Weekly Rant: Frank Schaeffer and New Atheist Fundamentalists

As far as the religious go, you could say that Frank Schaeffer is one of the good guys. He is the son of one of the first televangelists, Francis Schaeffer, and in his book, Crazy for God, he did a great job explaining how he helped found the Religious Right, and why he now regretted it.

As being somewhat conservative, I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said after President Obama’s inauguration, “How can anyone who loves our country support the Republicans now?” He went on to say that Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan created modern conservatism, and that they all would be critical of today’s religiously controlled Republican party.

In his new book, Patience with God, Schaeffer declares the “New Atheists” are just as wrong as Christian fundamentalists. When asked to explain this view in an interview for OldSpeak, he said:

I would go even further and say that the New Atheists are fundamentalists. They have just changed a few words and instead of trying to get everybody to believe in a certain theological idea, they are trying to enforce a kind of philosophical morality on the rest of the country. They actually argue that you are stupid if you believe in God. There is a lot of mockery involved. It is found in the tone of Bill Maher’s documentary film, Religulous. It is also shown in the tone of his TV show. What you are watching is the flip side of Pat Robertson or James Dobson. It is the same kind of intolerance towards diversity and people who disagree with you as you see from the Right. In my book Patience with God, I make the argument that these two movements—religious fundamentalism and the New Atheism—are parallel movements. They come from the same lack of understanding of spirituality which involves celebrating paradox. It lacks mystery. We simply don’t have to answer every question.

Then Schaeffer takes it one step further by saying:

Basically, atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and others like them are building a movement of atheistic dogma that is every bit as intolerant as that from the right. In Patience with God, I argue that these are really part of the same movement. It is a movement of intolerance that sees the whole country as being in a civil war where your side has to win in order for it to be a better place. And I don’t feel that hopeful. I also don’t feel it’s true because I don’t think that that is how things work.

Frank, Frank, Frank, I could not just disagree with you more. I acknowledge that the new atheists are more outspoken, but unfortunately we are forced to be. The only rule we have changed is the assumption of automatic respect. In America, we have the wonderful right to believe whatever we so choose. However, this freedom has been misinterpreted as a right of respect. If one of my neighbors told me that they saw Bigfoot in their backyard, or that Barack Obama does not have an American birth certificate, I would have no qualms with telling them my opinion. I would also have no problem telling them what type of evidence would have to provided for me to believe these statements. Why is this any different with religious views? Why is it when discussing issues like stem cell research and homosexual equality, reason is trumped and discussion halted when someone throws up the flag of faith?

Frank, I must ask, what the hell is wrong with philosophical morality? Isn’t this the best kind? Shouldn’t all societies filter their morality through philosophical reason? We new atheists are not trying to force our morality on anyone. We simply feel that when someones religious opinions are brought into the public arena, that it should be judged by reason and stand up to the scientific method. If someone doesn’t want this, they should keep their faith beliefs at home.

Of all the people I know, no one enjoys celebrating mystery and nature’s paradoxes like the skeptic and the scientist. It is the scientist who reveals to the world the unfathomable mysteries of our awe-inspiring universe. It is the “New Atheists” who are the first to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers. In fact, we know that the more we learn, the more we find new questions. In contrast, it is the religious fundamentalist who claim to have the answers. They say they know how the universe began and how it will end. It is they who know the mind of God, and how he wishes us to live and believe.

Frank, I’ll give you the one about mockery. Perhaps some of us over do it quite a bit. However, sometimes mockery is the most efficient way to invoke change. I personally believe this is true with creationists. The facts and evidence for evolution have been overwhelmingly presented to the world, and those who teach Intelligent Design chose to ignore the truth. All they deserve, is mockery, and I feel it is the best way to change people’s minds.

Come on Frank, surely someone with your background understands what the word dogma actually means? Dogma is a religious belief or doctrine, that must be obeyed without question. It is ridiculous to insinuate that new atheist leaders teach dogma. A perfect example is Bill Maher. He has been relentlessly ridiculed by new atheists because of his anti-vaccination beliefs. Not to long ago, Sam Harris incurred the wrath of many for suggesting we stop using the word “atheist.” Christopher Hitchens pissed off many nonbelievers for his support of the Iraq war. Rest assured, if Dawkins proclaimed that he knew with 100% accuracy which extraterrestrials planted life on Earth (panspermia), he would be forced to very quickly provide evidence. If he could not, we would disown him quicker than Ted Haggard’s church got rid of him.

