your view of one of the world's largest religions on the idiocy of a minor fringe group of Biblical literalists, right? If you want to bash Christianity on the basis of it not being your thing, that's your choice but please don't act as if it's justified on the basis of Evangelical Christians and their crap.
posted by jperkins at 4:31 PM on December 30, 2004

humm
posted by edgeways at 4:40 PM on December 30, 2004

Tutu = good
Bush/Rove = bad


nuff said
posted by phredhead at 4:49 PM on December 30, 2004

Faze: Far as I can see, he didn't compare America in toto to Apartheid-era South Africa: he said that what he sees as stifling of dissent, and the treatment of prisoners in Gauntamero Bay, were reminiscent of South Africa.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:51 PM on December 30, 2004

Indeed he's talking about current administration behavior , as he later commends Americans expecially those who are concerned by possible misperceptions like American Govt = American People. As for american dream being a bad situation...I see a lot of dreams being battered these days.
posted by elpapacito at 4:55 PM on December 30, 2004

"[But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view "

Faze, I don't want to hold you accountable for everything I think is wrong with our government, but there is a thread to your argument that is all too familiar: if we are criticized, we should call into doubt the credibility of those who speak against us.

There is no, gee, maybe the nobel laureate who has lived in our country and speaks our language has a point? No, let's just accuse him of something. It's an unhealthy reaction.

I don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to Tutu. I may not agree with everything he says, but the guy was largely responsible for maintaining some semblance of peace, in what could have been another Zimbabwe. I'd think (and read carefully- before I criticized him.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:29 PM on December 30, 2004

Postroad, please tell me that was a short-sighted and ill-executed attempt at sarcasm.

Not really. When Postroad said:

I had alwlays thought it was a mistake to let this chump out of jail.

Postroad was speaking of himself in the 3rd person. When you modify like this:

I had alwlays thought it was a mistake to let Postroad chump out of jail.

It makes more sense, yet still in the 3rd person.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:34 PM on December 30, 2004

It's terrible the way Bush has been allowed, even encouraged by the press and others, to co-opt God.

Everyone who claims God co-opts God.
posted by rushmc at 5:40 PM on December 30, 2004

After reading the article I found no reason to think he hates your moral Christian values. Personally, I hate your moral Christian values because there's no fun in feeling shame after a night at the Manhole Bar.
posted by disgruntled at 5:44 PM on December 30, 2004

regardless of whether or not apartheid is becoming the new political scare tactic (which i don't get at all -- but maybe i'm reading the wrong flamewars), if desmond tutu wants to make any sort of argument or comparison about apartheid that makes even a shred of sense, i think he's damn well earned it.
posted by spiderwire at 5:49 PM on December 30, 2004

Gee, Faze. I guess you know a lot more about apartheid than Desmond Tutu. I guess you know a lot more about Desmond Tutu's personal experiences than Desmond Tutu does.

How dare anyone offer their own comparison of two political situations they have experienced personally as an internationally recognized political leader when some guy on the internets knows so much better?

Thank Heaven for you, Faze. The rest of us might be tempted to actually listen to Desmond Tutu and think that his opinion might have some validity.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:05 PM on December 30, 2004

I still can't believe Bush was elected.

Then get therapy (seriously, people are doing it). Or, do a little travelling. Or visit many websites instead of ones that only agree with your positions.

Then when something happens you don't like at least you'll be able to accept it. Not understanding that he could be elected is one main reason he won. Underestimation is dangerous. So is living in a cacoon.
posted by justgary at 6:39 PM on December 30, 2004

If you want to bash Christianity on the basis of it not being your thing, that's your choice but please don't act as if it's justified on the basis of Evangelical Christians and their crap.

The evangelicals are in charge of your religion, so it is a justified point of view. When all of your faith start practicing what you preach, maybe folks won't be so fed up with your religion.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:41 PM on December 30, 2004

Not believing and 'not understanding' are different. It is easy to understand what happened. It is also easy to understand why those outside of the echo chamber's of the right (which includes close to 50% of this country and most of the rest of the world) would have trouble believing it happened.

