David Kirkpatrick writes in the Times that conservative Christian movement is cracking up. Evangelicals have figured out that they’re just being used by Republicans. I’m thinking the real sign of this was when conservative Republicans controlled all three branches of the government and abortion remained as legal as ever. There’s nothing compassionate about “compassionate conservatism,” nothing Christian about war. Now Christians are interested in “public policies that address problems of peace, health and poverty — problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers.” Amen.
Comments are closed.
Anyone, whether NYT journalist or blogger, who thinks that these things are “new” interests for Christians was woefully ignorant of Christianity, especially in America. The hot-button issues of Christian conservatives have certainly received the most press, but anyone remotely familiar with evangelical churches knows very well that peace, health and poverty have long been, and continue to be, very important issues for us. We give our time, our talents, and our treasure for these very things.
Another big one is social justice. Take a look at the International Justice Mission (IJM) sometime. It might surprise you.
This is one time I agree with I Publius. The bulk of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, in the 1860s, was composed of Christians, many of whom came out of the Methodist revival movement of the time.
Likewise, many of the early women social workers in the settlement house movement in the slums of urban centers like New York and Chicago, came from the evangelical Christian movement as well as from Jewish reformers. These people toiled for social justice for immigrants and poor people.
Even the temperance movement of the last century grew out of the concern of Christian women who watched how alcohol abuse among the working poor led to spousal and child abuse.
The pacifist movement, including the Fellowship of Reconciliation, in Nyack, NY, which is one of the oldest peace organizations in the U.S., was affiliated with churches, many of which were evangelical.
And Catholics and other Christians were often the backbone of the labor movement’s fight for social and economic justice. To this day, there is a “labor in the pulpit” movement.
It is the media whose attention has been captured by the Christian Right. But they only make up a segment of Christianity. And even among their members, there has been a great deal of soul searching about their political affiliations as of late.
Sorry, the politically active evangelical Christian movement has most certainly not focused the bulk of their attention on poverty, peace, and health. They’ve focused their attention on abortion, homosexuals and attacking science education in public schools.
I realize there are plenty of Christians and Christian organizations that are very dedicated to social justice and poverty issues, but they have not been the vocal, well organized politically active evangelical Christian movement that has been electing Republican (tax cutting, social welfare cutting, military hawks)candidates for the past 25 years.
Katey, you’re right that many very vocal, well organized and politically active evangelicals have put a great deal of energy into stopping abortion, supporting creation science and the sanctity of marriage. No argument there.
What the media (until now) has ignored, however, is that the same people (myself included) have spent an equal, if not greater, amount of time and energy (much, much greater in my case) on fighting poverty and social injustice.
And I won’t fault the media for that. There’s nothing sexy about a church group that sponsors a reading program in a low-income housing development, or delivering meals year-round to impoverished families, or buying gifts for them at Christmas and birthdays, or representing them pro bono to get their car back from a shifty title loan scumbag… and so on. That stuff doesn’t sell papers.
Publius, I’ve seen plenty of feel-good stories over the years about Christian organizations doing good works. It’s not been ignored by the media. However, when it comes to where the politically active evangelical community puts its money and its votes it sure ain’t targeted at social justice, poverty or peace. It’s been targeted at hawkish candidates that are hostile to social welfare programs, hostile to organized labor, hostile to public education and hostile to universal healthcare.
Katey, you’re flat wrong on this. I ran a Terms and Connectors search on LexisNexis in their major newspapers database. The results:
“evangelical /p christian /p poverty” finds 58 entries.
“evangelical /p christian /p abortion” finds 1586 entries.
The search was for each of those terms to be in the same paragraph. It seems pretty clear that the major media is running many more stories on evangelicals and abortion than they are on evangelicals and poverty.
The truth is that poverty, health care, and peace are not “new” issues for evangelicals. They’ve always been part of the program. What’s new is that their importance in the hierarchy of interests have risen somewhat and the media is finally picking up on the fact that they have multiple interests.