Frank, while we’re on this subject, I think it’s important to point out that very few atheists claim to know there is no god(s). We simply don’t believe there is evidence to support such beliefs. We acknowledge the fact that no one can know with 100% accuracy what exists outside of space time. It is the religious fundamentalists who claim to know there is a god(s). It is they who believe faith is a virtue. It is they who know the mind of God. Not only that, they know how he (or she) wants us to live our lives.

You’re smarter than this , Frank. I understand you may be trying to live in both worlds, and don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, to use another tired saying you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Brother Richard

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • http://www.natephelps.com Nate Phelps

    How do you know Adam?

  • http://www.natephelps.com Nate Phelps

    How do you know Adam?

  • Dennis N

    Ya know, I saw this too and I was really disappointed. I'm glad you did a post on this. I've seen him on Rachel Maddow many times and I've always been impressed, so reading him here was a stab in the back. We're basically on the same side here. We're both fighting against religion interfering with government. He doesn't seem to understand that we're not trying to interfere and inject atheism.

  • Dennis N

    Ya know, I saw this too and I was really disappointed. I'm glad you did a post on this. I've seen him on Rachel Maddow many times and I've always been impressed, so reading him here was a stab in the back. We're basically on the same side here. We're both fighting against religion interfering with government. He doesn't seem to understand that we're not trying to interfere and inject atheism.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mighein mighein

    "Frank, while we’re on this subject, I think it’s important to point out that very few atheists claim to know there is no god(s)."

    Brother Haynes (mixing it up a little):

    You know, most theists don't realize your point quoted above because of the rather high and mighty tone a lot of activist atheists take. I think a lot of the gang have forgotten that they merely don't have evidence for a creator and thus have no believe and instead have moved on to the more in-your-face position that there is definitely no such thing.

    The more I read over at A/N, the more I see a problem developing among modern atheists. While I don't agree with what Mr. Schaeffer says about dogma and fundamentalism, I can CERTAINLY see where theists are seeing us as militant and unreasonable. Our attitude may be doing more harm than good by causing the more moderate theists to become entrenched.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BrotherRichard BrotherRichard

    I agree. The thing we must remember is that many on Nexus are trying to blow off steam. They live in very religious communities and have no other outlet. The in-your-face positions are mostly about extreme views held by their religious. They are not about confronting a simple belief in god. This is important distinction.

    Concerning the moderate Christians, I would defer to Sam Harris and his writings as to how they are about as dangerous, because they do not take a stand against their extremist brothers and sisters.

    Also, I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with calling them militant. No “New Atheists” are flying planes into buildings, and holding a Flying Spaghetti Monster Inquisition.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BrotherRichard BrotherRichard

    I agree. The thing we must remember is that many on Nexus are trying to blow off steam. They live in very religious communities and have no other outlet. The in-your-face positions are mostly about extreme views held by their religious. They are not about confronting a simple belief in god. This is important distinction.

    Concerning the moderate Christians, I would defer to Sam Harris and his writings as to how they are about as dangerous, because they do not take a stand against their extremist brothers and sisters.

    Also, I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with calling them militant. No “New Atheists” are flying planes into buildings, and holding a Flying Spaghetti Monster Inquisition.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mighein mighein

    Thanks for taking time to comment back. Couple of points: The 'militant' thing is more of the general definition:

    mil⋅i⋅tant  /ˈmɪlɪtənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mil-i-tuhnt] Show IPA
    –adjective 1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause:

    Besides that, I agree ENTIRELY with you and Harris on moderate religious people. Maybe I should have used the term, "wavering" instead of moderate. Then my point becomes, we may be causing fence-sitters to hop off the "wrong" side of the fence.

    Have a dandy day.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mighein mighein

    Thanks for taking time to comment back. Couple of points: The 'militant' thing is more of the general definition:

    mil⋅i⋅tant  /ˈmɪlɪtənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mil-i-tuhnt] Show IPA
    –adjective 1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause:

    Besides that, I agree ENTIRELY with you and Harris on moderate religious people. Maybe I should have used the term, "wavering" instead of moderate. Then my point becomes, we may be causing fence-sitters to hop off the "wrong" side of the fence.

    Have a dandy day.

  • BrotherRichard

    Good point. And I know what you meant about militant. I just think it is a term we should not use in our war of words.

  • http://www.sarahtrachtenberg.com Sarah Trachtenberg

    Thanks, Brother Richard. It's hard for me to know how to respond to accusations such as this.