Therapy isn't needed. A big can of whup-ass is. We have committed atrocities to people held captive in Iraq and Cuba and have kept an American Citizen locked up in a Navy brig without any legal representation. This hasn't made us look like a bastion of freedom.

The Archbishop knows what shit smells like and he is warning the U.S. they got some on their shoe. If we don't clean it up, soon it will be up to our necks.
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:56 PM on December 30, 2004

The evangelicals are SO not "in charge" of Christianity, AlexReynolds. That's what they'd like you to think.

Desmond Tutu does not answer to Jerry Falwell or anyone of his ilk.

Maybe when people start not lumping enormous groups of people together based on nothing but their prejudice, the world will be a better place.

You seem to be very quick to accuse others of prejudice, AlexReynolds. You shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it--or, as the founder of my religion once said,

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:57 PM on December 30, 2004

Interesting that you quote Matthew:

10 And the disciples came, and said unto [Jesus], Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Don't pretend your founder is big on inclusion.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:10 PM on December 30, 2004

The evangelicals are in charge of your religion,

They're not in charge. They're just the only ones getting themselves on TV.

Nobody - especially the hyperleft - wants to hear about the christian liberals who almost agree completely with the majority of the left, but also believe in the big JC, who was just as liberal as your average slightly-leftie.
posted by cheaily at 7:10 PM on December 30, 2004

On liberal views, Christianity, and Archbishop Tutu... Here's something he said at a National Press Club event in October 1999 (sorry, can't find it on internet, but see here for similar remarks):

And I have to say, as a Christian, I found it exhilarating, in many ways, to be involved in the struggle, because the Scriptures came alive in an incredible kind of way. The God who enters a fiery furnace -- our God is not a God who -- (laughs) -- who gives advice from a safe distance, and says "You guys, when you enter a fiery furnace, you ought to wear protective clothing."

No, no, no. Our God enters the fiery furnace. And you could tell people suffering under the most brutal system, "Yes, yes, our God is here. Here. Here. He's not deaf, He's not deaf. He's not blind, He's not blind. He's not stupid. Our God is one who will come down, as God came down for the children of Israel. And He will come down and lift us out, all of us." It was great fun, in a way, because you were praying for us. You were praying for us.

And it was fun to be able to say to our people, "They've got guns, they've got all of these things, and they think, and they think, and they think they are running the show." You say to them, "No, no, no, no, no. This is God's world. God is in touch."

Of course, you sometimes wished to say to God "God, how about making it slightly more obvious that you're in charge?" (Laughter.)
posted by ibmcginty at 7:36 PM on December 30, 2004

Nobody - especially the hyperleft - wants to hear about the christian liberals who almost agree completely with the majority of the left, but also believe in the big JC, who was just as liberal as your average slightly-leftie.

Is this true? The majority of folks that I know that are of the educated/liberal stripe are religious (though definitely not the "you're going to hell for disagreeing with anything that I do or say" type). Those acquaintainces that are liberal and not religious have a live-and-let-live attitude with regards to religion. What gives - is religious (specifically Christian) intolerance a lefty mefi thing or what?

FWIW, I consider myself in the latter category of liberal agnostic, but there's a vitriolic in some of the posts here toward Christianity at large that just blows my mind at times.
And apologies for continuing the derail. Someone please feel free to yell "meta" and take it there at the point that this is too far off topic.
posted by jperkins at 7:41 PM on December 30, 2004

Tutu = Complete Idiot
Bush/Rove = Better Than Tutu no matter how you slice it.

'Nuff said.
posted by davidmsc at 7:42 PM on December 30, 2004

justgary I can't believe that you've never been exposed to the phrase "I still can't believe xxx". However perhaps you haven't. It's not literal. It just means the individual in question isn't pleased with the decision, perhaps because they do understand the reasons Mr. Bush was elected.

And Faze. Where does Tutu imply that he's comparing apartheid and it's victims to the state of America? He's comparing a particular behaviour or characteristic. You're the one making the comparison. It's like comparing the height of individual to another and then concluding that you're also comparing their hairstyles, their politics, etc. Futhermore, why would Tutu, the chair of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission now turn to insulting those he helped in the past with this effective commission? Just to jibe Bush like Chilean schoolchildren?

