Pelosi's Daughter Targets Evangelicals

[Tigermike 3,054]

Target: Evangelicals

The documentary 'Friends of God' delivers a distorted and dishonest picture of millions of American believers.

By Don Feder

Watching Alexandra Pelosi's documentary Friends of God, showing on HBO all this month, brings to mind the carnival attractions of a bygone era.

Instead of "See the bearded lady and Jo-Jo the dog-faced boy," it's "See the Christian wrestlers and the Goth Christian teens with their nose rings and fuchsia-colored hair, talking about getting a religious 'high.' " Pelosi takes a diverse and dynamic community (estimated at between 50 million and 80 million) and turns it into a cavalcade of the bizarre.

Blue Staters often picture evangelicals as a tribe of shallow and slightly loony fanatics. Pelosi's documentary reinforces these prejudices. With minimal effort, the daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have found a few evangelical scientists, stock brokers, dedicated inner-city teachers or counselors at drug rehab centers.

Instead, she offers HBO viewers the Christian Wrestling Federation, Christian miniature golf (where players putt through the empty tomb of the resurrected Jesus), a truck-stop prayer group and a Bible theme park, where an actor in robe and sandals dispenses parables. At a drive-through church, those seeking the spiritual equivalent of fast food can pray with a lady behind a plate glass window from the comfort of their car.

It's the tried-and-true technique of filmmakers with an agenda — find the most embarrassing and absurd examples of whatever you want to lampoon and get them on camera.

Pelosi's piece is like a Bush supporter making a documentary on the anti-war movement by going to rallies and interviewing geriatric Trotskyites, dudes in dirty dreadlocks carrying signs equating Israel to the Third Reich and transgendered Scientologists.

A review in The Denver Post notes: "With smug narration and a condescending tone, the filmmaker … finds plenty to gawk at outside her hip metropolitan comfort zone. Nobody sounds more provincial than a New Yorker set adrift in the heartland."

Pelosi follows the trail blazed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady's 2006 documentary Jesus Camp, about a Pentecostal summer camp for 7- to 12-year-olds in North Dakota. With thousands of Bible camps across the land to choose from, Ewing and Grady found the most extreme and scary.

In Jesus Camp, kids pray with a cardboard cut-out of George Bush. Campers weep uncontrollably as they are told they're "hypocrites" and "phonies" — in a segment reminiscent of a 1960s Chinese Cultural Revolution self-criticism session.

Becky Fischer, founder of the "Kids on Fire" summer camp, comes across as a Pentecostal version of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who ran Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S. invasion. "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," Fischer confides. "I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel, as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places."

As reviewers noted, all that was missing here were the AK-47s and dynamite belts (giving a new twist to Bible Belt).

But that's exactly the way cultural elitists view conservative Christians — as barely literate crackpots who could explode at any moment. As Rosie O'Donnell explained on ABC's The View last year, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state." Sneering at Christians is a favorite pastime of the cultural left. HBO's Bill Maher calls politically active Christians "demagogues, con men and scolds."

Instead of fear and loathing, Pelosi uses the comically absurd to stigmatize evangelicals. Among other oddities, she presents the home-schooling family with 10 children, where the girls are identically attired in calico dresses — The Stepford Wives meets Little House On The Prairie. Occasionally, Pelosi gives the game away, as when she asks the Cruisers for Christ, rallying with their classic cars, "So, do you think the Holy Spirit is here in this Burger King parking lot?"

Not everyone is treated like an escapee from a Fellini film. As a foil to the evangelicals interviewed in Friends of God, Pelosi chose Mel White, formerly a speechwriter for Jerry Falwell, and now a gay activist.

White explains that people such as Falwell aren't evil, but (presumably because they oppose gay marriage) hate people like him. We see White in Falwell's church looking anguished for the congregants who are less enlightened than himself.

The HBO website says the film is "driven by (Pelosi's) unflagging curiosity and genuine interest in learning about this increasingly influential community" as she "embarks on a fast-paced cross-country journey, offering snapshots of a cross-section of evangelical America."

Pelosi presents not a cross-section, but the fringe. Friends of God is as representative of evangelicals as Ben Stiller's mental-patient parents in Meet The Fockers are of Jews. But at least the latter doesn't try to pass itself off as a documentary.

Don Feder is a former syndicated columnist and author of Who's Afraid of the Religious Right?

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...igion66.art.htm

[Captain Liger 0]

Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[lca408 366]

Its crap like this that pollutes the impressionable minds of every 18-21 year old who has just grown old enough to latch on to someone else's views and take them as gospel. I hate seeing it in college. Kids my age are rampaging around campus, supporting all kinds of crazy things, and proclaiming michael moore as a "great man" for telling the truth. They believe the first thing they see on TV or hear their peers talking about.