  • http://www.sarahtrachtenberg.com Sarah Trachtenberg

    Thanks, Brother Richard. It's hard for me to know how to respond to accusations such as this.

  • Dennis N

    mighein, I understand your points, but there are some of us who are tired of moderating ourselves and holding our tongues, when the other side does no such things. While people do, ideas deserve no special respect. Religious ideas are horrible ideas that waste away like flimsy toilet paper when subjected to the tiniest bit of the water of reason. (I hope that metaphor “held together”.) Not only are they unreasoned, they have demonstrably bad effects on the world. They deserve to be ripped to shreds. As a young person in college, in the safety of the United States, I consider it an honor to exercise my right to criticize religion whenever and as loudly as I wish. While the result may not be changing minds, it may have the benefit of making people ashamed of holding ridiculous beliefs, they way racism is these days. Some may seek to change the minds of racists, and some may just be fed up and wanna convince racists to hide in closets until they die off and let their enlightened descendants take over. I suppose this is an advantage of being young.

  • Dennis N

    mighein, I understand your points, but there are some of us who are tired of moderating ourselves and holding our tongues, when the other side does no such things. While people do, ideas deserve no special respect. Religious ideas are horrible ideas that waste away like flimsy toilet paper when subjected to the tiniest bit of the water of reason. (I hope that metaphor “held together”.) Not only are they unreasoned, they have demonstrably bad effects on the world. They deserve to be ripped to shreds. As a young person in college, in the safety of the United States, I consider it an honor to exercise my right to criticize religion whenever and as loudly as I wish. While the result may not be changing minds, it may have the benefit of making people ashamed of holding ridiculous beliefs, they way racism is these days. Some may seek to change the minds of racists, and some may just be fed up and wanna convince racists to hide in closets until they die off and let their enlightened descendants take over. I suppose this is an advantage of being young.

  • http://war-on-error.xanga.com Ben

    Yeah, except that when religious people revere paradoxes, those paradoxes aren't based on terra firma. They're based on la la land and such talk is code for being uncritical with shitty and permanently incoherent concepts. Just ask Frank here to get into detail on something he's talking about and the smokescreen is over. When scientists run across a "paradox" it's because they are encountering something a mere step away beyond our hard knowledge into territory we are not yet familiar with. That gives them the right to judge it as an "apparent paradox" and the actual hope with further investigation the discrepancy will be resolved. The religious methodology on the other hand offers virtually no hope in that regard and is a recipe for just getting things wrong and staying wrong about things permanently.

    Ben

  • http://www.myspace.com/theoddone69 Temy

    I have questions: Why should atheists be any more "tolerant" of beliefs that are as patently absurd and false as those of flat earthers? Why do even most atheists still bend over backward to accomodate such nonsense as though it really were possible that there was a god? Are we atheists or agnostics!?

  • http://www.myspace.com/theoddone69 Temy

    I have questions: Why should atheists be any more "tolerant" of beliefs that are as patently absurd and false as those of flat earthers? Why do even most atheists still bend over backward to accomodate such nonsense as though it really were possible that there was a god? Are we atheists or agnostics!?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Cephus Cephus

    I don't think half the Republicans are all that sincere about their professed religion, they, like Reagan, simply know how to say the right comforting words in the right religious ears to get financial support. You have to remember that Reagan was into astrology and fortune telling and all that nonsense, things that would have been entirely off-limits to someone who took their supposed Christianity seriously. He was a politician, he knew how to lie to the right people to get what he wanted.

    If anything, Reagan is where actual conservatism ended, he gave far more to neo-conservatism than he ever did to traditional conservative values. I think Shaeffer is just wrong.

  • Pingback: Cartoon: Jesus, Mo, and Frank Schaeffer

  • Pingback: Cartoon: Jesus, Mo, and Frank Schaeffer

  • http://countthatdaylost.com cpillsbury

    I would like to make one point on the mocking creationists. While I now think the point of view is spectacularly silly, I also know that a fair percentage of the people who hold that belief have been taught it, fed it, and had all evidence against it excused from such a young age it is VERY tough for them to really grasp it and let go. The evidence is obvious to somebody who understands it, but to many of the YEC group, they've had their religion tied into their self-identity, and part of that is a belief in the 6day creation, for so long, that it takes a HUGE leap for their brains to even find the evidence compelling. I should know, I used to be one.