We can never forget Faze's absurdist masterpieces in which he uses the term vulgar masses. Dismissive indeed. Not surprised to see it here again, although without the genius this time.
posted by juiceCake at 7:56 PM on December 30, 2004

I've actually always thought that was a joke, AlexReynolds. Jesus had a really dry sense of humor (I am not kidding when I say either of those things).

The parables are much more edifying than the actual blather about the kingdom of Heaven, anyway.

The incredible irony of people posting "All Christianity is evil and repressive!" blather on a thread about Desmond Tutu, a man who was inspired by his Christian beliefs and supported by the Anglican Communion in the important work he did to liberate his fellow South Africans is deserving of notice.

But, AlexReynolds, in honor of your insightful, thoughtful comments to those who disagree with you, let me just say, "Fuck you, you fucking Christianphobe!"
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:39 PM on December 30, 2004

The amount of naivete as to Christianity and Christians behind those statements is staggering. Seriously skallas, I enjoy your comments and find them thought provoking most of the time but you realize that you're basing your view of one of the world's largest religions on the idiocy of a minor fringe group of Biblical literalists, right? If you want to bash Christianity on the basis of it not being your thing, that's your choice but please don't act as if it's justified on the basis of Evangelical Christians and their crap.

The problem is that those Biblical literalists, and others, have become the very face of Christianity in the US. So many of these people claim to be Christian, but if being a Christian is defined as following the teachings of Jesus, then it's obvious that these people are anything but. What's absolutely amazing to me is that people who should know better accept their definition of what they are, without question. I mean, if I say that I'm a Druid, yet faithfully attend a daily Roman Catholic mass, no one's going to believe me. Yet we have a president who claims to be a Christian, then bombs the hell out of innocent people for his own perverse purposes.
posted by xhepera at 8:41 PM on December 30, 2004

The reason crazy Evangelical Christians have become "the face of Christianity in the US" is partly because the US media loves the melodramatic/crazy story because it's a real ratings-grabber.

"Nice people go to church, hear message of tolerance" isn't going to sell newspapers or get people to change the channel on their TV.

As a churchgoing Episcopalian, I resent that. And I resent it on behalf of the Methodists, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Lutherans, and other mainstream sects which, though hardly perfect, inspire many people to responsible citizenship and gives them an infrastructure through which they provide meaningful acts of charity toward others.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:46 PM on December 30, 2004

What an unfortunate insult to the victims of real aparteid. There is no comparing peaceful, prosperous, and (still) free-as-hell America with violent, repressed and hellish South Africa -- as Rev. Tutu knows better than anybody. Sheesh!

Where did he say they were exactly the same? And what does America being prosperous have to do with this? Maybe that last one says more about you than anything.
posted by The God Complex at 8:50 PM on December 30, 2004

But, AlexReynolds, in honor of your insightful, thoughtful comments to those who disagree with you, let me just say, "Fuck you, you fucking Christianphobe!"

Sidhedevil, I could care less if Christians believe in jeebus or Sandy Claus. What I care about are its followers picking and choosing what to base their morals and actions upon, which you've just demonstrated amply.

Call it a "dry sense of humor" or call it cherry picking, but my advice is that you don't throw Bible quotes my way, because I can throw many back at you that say the opposite thing that you intend.

I have a great deal of respect for people who practice what they preach. Desmond Tutu is one such example. The majority of Christians do not. Apparently pointing this out is hatred; so be it. *shrug*
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:59 PM on December 30, 2004

'Nuff said.

Persuasive argument, davidmsc.

How are those killfiles coming along, mathowie?
posted by rushmc at 9:15 PM on December 30, 2004

"If you want to bash Christianity on the basis of it not being your thing, that's your choice but please don't act as if it's justified on the basis of Evangelical Christians and their crap".
posted by jperkins at 6:31 PM CST on December 30

I'm late to this thread, but jperkins (respectfully/rhetorically):

If you want to support Christianity on the basis of it being your thing, that's your choice, but please tell me why it seems no one in the Christian religion as a whole is speaking out against Evangelical Christians and their crap.

