An Open Letter to Dr. Laura

There was a time we could participate in discussions. Conservative William F Buckley, Jr. would have heated discussions with liberal Gore Vidal on air. Yet they would dine together after the broadcast.

In an era of polarized talk radio, it has become acceptable, even required to use the ad hominem fallacy to win the argument. The more correct side is the side with the greatest volume. When one appears to be losing the argument, the radio personality wins. Not because of superior rhetorical skills, but because they have control of the “kill button” and the advantage of always having the last. uncontested word.

I wish I could say that this situation has been caused by the radicals on the left and on the right. But that would not acknowledged the reality that the Fox News or Premiere Radio media broadcast giants make their money on broadcasting controversy. Civility does not sell.

When a radio host goes on a rant, as you did, the cultivated hate which boosted the ratings and market share, becomes a backlash. Most Americans have an innate sense of fair play. When this is violated by a radio host railing against a likable caller asking for assistance, no apology could ever negate the sense of outrage.

When I did some radio in my earlier years, I was taught to leave anything I did not want to escape over the airways outside the studio door. Once inside the studio, the only language permitted was that of a cultured person – even before and after the show and during breaks. The pressure to be controversial negates this practice. One must get one’s juices flowing. And so what contributed to your success, caused the backlash which left you without a bully pulpit.

I listened to you since you were first syndicated. I heard your journey from a caring person wanting to help people with their life problems to becoming a member of the ranters – fitting in with the requirements of controversy radio, It was a sad unraveling. And had nothing to do with your constitutional rights. You are merely reaping what you had sown.

Dr. Laura’s blog: http://www.drlaurablog.com/

Who Are the Christianists?

We have surveyed them and they are . . .

According to the Pew Foundation, the demographic of a Pentecostal / Charismatic Christian is a southern Caucasian female with a high school diploma, between the ages of 30 and 49, married, with no children living at home and a combined household income less than $30,000 a year. When it comes to dogma, the typical ”born-again” believer shows a firm certainty of God and answered prayer, but believes that other religions can lead believers to Eternal Life. While upholding the literal truth of the bible, this person acknowledges that there is more than one valid interpretation of church teachings. In the political arena, government should be smaller, be more active in upholding morality, and concentrate on solving problems at home rather than resolving the problems of the world. While smaller government is preferred, there is a benefit to having stricter environmental protection legislation, even if the cost to society is higher.

But this is not the public face of Christianism. One could hardly call a forty-something Southern woman a portrait of one wielding media and political power. Even a former female vice-presidential candidate does not fit this profile. This poll-constructed typical fundamentalist appears to have common interests with the radical liberals: a country that .concentrates on solving domestic difficulties and that is active in protecting the environment. No hard drawn, ideological battle lines here.

Why is the media face of this bloc in conflict with the research? The face appearing in the media or the voice booming over the radio waves is predominately male, well-educated (or claiming to be through self study) with a household income of over $100,000 a year. Here is a major dichotomy between those who, in reality, bear the standard and those who very vociferously claim to carry it. Who is using who? For it appears that the good folks who attend church services and pray daily are not Christianists. They seem more Micah than militant; more compassionate than confrontational. If is it not the followers, then who are those who worship at the altar of Christianism and, more importantly, who is leading the worship service?

The People Perish for Lack of Knowledge.

Christianism is fatal. It truly does prepare its followers for an early rendezvous with the gates of pearl and streets of gold. They follow, good sheep that they are, while their leadership enjoys the fruits of their followers’ labor. A true example of the prosperity gospel.

Christianism is power. It seeks raw power in a Republican democracy. It wraps itself in the flag. It claims the “Founding Fathers” as their own. It denounces their non-followers as demonic and as destroyers of the American fabric. It seeks uber-tolerance of their proselytizing, while claiming tax-exempt status.

Christianism is jingoistic. It seeks to isolate. It upholds a warped sense of the desires of other cultures. Partnered with it ideological twin, Americanism, it seeks to impose a governmental system on other sovereign nations.

Christianism is not Christianity. It is a great pretender. It is a belief system based on out-of-context proof texts. Its precepts are birthed from of a vengeful Old Testament God and a Hellenist preacher named Paul, whose alleged writings sought to maintain the societal norms of an Imperial Rome.

Christianism is not a religion. It is an educational movement that disputes scientific principles that counter its sacred text, a 17th century translation sponsored by an King wanting to solidify his power. It is a cultural movement that does not recognize the right of women to lead or to teach men and once used scripture to justify slavery in America. It is a societal movement which does not seek to champion those who are stranger or outcast, unlike the Christ it claims as its own. Since early 1960, it started to become a political movement after the hijacking of the Southern Baptist Convention leadership.

Christianism not a successful governing model. It is a structure that fractures when disagreement arise. It is resistant to intellectual growth. Its roots can be traced to a movement that brought down and murdered an English King. It has prayed for the destruction of people who rejected conversion, It has not contributed to the prosperity of any society.

This blog’s vision is to present “just the facts” to counter innuendo and tall tales. To present a truly Christian viewpoint to counter the loud-mouthed impostor, Christianism. To illuminate the faith system legitimately based upon the life and teachings of a Man from the village of Nazareth at the time of Roman occupation.

To simply call out that “real” Christians need to reclaim Christianity.