It has become relatively common to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims on one hand and Islamism/Political Islam and Islamists/Political Muslims on the other hand. We might as well apply the same distinction to Christianity.
The difficulty is that our Christian friends, being Christians that they are, tend to turn the other cheek, reluctant to brand their enemies who claim to believe in their religion as Christianists/Political Christians. :->
>[lbo-talk] Christianity vs. Christianism/Political Christianity
>Jeffrey Fisher jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
>Fri Jun 10 15:21:22 PDT 2005
<snip>
>>Our strategy is to reverse it: divide and conquer. Jewish
>>activists and intellectuals on the left, whenever they hear anyone
>>say "our Judeo-Christian values" or some such nonsense, ought to
>>raise their eyebrows as archly as possible and loudly inquire about
>>the fate of Jews upon the Rapture and other matters that put the
>>first person plural into question. Mainline Protestants,
>>Catholics, and Blacks should begin to adopt and propagate new
>>usage: proudly reserve the terms "Christians" and "Christianity"
>>for themselves, and consistently and insistently use the terms
>>"Christianists," "Political Christians," "Christianism," and
>>"Political Christianity" to refer to their enemies who claim to
>>believe in the same religion as theirs. At the same time, expand
>>the existing interfaith associations (e.g., <http://www.nain.org/>)
>>linking ecumenical liberals and leftists from all faith traditions.
>
>i think you're right that the language has to change. this may be
>the way to do it. but again, this was a lot of my argument with
>chuck: we need to do this by way of making allies with progressive
>religious people rather than pushing them into the arms of fundies
>they fear less than the atheist commies who hate them and their
>religion.
>
>>This is a winning strategy, if Christians on the left, who have
>>hitherto been too nice to excommunicate theocrats, manage to stand
>>firm and stay on message, no matter what.
>
>see above. don't alienate them by calling them all stupid, insane,
>anti-scientific boors, and you might get this to work. but it means
>precisely that *you* (and i don't mean yoshie, but everyone who
>wants to employ this strategy) have to stop blurring distinctions
>between fundamentalist-evangelical theocrats and more progressive
>(mainstream? dunno, honestly) religious people, christians and
>otherwise. because this strategy can only help if you get
>*christians* talking this way.
Most (or perhaps even all) Christians (as opposed to Christianists/Political Christians) more or less share my view of science's lack of interest in God and act accordingly.
<blockquote>Dietrich Bonhoeffer had the most powerful effect with his ideas about the 'world come of age'/ For him secularization had the positive significance of the de-divinization of the world and the discovery of its worldliness. God as a moral, political, scientific working hypothesis to explain the world was obsolete. We cannot be honest without recognizing that we have to live in the world even if there is no God (_etsi Deus non daretur_). So theology is wrong it if wants to attempt to introduce 'God' as an explanation of areas in nature which have not yet been worked out or as a refuge from moral or political problems which have not been overcome. Theology must take account of the worldliness of the world and welcome as progress the fact that human beings are free and have come of age. This, however, is possible only if the theology of the modern world offers its own interpretation more definitely than before. For Bonhoeffer the religious interpretation of the world was already superseded by Christian faith in the incarnation of God: God has entered into the reality of the world and no longer stands over against it. Life in the world 'without God' was disclosed radically by the way in which God abandoned the Son of God on the cross. The God of the Bible gains power in the world by his powerlessness. 'Only the suffering God can help.' So in the light of the Christian knowledge of the incarnate and crucified God Bonhoeffer judged that 'the world come of age is more godless and therefore perhaps nearer to God than the world which has not come of age'. The modern religionless world certainly brings the religious age of Christianity to an end, but at the same time it opens up the possibilities of authentic Christian faith. The Enlightenment made mediaeval 'natural theology' impossible and forced Christian theology back on itself. (Jürgen Moltmann, _Theology Today_, Trans. John Bowden, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1988, p. 17)</blockquote>
The world has come of age, so we expect all grownups to act like grownups. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>