One thing's for sure: The Beatitudist in whose name they pray doesn't seem to impress those particular sheep half as much as their own simple dogmatic OT/NT oxymoronism does. I know Xtianity a big club, but shouldn't respected elders and ministers inside the fold give them some guidance? Get rid of the fear, the hate, and the vitrol?

Seems someone needs to either 1) work to enlighten these sophomoric literalists, or 2) stop identifying with them.

[Imagines Jesus Hating] Okay there was that time with the traders in the Temple...I'd hate to see what size whip He's got in store for televangelical, faith-healing prayer-cloth salesmen and hate-mongers.
posted by HyperBlue at 10:22 PM on December 30, 2004

I don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to Tutu.

You should have seen Bishop Tutu a couple of months back on The Daily Show, then, because he sure has a humongous sense of humor about himself and more humble than GWB is self-confident.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:27 PM on December 30, 2004

"No one in the Christian religion as a whole is speaking out against Evangelical Christians and their crap?"

Bullshit.

First of all, not all Evangelical Christians in the US are trying to push political crap.

Second of all, Christians are, indeed, speaking out against those who are damaging the the public good in the name of (a twisted understanding of) their faith.

I refer you, for example, to the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:29 PM on December 30, 2004

Metafilter: Our Christian Values.

I like cheap unfunny things.
posted by NoamChomskyStoleMyFace at 10:29 PM on December 30, 2004

NoamChomskyStoleMyFace: I'm so tired of this postmodern irony. If you don't think it's funny just remain silent. For as Witttgenstein said " Whereof one cannot speak one must remain silent." How does it feel to be zinged by your own postmodern savior. Why don't you go read more Derrida.
posted by Endymion at 10:35 PM on December 30, 2004

Agreed Sidhedevil. I know they're out there, and I get the pitch from Walter Cronkite every now and then too. I just kinda went out on a rail there... ; )
posted by HyperBlue at 10:36 PM on December 30, 2004

Tutu was fantastic on The Daily Show. I have seen him speak a number of times, and he has a completely charming and very candid humor.

Some more Christian groups working to counter ignorance and ensure separation of church and state:

The National Council of Churches; the Interfaith Alliance; Sojourners; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Some outstanding Christian activists in this vein: the Reverend James Watkins (check out this essay in particular); the Reverend Chloe Breyer; Father Matthew Fox; and my boyfriend the Reverend William Sloane Coffin</a..
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:49 PM on December 30, 2004

Whoopsie, I meant The National Council of Churches.

There are millions and millions of Americans who belong to mainstream Christian churches that encourage, inspire, and support their members to work for social justice and authentic progress.

I don't know why the US media focuses exclusively on theocrats and fascists when depicting Christianity. To be honest, I think it's a dangerous trend that gives the theocrats and fascists more power.

I also think it's a dangerous trend when progressives alienate the progressive Christian denominations and social-justice groups which have played a significant part in every positive change in US society to date, from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to the Civil Rights Movement.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:55 PM on December 30, 2004

Bruce Bawer's, "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity," is an interesting read (reviews here and here) if you're interested in the some of the Christian related threads that have popped up here.
posted by jperkins at 11:05 PM on December 30, 2004

rushmc, my "persuasive" post was modeled on this earlier post.
posted by davidmsc at 11:09 PM on December 30, 2004

I'd hate to see what size whip He's got in store for televangelical, faith-healing prayer-cloth salesmen and hate-mongers.

Really? You'd hate to see it? Because I'd love to. That'd make me a believer in seconds flat.

Right now all I see are people fucking with each other.
posted by lumpenprole at 11:18 PM on December 30, 2004

joe lisboa, Postroad is a troll. Ignore at will.

rushmc, my "persuasive" post was modeled on this earlier post.

Postroad = Not troll
Bush/Rove = A big troll no matter how you slice it.

'Nuff said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:03 AM on December 31, 2004

Oh fer fucksakes. I meant :

davidmsc = A big troll no matter how you slice it.