    I was raised SDA, taught YEC in church school from 1st-12th grade, and it wasn't until I was approaching my thirties, with three kids, that I really started looking heavily at my beliefs. Even my high-school/college age disillusionment with religion and the church wasn't enough to make me think "evolution that makes sense" because the misinformation and indoctrination were so strong. Mocking of creationists by atheists/scientist doesn't get through that, it only provokes the Christian to come back and mock the silly atheist for believing that they came from a fish. Silly evolutionists/darwinists/etc. For me two of the biggest things that led to my deconversion were

    A) Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, which struck me as such a strained attempt to convince me of something I already believed that it made me think I should look at the alternate explanations.
    B) An article by Rob Brown: http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of… which, though I was aware of and warming to the idea of evolution when encountered it, had the effect of really helping me understand WHY it had been so hard for me to "get".

    So. While I think the YEC point of view does deserve mocking, the problem with doing the mocking is that we're leaving a lot of young kids who have been indoctrinated in the YEC worldview with an excuse to ignore us because the instinctual response of "you're stupid" is "no, you're stupid".

    • eheffa

      Great comments cpillsbury…

      My own story is similar to yours but with a Baptist twist.

      Evolution is a threat to believers because as a believer, God is monitoring your every thought. If you succumb to a false argument by evolutionists, you will be damned. God is on your side if you cling to whatever feeble arguments can squelch your doubts. It's very much the psychological equivalent of clamping your hands over your ears & repeating your favorite lines from " Of Pandas & People"…La,la,la.

      I agree that mocking does nothing but entrench the opposition. What prompted me to leave the fold was encountering wonderful non-Christian people who seemed genuinely interested in pursuing truth, no matter where it led them; & realizing that they had a lot more integrity and courage than I did. They were not scoffing skeptics but people unafraid to weigh the evidence for any assertion & not jump to conclusions. (What an attractive freedom that is when you do not have remain loyal to any particular dogma.)

      Once it was clear to me that the pursuit of truth should bring me back to god if he were real, I was similarly free to investigate things for myself. Needless to say, the Christian faith did not withstand much scrutiny & I am now free to follow the evidence. As far as I can tell, it doesn't lead anywhere close to this Jesus Myth.

      Most of my exposure to the "fundamentalist atheists" was through their books. I found the atheist authors of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Stenger & Hitchens to be very helpful in articulating a world view that made sense. Despite their uncompromising language, I found most of their content to be stimulating and reasonable and not of a mocking character (Hitchens perhaps excepted, as he comes across to me as more polemical & aggressive in his tone. )

      The charge of fundamentalism against these authors is a misnomer I think. They are uncompromising but in the same way that one should dismiss assertions that have no evidence for support. This lack of respect for "Faith" is intolerable to those who feel that "Faith" is a virtue & must be held up in our communities as a value. To lack respect for this is a huge threat. Flat-earth proponents are kind of entertaining but mostly harmless but their assertions regarding the shape of our planet are unworthy of any respect.. Those who maintain that faith-based values should be respected have much more potential to cause harm & should be challenged.

      The New Atheists are ruffling feathers because they are doing exactly that: Challenging the faith based status quo. In my view, this is a good thing but the opposition isn't going to go without a fight. In a similar way that Christians claim to hate the sin & love the sinner, taking care to restrict our derision for the assertion & not the asserter, might go a long way towards defusing the reaction to these ideas.

      -evan

  • http://countthatdaylost.com cpillsbury

    I would like to make one point on the mocking creationists. While I now think the point of view is spectacularly silly, I also know that a fair percentage of the people who hold that belief have been taught it, fed it, and had all evidence against it excused from such a young age it is VERY tough for them to really grasp it and let go. The evidence is obvious to somebody who understands it, but to many of the YEC group, they've had their religion tied into their self-identity, and part of that is a belief in the 6day creation, for so long, that it takes a HUGE leap for their brains to even find the evidence compelling. I should know, I used to be one.

    I was raised SDA, taught YEC in church school from 1st-12th grade, and it wasn't until I was approaching my thirties, with three kids, that I really started looking heavily at my beliefs. Even my high-school/college age disillusionment with religion and the church wasn't enough to make me think "evolution that makes sense" because the misinformation and indoctrination were so strong. Mocking of creationists by atheists/scientist doesn't get through that, it only provokes the Christian to come back and mock the silly atheist for believing that they came from a fish. Silly evolutionists/darwinists/etc. For me two of the biggest things that led to my deconversion were

    A) Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, which struck me as such a strained attempt to convince me of something I already believed that it made me think I should look at the alternate explanations.
    B) An article by Rob Brown: http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of… which, though I was aware of and warming to the idea of evolution when encountered it, had the effect of really helping me understand WHY it had been so hard for me to "get".