Two interesting questions coming from this are:
-Will liberals be intellectually honest about the ramifications? One of the frequent attacks made against pro-lifers is that because their beliefs are religiously motivated they are inadmissible. Will they likewise tell evangelicals “thanks, but no thanks” when they bring their religious beliefs to bear on poverty and health care?
-Is this a permanent re-alignment? Or will a more pro-active approach by Republicans enable them to gain back evangelical support that they are losing.
If evangelicals have considered issues of poverty, health, and peace of or greater equal value to abortion, hating homosexuals and preventing science education in public schools then why don’t they put their money, their voices and their votes behind candidates that reflect that?
Answer: Because they don’t consider those issues to be of equal value.
Perhaps the media accurately reflects the reality of politically active evangelical Christians, eh?
Ack! Forgive the typo in my comment above. :) That’s what I get for typing after 11pm. :)
“nothing Christian about war”
God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12; 21:15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but rather only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable.
Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm is by going to war with them.
War is a terrible thing! War is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Exodus 17:16 proclaims, “He said, “For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.”
So, obviously God is not against all war which brings us to your original premise.
Waldo, if you are not a Christian, you will dismiss all of the above–which is fine.
If that is the case, however, do not pretend to know about that to which you do not subscribe or believe. Do not pretend to know what is and what is not Christian.
If you are a Christian, you really ought to know what you are talking about before you speak.
It’s all in Ezekiel 25:17, I’m tellin’ ya.
Watts, I am not commenting on Waldo’s or your religious views. However, I do take offense at the notion that one cannot speak about something that one does not practice. In fact, it is skepticism that frequently serves to strengthen something. This is something that many major religions acknowledge and embrace.
I am amused at war-mongers who on one hand act to foment war and demonize gays but on the other hand flee like whipped dogs when Mike Huckabee mentions the words of Jesus that aren’t convenient to their beliefs. Clearly, those who do not believe are able to be closer to the truth of the matter than those who do. I’m not saying this is always the case, or even the case most of the time. I have no way of knowing that. But to say one’s views are invalid just because they don’t believe a certain way is wrong and dangerous.
Your ridiculous description aside, the answer lies in how conservatives view government, and what problems government can best solve… which is clearly a different view than you hold. If you believe that every social issue is the exclusive baliwick of some governmental authority, then yeah, you’d better elect people who will solve those problems. But if, like me (and most evangelical Christians I know), you feel very strongly about solving those problems, but you don’t think government is the best way to go about it, then you get your own hands dirty and get involved. It also means that you’ll be able to do more if you keep more of your own money, so you elect people who will do that.
Abortion is necessarily a political issue because it is directly controlled by the law. Therefore, people who believe passionately about protecting innocent lives have only one way to effect meaningful change: elect people who share that passion.
Poverty and health are not necessarily political issues, unless you believe that government can provide the best solution for these challenges. I went to Mississippi twice with church groups to bring supplies and support to Katrina victims. We organized ourselves, rented trucks, gathered food and clothing, and drove it down. We didn’t twiddle our thumbs, complaining that some governmental organization or big charity group didn’t have any place to use our help. That’s just one example. People in the “Christian Right” take ownership over social issues every day, and invest themselves personally. We do this because we should, and because we think groups of citizens (and/or groups of Christians) can do it better than a government agency. So… we don’t elect people to do these things precisely because we don’t want them doing these things. We’ll take the same money and do more with it.
Peace is surely something that every Christian, and every moral human being, should desire. Is long-term peace and world stability accomplished by never, EVER, waging war? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. I hope we reach that point someday, but we’re not there yet.
“But to say one’s views are invalid just because they don’t believe a certain way”
Dan,
I’m not saying his views are invalid because of what he believes. I’m saying his statement about Christianity is wrong because it is wrong.
I may believe that water is dry and grass is blue.
Does that make me correct when I state that water is dry and grass is blue? Should nobody ever challenge my claim stated as fact? Are my views valid simply because of what I believe?