Egg's sure on my face now, huh?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:03 AM on December 31, 2004

jesus was one wry mother fucker.

Apparently.

Am I the only one who finds it strange when people make such claims about "how jesus was"?
posted by The God Complex at 1:13 AM on December 31, 2004

Egg's sure on my face now, huh?

There's nothing worse than messing up a snark like that. Personally, I would have just left it because when I was read it I was like "Bush/Rove as a troll? That's an interesting idea, even if I have no idea what it means" and then I had this vision of you dressed like a monk, writing with a bamboo pen.

It could have been worse.
posted by The God Complex at 1:14 AM on December 31, 2004

(was "reading"--errrr)
posted by The God Complex at 1:15 AM on December 31, 2004

It could have been worse.

I could have been a dog in outer space.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:57 AM on December 31, 2004

Second of all, Christians are, indeed, speaking out against those who are damaging the the public good in the name of (a twisted understanding of) their faith.

Well, they're speaking into their armpits, then, cuz their "message" shore ain't getting out to the general public. Blame the media if you like...or work harder to speak up.

Anyway, this strict dichotomy you would like to create between "fundamentalist Christian wackos" and "good Christian pie-bakers" is a false one. Many of Christianity's problems are built into the system at the foundation.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 AM on December 31, 2004

Back in the Reagan years, Tutu told an interviewer:
"I think the west, for my part, can go to hell."

Think about that for a minute. A pillar of a church that professes compassion and brotherly love in one sentence would toss a huge block of humanity into eternal damnation.

Not the best way to build bridges, maybe.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:09 AM on December 31, 2004

jesus was one wry mother fucker.

Apparently.

Yeah! That whole "blessed are the cheesemakers" thing had me rolling.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:21 AM on December 31, 2004

Well, to some degree I think there is a perception bias here. Why did Kerry's disagreement with the Catholic church in regards to legal abortion make bigger news than Bush's disagreement with his own congregation, The United Methodist Church, in regards to the war on Iraq? Why was Kerry's heretical views on legal abortion more critical than Bush's heretical views on just war?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:40 AM on December 31, 2004

I think Sidhedevil has a very valid point. Equating all Christians with the right actually empowers the crazies. They are trying to convince they are part and parcel of everything good and light.

Recognizing the value of people like Tutu and William Sloane Coffin (and Mennonite Central committee, some branches of the United Church of Christ and the Society of Friends and our own Sidhedevil) does a lot more to expose the nasty underbelly of Christianity, than dismissing Christianity altogether. Tutu towers over most of the RR, intellectually, morally and as a charismatic figure.

If I may make a personal plug, the Mennonite Central Committee is a very well-organized and effective disaster relief agency.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:56 AM on December 31, 2004

RE: The involvement of Christianity as well as non-theists in American political issues, I recommend Susan Jacobs' book "Freethinkers". It enlightened me on a number of the points above (e.g., slavery and women's suffrage.)
posted by ltracey at 9:16 AM on December 31, 2004

Tutu is a dick, pure and simple.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on December 31, 2004

skallas: To claim this is a media myth ignores the cold reality on the ground, the recent election, and how pastors and priests took it upon themselves this year to make sure their flock voted Bush.

The cold reality on the ground, at least the ground you walk on when you stand up away from your keyboard and actually do something, is that you can't swing a stick around a group organized for action on civil rights, poverty, and non-violent foreign policy, without hitting a person of faith. This is one of the things that really bothers me about my fellow freethinkers, we are so "freethinking" that we appear to be incapable of any kind of organized political action, even on the scale of organizing a bake sale.

I'm rather fond of Gaiman and Prachett's observation that people generally tend to be good in spite of their religion. I can't help but find the theology of Christianity to be rather sadistic as far as worldviews go. But on the other hand, there is something there in that there is huge support within some Christian communities for engaging in civil disobedience for social justice causes.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:33 AM on December 31, 2004

All I would like on MeFi would be for Christianity to be treated with as much respect, and no more, as other religions.