    So. While I think the YEC point of view does deserve mocking, the problem with doing the mocking is that we're leaving a lot of young kids who have been indoctrinated in the YEC worldview with an excuse to ignore us because the instinctual response of "you're stupid" is "no, you're stupid".

    • eheffa

      Great comments cpillsbury…

      My own story is similar to yours but with a Baptist twist.

      Evolution is a threat to believers because as a believer, God is monitoring your every thought. If you succumb to a false argument by evolutionists, you will be damned. God is on your side if you cling to whatever feeble arguments can squelch your doubts. It's very much the psychological equivalent of clamping your hands over your ears & repeating your favorite lines from " Of Pandas & People"…La,la,la.

      I agree that mocking does nothing but entrench the opposition. What prompted me to leave the fold was encountering wonderful non-Christian people who seemed genuinely interested in pursuing truth, no matter where it led them; & realizing that they had a lot more integrity and courage than I did. They were not scoffing skeptics but people unafraid to weigh the evidence for any assertion & not jump to conclusions. (What an attractive freedom that is when you do not have remain loyal to any particular dogma.)

      Once it was clear to me that the pursuit of truth should bring me back to god if he were real, I was similarly free to investigate things for myself. Needless to say, the Christian faith did not withstand much scrutiny & I am now free to follow the evidence. As far as I can tell, it doesn't lead anywhere close to this Jesus Myth.

      Most of my exposure to the "fundamentalist atheists" was through their books. I found the atheist authors of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Stenger & Hitchens to be very helpful in articulating a world view that made sense. Despite their uncompromising language, I found most of their content to be stimulating and reasonable and not of a mocking character (Hitchens perhaps excepted, as he comes across to me as more polemical & aggressive in his tone. )

      The charge of fundamentalism against these authors is a misnomer I think. They are uncompromising but in the same way that one should dismiss assertions that have no evidence for support. This lack of respect for "Faith" is intolerable to those who feel that "Faith" is a virtue & must be held up in our communities as a value. To lack respect for this is a huge threat. Flat-earth proponents are kind of entertaining but mostly harmless but their assertions regarding the shape of our planet are unworthy of any respect.. Those who maintain that faith-based values should be respected have much more potential to cause harm & should be challenged.

      The New Atheists are ruffling feathers because they are doing exactly that: Challenging the faith based status quo. In my view, this is a good thing but the opposition isn't going to go without a fight. In a similar way that Christians claim to hate the sin & love the sinner, taking care to restrict our derision for the assertion & not the asserter, might go a long way towards defusing the reaction to these ideas.

      -evan

  • goddamnathiest

    I never heard of Shaeffer until this summer when he appeared on Maddow's show. His statement of not changing the village to fit the village idiot was spot on. I went out and bought his book, "Crazy for God."
    It's one of those books that you have to put down because it's disturbing. Growing up and his family getting by on the charity of others is sad. Not because of any vows made but because of his parents choosing it's how they lived their lives.
    I find his brushing off the part where his family if forced to move out of a town by the local church goes is very very similar to being an atheist. But he and others like him would do the same to those who were not religious.
    In his book he puts a lot of the blame on the "liberals" and ACLU for helping the right wing pro life movement become what it is today. He talks about how the "left" and ACLU would not give any ground what so ever. Well Frankie let me tell you from having to face that "filth" when they came into the Republican Party starting in my case in 1984 they were NOT going to back down WHAT SO EVER.
    It's their way or the highway.
    Sure I can see his point about late term abortion. Sure, if the unborn child can be taken out of the womb and live on it's own then don't abort it. But the Pro Life side does not see it that way and won't. There isn't a middle ground for them. They feel that if you give them an inch then it's a total victory. From their standpoint that if you gave an inch then you know that you're wrong. And since you know you're wrong, then that settles it.
    Making a parallel with the "other" side is a joke.
    This man and his family lived during th 50's, 60's and part of the 70's in Switzerland. They weren't exposed to the problems we were addressing. They weren't exposed to the civil rights movement, the Kennedy killings, the Vietnam War, Womens' Rights, the draft, the Bay of Pigs or any of those things. Schaeffer even admits when he finally moved to the US to live that he was at that point an American only in name.
    He and his father saw MONEY and someone who'd listen to them. And they liked it.
    He and his family helped create that group that gave us Georige Bush (who he did not support) and Sarah Palin.
    As for his books and films I sure he still cashes the residual checks.
    Even by the man's own admission his education is lacking. A high school graduate is better educated then this man.
    That said and done, this man and his sisters really had a number done on them growing up. I'd never raise a child like how they were raised. The emotional and psychological problems they suffered and suffer from is just, well, sad.
    And he did turn his back on the Christian Coalition and the Pat Robertson crowd. He still pays the mental anguish from being associated with them. He also became a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. While that has helped the man should if he hasn't already, sought counseling. Not for his religious but for his childhood and actions.
    This man should ask why people are atheists. I get the impression he just assumes.
    As for being radical, well, I think we are just speaking our minds.
    And thanks to the internet, we are finding that we are NOT ALONE but that there are others like us. And we are connecting with each other. Sharing our thoughts and ideas.
    And yes, in some cases throwing it right back in people's faces when they throw it in ours.