The current political environment scares me because of thinking like yours. We must all be accepting of others’ views, but heaven forbid somebody you don’t ideologically or politically agree with challenges us on facts. That makes them intolerant and scary. Facts, we’re talking about here, not opinion.
“I do take offense at..”
You are free to take offense at anything you want.
Without a doubt the god of the Old Testament is a violent, spiteful, possessive and somewhat sadistic (commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, for example)character. However, the statements that are attributed to Jesus in the New Testament clearly urge peace, forgiveness, and love toward one’s enemies. It’s been my understanding that Christians follow the words of Jesus and have shed much of the old law and character from the Old Testament.
Of course, these discussions are always tedious. Often Christians will refer to statements from the Old Testament to justify hostility toward homosexuals but when someone points out other very harsh rules from the OT (stoning for people who work on the sabbath or wear mixed fibers, etc) the response is that those rules have been nullified. It’s confusing. It seems that many people simply choose to interpret Biblical scripture to serve their own purposes.
“It seems that many people simply choose to interpret Biblical scripture to serve their own purposes.”
So let’s agree that this is exactly what Waldo did. He used a an untrue, *politically-driven* slogan “Nothing Christian about war” to serve his own purposes. Heck, it sounds like it should be true and it should give him moral authority because it sounds so good, right?
That’s all I’m saying.
watts,
can I get a clarification…your quoted verses describe God commanding his believers to war. Exactly when and more importantly WHO, did God tell to invade Iraq? Is there a new prophet we dont know about? I do remember Dubya alluding to a divine calling for his actions…
God ordering, and man doing on his own are just a skosh different.
Matthew 5:38-41.
Unless you believe that Jesus did not bring a new covenant — in which case you keep kosher — there’s really nothing else to talk about here.
Your assumptions about my biblical knowledge are funny. :)
Wow Katey, you really need to take some courses in theology (not, mind you, religious studies).
“Without a doubt the god of the Old Testament is a violent, spiteful, possessive and somewhat sadistic (commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, for example)character.”
While there’s a tone of problems in there, I’m particularly struck by your understanding of Abraham and Isaac. There is so much more in play here than sadism. First, and most importantly, the sacrifice of Isaac is meant to foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus. “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” Gen. 22:8 NIV.
Second, it’s not sadism but a test. If you actually read the text, it says “Do not lay a hand on the boy… Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Gen 22:12 NIV. Just as Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and was tested by the Devil in order to prepare for his ministry, and just as Job was tested by God’s permitting the Devil to do him harm, so too did God test Abraham.
I’d also point out there are many more levels of analysis to be played out here. Beyond that, the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same. Indeed, Jesus is of one substance with God the Father who tests Abraham. (See the Nicene Creed). I’d explore in greater depth, but law school beckons.
Aside from the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The pro-life judges who voted to uphold the act were something of an achievement as well.
But, yeah, I’m glad my fellow evangelicals are moving away from the culture war. The gospel changes hearts on an individual basis, not by government fiat.
Bibbidy bobbidy boo!
~
Funny how you seem to feel there’s a legitimate role for government here, but not in poverty, health issues, etc. Further, if you think that passing a law is the only way to affect abortions, you’ve got a rather weak grasp of the issue.
I know, personally, that some important and good work is done through Christian churches. But I’d bet that the time and money spent on that is but a small fraction of the time and money spent on the culture wars and building funds.
Wow.
I examined one piece of political rhetoric, “[There is] nothing Christian about war”. This piece of rhetoric was stated in the universal sense of “all war” and is purposefully designed to *question the Christianity* of anyone who ever thinks that any war can ever be justified. Clever political tactic.
Waldo did not say, “There is nothing Christian about the war in Iraq.” We are not talking about the current war but whether or not Christianity and war can ever be compatible. I have seen no evidence to the contrary and have provided evidence that they can be compatible at times.
What I have been told here is that unless I live a kosher lifestyle or claim to know if and who God spoke with about the current war in Iraq that my opinion and voice are not valid or worthy of debate. Because I question and refute a statement made as a statement of fact I am labeled “wrong and dangerous”. I simply tried to clarify Christianity’s position on war because I felt it was being purposefully misrepresented to advance a political position and agenda.