When we talk about the achievements of the Dalai Lama, for example, we're not treated to a snarkfest about how "Tibetan Buddhism presents homosexuals as monsters" (which it does) and how it "discourages meaningful work for social change by a 'pie in the sky when you die' attitude" (which many people have argued quite compellingly).

When anyone suggests here that "Islam is an inherently bloodthirsty religion" based on fire-breathing fatwas by extremist clerics, they're (rightly, in my opinion) slapped down--by many of the people who see nothing inconsistent about judging a billion Christians by the actions of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and their hateful ilk.

Religion can be a force for good and a force for evil. The good parts of religion--bringing together strangers on a regular basis to talk about moral and ethical choices and sing songs, creating international structures for charity work and social justice campaigns--shouldn't be ignored because there are also bad parts--stigmatizing and judging others, killing and maiming other humans because one believes one has a supernatural mandate to do so, preaching quietism instead of encouraging people to stand up for their rights.

The above is true of all religions, Christianity included. But it is not only true of Christianity.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:00 AM on December 31, 2004

Tutu is a dick, pure and simple.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM PST on December 31

I believe my brain has just exploded.

I guess when you're a nail yourself, everything looks like a nail.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:02 AM on December 31, 2004

Ah, there you are Paris, right on time as usual.
posted by niceness at 11:43 AM on December 31, 2004

Hey, if the stifling of dissent in South Africa during the apartheid era was no worse than the churlishness of American rightwing dingbats, and the treatment of South African prisoners of apartheid was no worse than the admittedly ugly-but-not-deadly treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, then we were altogether wrong to have spent so much energy and moral capital in boycotting and opposing South African over the last half of the 20th century -- because apartheid was only a mildly stifling and oppressive system. However, we know that it was no such thing, that it was morally hideous, and that it represented the severest form of racism and repression. Tutu is doing what a lot of public figures do when they get overconfident and too full of themselves -- he is squandering his good name and believeability in the attempt to crush a minor annoyance like Bush. It is a case of pride and swelling ego -- no more exalted than a Chevy Chase, Whoopi Goldberg or Linda Ronstadt temper tantrum against the boring white Republicans in their suits. With Africa ablaze with genocide, chaos and kleptocracy, with China and Russia oppressing their people with mafia capitalism, and Putin prosecuting a grotesquely murderous war in Chechnya, the only target at which Desmond Tutu can think of to level his huge moral authority is stinkin' George Bush, because George Bush has a little smirk that everybody hates? Four years from now, Bush will be history, Hillary will be in the White House, and the hate will come spewing forth from the other direction. As a man of God, Tutu should have more perspective.
posted by Faze at 11:47 AM on December 31, 2004

Faze, who says Bush is Tutu's "only target" but you? Maybe if you lived in the real world instead of your little bubble of looniness, you would know that Tutu speaks out frequently on human rights abuses in Africa, Burma, West Papua, Sudan, and every world hotspot as far as I can tell.

Is it warm in your bubble? Because it certainly isn't bright.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:16 PM on December 31, 2004

Tutu is a dick, pure and simple.

Your argument has failed to persuade me.
posted by rushmc at 2:30 PM on December 31, 2004

When we talk about the achievements of the Dalai Lama, for example, we're not treated to a snarkfest about

Noting the negative side of a group does not constitute a "snarkfest," unless you choose to personally feel persecuted by it. In fact, a balanced examination requires that both positive and negative elements be looked at. This must be equally true of groups to which you belong as of those to which you do not.

bringing together strangers on a regular basis to talk about moral and ethical choices and sing songs

Heh, you crack me up.
posted by rushmc at 2:34 PM on December 31, 2004

When anyone suggests here that "Islam is an inherently bloodthirsty religion" based on fire-breathing fatwas by extremist clerics, they're (rightly, in my opinion) slapped down--by many of the people who see nothing inconsistent about judging a billion Christians by the actions of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and their hateful ilk.

Your memory is lacking.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:14 PM on December 31, 2004

rushmc, I'm happy to look at negative elements of Christianity. For God's sake, I'm all over the theocrats and fascists myself here. But people typing "Christianity sucks and all Christians are idiots!" doesn't strike me as a useful way to assess a religion espoused by a billion people.