Ryan

[otterinbham 0]

Hold the phone. I'm not a fan of Pelosi and company. But I think the Religious Right brought a lot of this on themselves by becoming very politicized and basically setting themselves up as a branch office for the GOP.

I'm a conservative (to the point of being Libertarian), and I'm a devout Christian. But, as I have posted many times on this board, I am very uncomfortable with the Fundamentalists' ongoing involvement in Republican politics. We're not talking legitimately holding forth on an issue or two such as abortion. We're talking about buying into the entire Republican platform to such a degree that Rove used them as a key instrument in both of Bush's presidential campaigns. Can anybody remember Jerry Falwell weighing in on such things such as nuclear throwweights? I do. And, personally, I think that some of the more freakish evangelical ministries are fair game.

The problem is that, while a Christian can be aligned with Republican thinking on a number of issues such as abortion, I think a Christian can also be very justified finding many synergies in Democratic thinking on items such as social justice. So a good Christian can support reconcile platforms of both parties under the umbrella of his faith.

So what's the solution? Simply put, the church should stay out of politics altogether, because politics only serves to taint faith. And if a church decides to play the dirty game of politics, it can't exactly complain when it becomes smeared in the process.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

"Target?" If you're embarassed being filmed doing what you're doing, then do something else.

[au9596 0]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

What would Jesus do? Hint: what he did before-- shun politics.

[otterinbham 0]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Which church? Which interpretation of the scriptures? You seem to regard Christianity as a monolithic thing.

[Tiger Al 0]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Should the church be involved in the formulation of laws?

[Tigermike 3,054]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Should the church be involved in the formulation of laws?

Should atheists?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Should the church be involved in the formulation of laws?

Should atheists?

He didn't ask if Christians or Jews or Muslims should be involved. He said "the Church."

[Tigermike 3,054]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Should the church be involved in the formulation of laws?

Should atheists?

He didn't ask if Christians or Jews or Muslims should be involved. He said "the Church."

And Christians are "The Church". So if he is referring to a specific denomination, which one?

[Tiger Al 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Isn't that the form of "democracy" that Bushco is spreading in the middle east?

[Tiger Al 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Isn't that the form of "democracy" that Bushco is spreading in the middle east?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Should atheists?

[Tiger Al 0]

Should atheists?

Since our government is secular, I don't see why not.

[au9596 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Yes.

To the extent that any group has the right to influence lawmakers (Congress). I would like to see the church take a more active role in influencing legislation than they do today. By "church" I mean those who believe in God as the christians and jews do, no specific denomination.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state in our constitution only freedom of religion. Seperation of Church and State derived from a misguided ruling by the Supreme Court which was never intended by the founding fathers of this country. It is a perfect example of legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the constitution and or laws established by the legislative branch.

[AFTiger 282]

Should atheists?

Since our government is secular, I don't see why not.

Atheists have done such a wonderful job in the past. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, et al. Athiest govenments seem to be so deadly.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Should atheists?

Since our government is secular, I don't see why not.

Atheists have done such a wonderful job in the past. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, et al. Athiest govenments seem to be so deadly.

Those aren't atheist Gov'ts.

[AFTiger 282]

Should atheists?

Since our government is secular, I don't see why not.

Atheists have done such a wonderful job in the past. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, et al. Athiest govenments seem to be so deadly.

Those aren't atheist Gov'ts.

I guess Socialism is a religion.

[otterinbham 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Yes.

To the extent that any group has the right to influence lawmakers (Congress). I would like to see the church take a more active role in influencing legislation than they do today. By "church" I mean those who believe in God as the christians and jews do, no specific denomination.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state in our constitution only freedom of religion. Seperation of Church and State derived from a misguided ruling by the Supreme Court which was never intended by the founding fathers of this country. It is a perfect example of legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the constitution and or laws established by the legislative branch.

Well, I for one am wary when any one denomination speaks for the body of Christianity. What legislation would you ram through based on your interpretation of the faith?

-- If you're Baptist, I guess you would outlaw alcohol. Of course, we all know what a total disaster that was.

-- If you're Catholic, you would be obligated to outlaw contraception. In fact, Tom Monahan, the founder of Domino's has founded a Catholic city in Florida. And, in the city by-laws, he did his best to outlaw contraceptives and cable channels that he disapproved of, before being stopped by a state judge. See how quickly one person can impose his views on another?

-- If you're Mormon, not only would you be obligated to outlaw contraception and alcohol, but you might be also weighing in on legalizing polygamy.

-- If you're a fundamentalist, you'd be intent on hanging the Ten Commandments up in the court house, never considering for a moment that the Ten Commandments vary markedly between Protestant and Catholic, Christian and Jew. Preferring one version of the Ten Commandments over the other is an implicit state endorsement of one branch of Christianity over another.