Thanks, though, for clearly demonstrating the tolerance and open-mindedness of modern day liberalism. It is truly inspiring.
The differences between abortion and poverty are many.
One legal difference is that that we traditionally have a legal obligation to prevent the taking of life, but we do not traditionally have a legal obligation to help others. This is seen in tort law: you can be sued for hitting a person, but not for walking by someone who is drowning*. *(3 exceptions exist here, special relationships (e.g. parent to child), if you caused the drowning, or if you started to rescue then stopped.) I point specifically to tort law because it has been shaped more through common law than statutory law and so better reflects the broad evolution of theories of legal rights.
While social structures such as churches have always been expected to have an internal obligation to help their neighbors, we have not traditionally expected the government to help everyone. Thus, in the context of the above those areas where there is a traditional legal obligation to stop someone from hurting another (abortion) we can accept the application of government force upon human behavior. But in those areas where there is not a traditional legal obligation to compel action we do not accept government applying itself as a force upon human behavior.
Mind you, I don’t entirely agree with the above as legal theory does change. However, it does provide solid ground on which to stand and say that government should be involved in abortion but not poverty.
The above was intended as a response to MB.
Thank you, Stephen. There is really no one more interesting to talk to than a law student.
No you didn’t. You provided evidence that Judiasm can be compatible with war.
This isn’t hard. Here’s a quiz to help you brush up:
1. Jesus believed that, when attacked, you should
a. kick the shit out of your attacker.
b. have pre-emptively attacked back already.
c. turn the other cheek
2. Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. all believed in
a. kicking ass and taking names
b. nonviolence
c. victory at all costs
3. Christians place enormous importance on:
a. how each of us can bring about destruction and chaos
b. crushing your enemies
c. peace
4. When Jesus revealed his foreknowledge of his impending murder, he
a. accepted it as his fate to avoid violent conflict
b. declared “there’s twelve of us and only one of Iscariot”
c. had Peter hack off the Romans’ ears
5. Tertullian said, famously
a. “off with their heads!”
b. “only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword”
c. “we will rock you”
6. Clement of Alexandria wrote
a. “…he who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God”
b. “there is no joy like the joy of skewering a man’s head on a pike”
c. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”
7. The Crusades were
a. awesome
b. a hell of a good time
c. a stain on Christianity
You can do this, Watts, I know you can!
Two points, Waldo:
1) As often happens when non-Christians attempt to pull out the New Testament to discredit the Old, you seem to be under the impression that God and Jesus are two entirely separate entities. They’re not. Rather, Christians believe that there is one God, comprised of three Persons. There is no difference in character or beliefs between God the Father and God the Son. Hence, God’s values, as exhibited in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) are Jesus’ values. And vice-versa.
2) Even Jesus himself used violence when he became righteously angry.
Ohhh, now I get it. Bush is Jesus, and the rest of us are money changers!
Now it all makes sense!
This all brings us to the Just War debate and it is obvious that we will never agree on what constitutes justness.
If we are to always turn the other cheek, do you therefore think that defending one’s nation against invaders is fundamentally unChristian?
Perhaps we should just smile, do nothing and watch to see what happens with enemies who say they are out to destroy us.
Is jihad unIslamic?
That’s not even a question you have to reach. Who’s invading?
“However, the statements that are attributed to Jesus in the New Testament clearly urge peace, forgiveness, and love toward one’s enemies.”
Except, of course, the part about his enemies suffering for all eternity: which just might be the most evil idea anyone has ever had.
And don’t forget that Jesus and his followers almost certainly believed that the world was pretty much just about to end. Looking to them for any insight on and long-term policies in light of the fact that it didn’t end is probably just confusing things.
“As often happens when non-Christians attempt to pull out the New Testament to discredit the Old, you seem to be under the impression that God and Jesus are two entirely separate entities. They’re not. Rather, Christians believe that there is one God, comprised of three Persons. There is no difference in character or beliefs between God the Father and God the Son. Hence, God’s values, as exhibited in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) are Jesus’ values. And vice-versa.”