AlexReynolds, I see the assholes bashing Islam on that thread being slapped down. I was also here in 2001 slapping down a lot of assholes who were bashing Islam. I've invested a lot of time in that--not just here, which is a fraction of an iota of my life, but in the real world.

I notice you taking the opportunity to bash Christianity on that thread, by the way. That's kind of impressive--coming in to a thread about Islam with a drive-by complaint about Christianity. Do you ever take your blinders off for a second? How nice it must be to be all fired up by the knowledge that you're smarter and better than everyone else.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:32 PM on December 31, 2004

I notice you taking the opportunity to bash Christianity on that thread, by the way. That's kind of impressive--coming in to a thread about Islam with a drive-by complaint about Christianity.

Hardly "drive-by"!

I took a ton of abuse in a third thread from Seth and others for the mere suggestion that Christians get some perspective about suffering.

I pointed out how -- to name just one example -- Muslims were taking a lot of flak from Christians for being Muslim, not only overseas (cf. "We are fighting a war on Satan" etc.) but here at home: namely, the thread I refer to above is about how a near-majority of Americans would have little problem with curtailing freedoms for Islamic citizens.

So piss off, Sidhedevil, and take your own blinders off while you're at it.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:58 PM on December 31, 2004

Many of Christianity's problems are built into the system at the foundation.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 AM PST on December 31

Unfortunate but true. On occasion we actually see Christians who practice the teachings of Jesus and willfully ignore the dogma of the "church." But then, we see non-Christians do that too so there's no cause for celebration on that particular point I suppose.

Built in to the church problems:

1) equality of women
2) subservience to authority
3) inquisitions (spanish ones too! :))
4) rejection of other belief systems
posted by nofundy at 4:02 PM on December 31, 2004

nofundy, isn't what you say true of all religions, not just Christianity? So why single Christianity out as The World's Evilest Religion?
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:03 PM on December 31, 2004

Of course I mean "most" religions, not all. Certainly all of those qualities are common to Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam as well as Christianity. Many Buddhist traditions also include 1 and 2, and though not so much 3) there is certainly a healthy tradition of internecine Buddhist religious war.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:06 PM on December 31, 2004

So why single Christianity out as The World's Evilest Religion?

I don't see anyone doing that. I see people occasionally noting and commenting on some of the problems with Christianity to counter other people's overt proselytizing or unthinking acceptance of false characterizations of the religion. And, to be fair, it is the religion that most affects most of us on a day-to-day basis, so it's only reasonable that we should be most concerned with it. But some of us are only too happy to question the contentions of any and all religions that crop up here and are not offering Christianity any special attention; rather, you seem to be asking for a special exemption.

In fact, I do think that there is a case to be made that the underlying precepts of Christianity are even more appalling than those of many other religions, but that's not relevant to the discussion here and this isn't the place to make it.
posted by rushmc at 9:14 PM on December 31, 2004

rushmc, I promise that I am not asking for a "special exemption". Your suggestion that I am flies in the face of my many posts here about abuses of Christianity, and my many defenses of other religions, in particular Islam, against those who would judge the whole by the actions or statements of an extremist few.

You, it's true, are consistently skeptical of all religions. This is not true of everyone, however. I'm not going to name all the people here who see no inconsistency in saying both "All Christians are evil theofascists" and "Anybody who judges all Muslims by the actions of al-Qaeda or the fatwas of Khomeini is a prejudiced idiot".

I would suggest that it's wrong to judge any religion as a whole, and condemn all of its adherents, on the basis of the actions or statements of extremists.

And rushmc, I would love to hear an argument about how "the underlying precepts" of Christianity are "even more appalling" than those of Judaism or Islam sometime, because I think it would be hilarious.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:27 PM on January 1, 2005

rushmc: In fact, a balanced examination requires that both positive and negative elements be looked at. This must be equally true of groups to which you belong as of those to which you do not.

What I'm seeing though is not much of a balanced examination. Religion in many ways has become something of a political Rorsarch test in that ambiguities in the same scripture can be interpreted as supporting just about any position on the political spectrum.