  • Pingback: Video: Frank Schaeffer and the fears of fundamentalism

  • Pingback: Video: Frank Schaeffer and the fears of fundamentalism

  • Jonna

    Speaking of respect….. I recently got into a discussion with a gentlemen who had learned that I "don't do religion". He implored me that I should give religion a chance. So, I told him that I used to consider myself a Christian, and now I don't, and gave him all of my reasons. He then turned around and said that if I'm not going to believe fine but I should at least be tolerant and not disrespect other's beliefs. What???? After he took it upon himself to try to push religion down my throat, I was the one being disrespectful of his beliefs???? This is the issue- if we question why they do believe, we are disrespectful, but they don't consider it disrespectful to try to "save" us.

  • http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/Goddamnathiest goddamnathiest

    "Save us?"
    I wish someone would "SAVE US" from them….
    I know exactly what you're saying Jonna. Been in the same situation.
    They are always the ones in their eyes who are the "victims" of all this.
    They show no respect to anyone who is like us.
    And when you stand up to them, well, then you're "militant" or a "communist" and ought to go live in Russia.
    Of course, what they don't know is that Russia is mainly an Eastern Orthodox country.
    However, I've noticed that many of them would fit right in in countries like:
    Saudi Arabia
    Iran
    North Korea
    Communist Mainland China
    Communist Cuba

  • http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/Goddamnathiest goddamnathiest

    "Save us?"
    I wish someone would "SAVE US" from them….
    I know exactly what you're saying Jonna. Been in the same situation.
    They are always the ones in their eyes who are the "victims" of all this.
    They show no respect to anyone who is like us.
    And when you stand up to them, well, then you're "militant" or a "communist" and ought to go live in Russia.
    Of course, what they don't know is that Russia is mainly an Eastern Orthodox country.
    However, I've noticed that many of them would fit right in in countries like:
    Saudi Arabia
    Iran
    North Korea
    Communist Mainland China
    Communist Cuba

  • Bob Younce

    @Brother Richard -

    I'll admit I didn't read this entire post. You began it with a strange and completely factually inaccurate claim, "He is the son of one of the first televangelists, Francis Schaeffer."

    Schaeffer wasn't a televangelist, by any means. He occasionally showed up as a guest on some televangelist shows, but according to Frank, Francis despised most of those cretins.

    I can only imagine what sorts of other nonsense you've got going on here.

    I'm not really sure where you came up with that. There are plenty of things (good and bad) to be said about Francis Schaeffer, but the idea that he was a televangelist, let alone one of the first, is just completely inaccurate.

    What's going on there?

  • Bob Younce

    @Brother Richard -

    I'll admit I didn't read this entire post. You began it with a strange and completely factually inaccurate claim, "He is the son of one of the first televangelists, Francis Schaeffer."

    Schaeffer wasn't a televangelist, by any means. He occasionally showed up as a guest on some televangelist shows, but according to Frank, Francis despised most of those cretins.

    I can only imagine what sorts of other nonsense you've got going on here.

    I'm not really sure where you came up with that. There are plenty of things (good and bad) to be said about Francis Schaeffer, but the idea that he was a televangelist, let alone one of the first, is just completely inaccurate.

    What's going on there?

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderist Wonderist

    Might I suggest the word 'unapologetic' instead of 'militant'? See my post promoting this term here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18586 and Mano Singham's post promoting it here: http://machineslikeus.com/news/introducing-unapol


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X