I don’t think anyone was under the impression that YOU believe that they are the same. But it’s pretty obvious that these values are not the same, and that the idea that they are is an absurd relic of the convoluted history of Christian apologetics. Very little of the core doctrines of Christianity make any sense in terms of Judiasm (there is no problem of Original Sin to be solved in the first place for instance, let alone by a blood sacrifice), which is probably why it was successful mostly with illiterates and non-Jews rather than amongst the people it was supposedly the logical outgrowth of.
Speaking of which, check out this article on the hilarity that ensures when WorldnetDaily tries to find justification for rebellion in the words of Paul.
“If we are to always turn the other cheek, do you therefore think that defending one’s nation against invaders is fundamentally unChristian?
Perhaps we should just smile, do nothing and watch to see what happens with enemies who say they are out to destroy us.”
I think that’s supposed to be the point, isn’t it? Jesus appears to be telling followers not to fight back when threatened with violence. Considering how much emphasis is placed on life after death, it’s not really so curious. Followers who adhere to Jesus’ guidelines will receive their reward in Heaven. The earthly life is less important than the eternal existence that awaits believers after death.
I think it’s also helpful to look at the point that Plunge made. Early Christians believed that the world was going to end very soon. Their focus wasn’t on ‘this life’.
So I’m just trying to get to the root of Waldo’s original point in making his commentary (and I apologize for compiling several different posters’ points of view, but it seems they are supporting the same point of view) but are you stating:
1. Christianity cannot ever justify any war or physical conflict for any reason
2. Only Jews can find scriptural basis for war
3. Conservative Christians should not address issues like abortion, war and same-sex marriage but rather only focus on less controversial issues like peace, health and poverty (by the way, I’d like to see how one can focus on peace without discussion of avoiding strife at the same time). If this is the case, then why? Because they will not ultimately get support from our government or because doing so will make too many people feel uncomfortable?
4. Christians may disregard the Old Testament of the Bible because Jesus as the New Covenant renders the Old Testament obsolete?
But I’m still trying to get to the spirit of Waldo’s post:
“Evangelicals have figured out that they’re just being used by Republicans.”
Is he suggesting that Evangelicals (and I’d like to hear how you define that, by the way) would be better served to abandon their support of Republicans or that they would be better served by Democrats?
Is he suggesting that we need less Christian influence in our government or more of it?
Is he bringing religion into politics to make a broader point that since 77 U.S. Senators and 296 Representatives voted ‘yea’ on a joint resolution to give power to the president to declare war that the majority of our politicians are acting in an unChristian manner and that anyone who supports the war is unChristian-like?
Is he merely taking glee in the fact the “conservative Christian movement is cracking up”. If so, why would Waldo be happy about that? Should we be moving toward a less conservative brand of Christianity? If so, what does that look like? Should we be moving away from Christianity in our government? Live in a Godless society or embrace multiple gods?
It just isn’t clear what Waldo is getting at here but he felt it was important enough to report and comment on.
I am curious to hear *what he prescribes as the cure*.
Oh, and Katey, if we want to be Christians then we ought to do away with the military and national defense and let our enemies just come in while we do nothing to stop them but simply focus on our afterlife, right?
I’m very confused over this entire injection of religion into politics.
Watts,
Hey, I’m not telling anyone what they ought to be doing. Remember, I’m not a Christian. I have just made some observations about the apparent inconsistency between what Jesus asked his followers to do and what today’s self described followers are advocating by throwing their support behind candidates that are often hawkish and advocate budget cuts that target programs that benefit poor people.
Jesus seemed to be saying that the eternal life trumps the material or earthly existence. Early on the faith had strong appeal for poor, oppressed people because it soothed them with the understanding that, yeah, life sucks now and there is injustice and suffering but don’t sweat it. Heaven’s rewards will be there for you after death.