I find it interesting that here we have a person of faith, an Archbishop within an international fellowship with substantial support in the United States, a person who became a household name in the 80s, who won the Nobel Fucking Peace Prize and has been outspoken for most of the last 30 years on civil rights issues. I'm having a hard time seeing how Newsweek is speaking into one's own armpit.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:55 PM on January 1, 2005

Not sure if you're talking about me, KirkJobSluder, but although I obviously don't agree with his religion, after seeing the man on The Daily Show recently, I was quite impressed by his humanity. He's clearly no Pat Robertson. Or Jesse Jackson.
posted by rushmc at 6:33 PM on January 1, 2005

rushmc: Not sure if you're talking about me, KirkJobSluder, but although I obviously don't agree with his religion, after seeing the man on The Daily Show recently, I was quite impressed by his humanity. He's clearly no Pat Robertson. Or Jesse Jackson.

Well, yes, I am talking about you, as part of what I see as a segment that, on the one hand, talks about "balance" while on the other hand, making some extremely unbalanced and incorrect claims about the relationship between Christian practice and political practice in the United States, with claims like, "Well, they're speaking into their armpits, then, cuz their "message" shore ain't getting out to the general public."

There are a large number of left-wing politicians and speakers who have been more than up-front about the relationship they see between their politics and their faith. You mentioned Jesse Jackson, who may have some serious problems, but certainly is not a member of the religious right. But on a brief list: Al Sharpton, Barak Obama, and Jimmy Carter. I think the general public is quite aware that Christians are on both sides of most political fences.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:58 AM on January 2, 2005

It's a question of representation. Barak Obama is a Senator, too, but I doubt most people would make the argument that black people are significantly represented or a meaningful force in the Senate.

Someone like Clinton, who drops into church now and again because he feels he needs to for campaign reasons, does not suddenly become "religious" in the way that a Falwell or Robertson or Hatch are and therefore cannot be considered to represent "moderate Christianity."
posted by rushmc at 9:18 AM on January 2, 2005

rushmc: Someone like Clinton, who drops into church now and again because he feels he needs to for campaign reasons, does not suddenly become "religious" in the way that a Falwell or Robertson or Hatch are and therefore cannot be considered to represent "moderate Christianity."

Why am I sensing that you are performing a "no true scotsman" fallacy here? Obviously, people of faith who don't match your stereotype of Falwell, Robertson or Hatch are not really "religious." Why are Falwell, Robertson and Hatch representative and Carter, Obama, Jackson and Tutu are not in your "balanced" discussion.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:00 AM on January 2, 2005

I'm not saying they aren't "religious," but rather that they do not represent a religious faction and agenda in the same way that the fundamentalists do.
posted by rushmc at 10:36 AM on January 2, 2005

rushmc: I'm not saying they aren't "religious," but rather that they do not represent a religious faction and agenda in the same way that the fundamentalists do.

I dunno, I would think that the 30-odd percent of religious voters who ranked the Iraq war and poverty as more important issues than gay marriage to be a pretty critical "religious faction."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:00 PM on January 2, 2005

But not in the same way, precisely because they vote on various issues and don't allow a couple of religious push-button items to be make-or-break issues, regardless of all others. Many voters are informed by their religious beliefs, but some (fundamentalists) are slaves to them, leaving no space between their religion and secular society. Clearly this is a significant distinction!
posted by rushmc at 4:05 PM on January 2, 2005

rushmc: But not in the same way, precisely because they vote on various issues and don't allow a couple of religious push-button items to be make-or-break issues, regardless of all others. Many voters are informed by their religious beliefs, but some (fundamentalists) are slaves to them, leaving no space between their religion and secular society. Clearly this is a significant distinction!

In my conversations with left-wing Christians, I don't get this. For them, gay rights, foreign policy, and poverty are just as much "push-button" items as those claimed by fundamentalists.

But again, this is just another round of the true scottsman fallacy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:21 PM on January 2, 2005

Fine. Everyone you know is fundamentally different from everyone I know. We'll just leave it at that.
posted by rushmc at 11:54 PM on January 2, 2005