![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"But many of [the Bush administration's] supporters talk about how they represent Christianity. I don't think they represent Christianity any more than some of these murderers, and mass murderers, represent Islam. So let's not blame the religion. Let's blame those that use religion to do some ruthless, deadly, wicked acts." -- Al Sharpton, 2004-01-29
(no subject)
What's in a name?
I was once seated next to a woman on a bus, and we were talking about philosophic things, and she said to me, "I'm a Christian. Do you know what that is?" The way she meant it, I've probably met more Buddhists or Hindus, and I understood exactly what she was saying.
"Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call.
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all."
--Graham Nash, "Cathedral"
(no subject)
When a Christian insists his religion mandated that he spray my gynecologist's office with automatic weapons fire -- this is not a hypothetical -- murdering several people, and his claim to Christianity is basically credible, that does indeed get averaged into my understanding of Christianity. If there is one instance of it, it's washed out as anomalies are. If there's lots of instances of it, it suggests there's something going on there attached to the commonality between them.
The Bush administration does, in fact, represent one sort of Christianity; one that is reasonably (and unfortunately IMHO) common. I'd really rather your personal take on Christianity be considered authorative, but they haven't voted you pope yet. :) So, from my point of view -- which is a decidedly non-theological one -- neither you nor Al is credible to claim "No, no, no, what they're doing and saying isn't real Christianity, what I'm doing is Christianity".