I’m not a Biblical scholar and perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Jesus advocating using violence to topple tyrants or achieve liberation from oppression, or even to prevent one’s self from being harmed. Indeed, in the story he goes willingly to his own death and makes no attempt to protect himself or to spare himself pain.
I could recite the Nicene Creed in my sleep, and I probably have. None of this is news to me.
Watts, I am prescribing nothing, merely observing that Christianity and violence are inherently incompatible. (You disagree with that, whatever, life goes on.) With that comes no baggage, stated or implied, about church and state, the path for the country in a time of war, or anything like that.
We are better off when people unite to better the world based on what joins them, rather than what divides them. That is the theme of this blog entry.
Waldo,
I agree with you 100% that we are better off when people come together on common ground to better the world.
We can agree to disagree on whether or not Christianity can ever possibly be compatible with the view of ‘just war’. That will simply lead us into another debate about “just”. This is one that Biblical scholars will debate endlessly and probably never agree upon. Frankly, it is such a deep issue that I’d be troubled if people *didn’t* struggle with it and revisit their position on a regular basis. One cannot possibly argue for strong national defense at the one end while at the other end you wind up clubbing people for just about any reason at all that you think you can justify under the banner of religion.
I just found it curious that you chose to comment that Republicans have abandoned Evangelical Christians (whatever that phrase means) and don’t really state whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing or whether you think these Christians have a better place to go or whether they should just be shut out of the political process altogether.(You seem to have a strong view in there somewhere, you just aren’t stating it.)
You also make a case that “compassionate conservatives” are not in lock step with Evangelicals and then imply that self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives aren’t true Christians if they support war.
Then you imply that Christians should moderate their stance by not taking on deeply personal and moral issues (same sex marriage and abortion) while at the same seeming to urge stronger Christian values to end war.
You seem to want to imply your Christian credentials while at the same time making some case about Evangelicals, compassionate conservatives and our political process. Maybe you yourself are conflicted over your Christian education and upbringing and your current liberal Democrat views–I don’t know.
Just trying to draw out your position on the topic you chose but it seems we are getting nowhere.
Yes, focusing on common ground that unites us is great and something to strive for–but it is relatively simple and easy.
It is those things that divide us that take the most thought, openness, patience, debate and dare I say, prayer and self-examination.
..and Katey, Christians are taught to hate sin but love the sinner. Your characterization of Christians “hating homosexuals” is purely absurd and yet another bit of political-agenda-driven rhetoric that you have fallen for.
The tactic: If you disagree about what sin is, instead of debating that on its merits, just misrepresent your opposition’s view to justify an ad-hominem attack on them.
It’s amazing how many people actually fall for the tactic without putting any of their own, honest thought or research into it.
Wats,
I don’t debate about ‘sin’. That’s an argument for the religious. My remarks about the politically active evangelical Christian community’s obvious contempt for homosexuals are based upon my own observations. The hair-splitting rationalizations like “hate the sin, love the sinner” are wasted on me.
Watts, as interesting as this discussion could be (and I’m not being facetious in saying that), it’s simply more of a time commitment than I’m willing to make. In my experience, online discussions about religion tend towards dissolution, as opposed to resolution, becoming more drawn out and complicated over time. I’ve got a big new project to wrap up in my off hours — a sequel to last year’s work on Richmond Sunlight — and time spent on ever-lengthening dialog about the interplay between Christianity and government is time not spent on that project.
I understand how time-consuming and hard it can be at times to clarify and defend one’s own positions.
It is often easier to not bother.
Katey,
I understand now that you are saying that you have come to conclude, based upon your own personal observations, that the self-proclaimed Christians you have directly observed seem to hate homosexuals, in your opinion. This is a long way from your statement that “..Evangelicals…hate homosexuals” which seemed to be posited as a statement of policy.
That behavior you have observed is indeed shameful. It is a reminder that there is indeed much evil in this world.
Christianity does not teach or condone such behavior, though.
I just felt it was important to clarify that.
Though a glance at the front page will reveal that I simply don’t have time to write much at the moment, if it makes you feel better to think that, then that’s just swell.