-- At the same time, you'd do your utmost to put prayer in public schools, even though a number of denominations take Matthew, Chapter 6, to heart and discourage prayer in public places. And, of course, the very language of prayer is denominational in nature, and represents that denomination's view on a person's relationship with God. After all, if you go to a high Anglican mass, the language of prayer is very formal in nature signifying a profound sense of structure and servant hood. Meanwhile, the language used in some fundamentalist congregation is very personal and intimate, almost as if you were asking God to hand you up a night crawler from the back of the fishing boat. Whose prayers would you say in school?

-- If you're a liberal Christian, then you'd be advised to heighten government commitment to social programs and cut military funding to a bare essential.

The list goes on and on and on, and that's the problem. Because of the wholesale differences between Christian denominations on a variety of issues, nobody adequately speaks for the entire faith. That's why there is wisdom in the separation of church and state. By not preferring one religious practice over another we are all able to worship in our own way, rather than thrashing out our theological differences in every session of Congress and in city council meetings.

[au9596 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Yes.

To the extent that any group has the right to influence lawmakers (Congress). I would like to see the church take a more active role in influencing legislation than they do today. By "church" I mean those who believe in God as the christians and jews do, no specific denomination.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state in our constitution only freedom of religion. Seperation of Church and State derived from a misguided ruling by the Supreme Court which was never intended by the founding fathers of this country. It is a perfect example of legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the constitution and or laws established by the legislative branch.

Well, I for one am wary when any one denomination speaks for the body of Christianity. What legislation would you ram through based on your interpretation of the faith?

I never said one denomination should speak for the body of Christianity. The rest of your post sounds like you want to exclude groups and individuals from the political process. That's a NO NO!!!

[Tigermike 3,054]

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,

then we will be a nation gone under."

Ronald Reagan

The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today.

Should the church be involved in the formulation of laws?

OK Al, I'm going to ask you the same question about a group that is near and dear to your heart.

Should the gay and lesbo lobby be involved in the formulation of laws?

Also.

Should those environmentalists who worship at the feet of global warming be involved in the formation of laws?

[otterinbham 0]

I mean the church. au9596 said, "The Church should be even more involved than it is in our politics today." So, my question is, "Should a religious institution be involved in the formulation of US laws?"

Yes.

To the extent that any group has the right to influence lawmakers (Congress). I would like to see the church take a more active role in influencing legislation than they do today. By "church" I mean those who believe in God as the christians and jews do, no specific denomination.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state in our constitution only freedom of religion. Seperation of Church and State derived from a misguided ruling by the Supreme Court which was never intended by the founding fathers of this country. It is a perfect example of legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the constitution and or laws established by the legislative branch.

Well, I for one am wary when any one denomination speaks for the body of Christianity. What legislation would you ram through based on your interpretation of the faith?

I never said one denomination should speak for the body of Christianity. The rest of your post sounds like you want to exclude groups and individuals from the political process. That's a NO NO!!!

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. In your previous post, you said a church should be involved in the formulation of laws. I simply asked the question, "Which one?" and elaborated on the complexity of actually doing what you apparently think would be a simple matter. And, quite frankly, I think we have examples beyond number of religious meddling in governance, and the inevitable consequences. You don't even have to look at Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples. We've had similar abuses of power in our own history when one religious group gets power.

Prohibition is a perfect example. Abstention from alcohol is strictly a fundamentalist issue, whereas Catholics and most Protestants had no problem with the moderate consumption of alcohol. Yet the 21st Amendment basically forced a fundamentalist concept into the lives of Americans of all religious persuasions.

If you read carefully the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, you'll find an utterly different reality than the carefully edited history you remember from your fifth grade Thanksgiving pageant. You were whipped if you didn't attend church and hanged if you said the Lord's name in vain. A dozen Salem women were hanged for the suspicion of being witches in accordance with Leviticus. And the list goes on and on. Heck, the Baptists were run out of Massachusetts and migrated to Rhode Island. There, in turn, they cheerfully began suppressing the beliefs of others.

Of course, there are the Mormons, both as oppressed and oppressors. Mormons were jailed for their beliefs in this country and, when they migrated to Salt Lake City, turned the tables and began oppressing those who didn't believe as they did. In fact, we very nearly had a different civil war in Utah when the United States required the outlawing of polygamy before statehood could be considered.

Again, the list goes on and on. The tragedy is that nobody believes that their brand of the faith will infringe on other people's lives, while in practice it almost always does. I certainly agree that this would be a better country if it fully lived up to Christian principles. The problem is that I believe this would be a better country if it lived up to MY Christian principles as opposed to YOUR Christian principles, while you believe exactly the opposite. Whose version of the faith gets to prevail?

Personally, I believe the system works best the way it is. And your faith is best demonstrated by how you live your life and how you teach your children, not by formulating a bunch of laws that codify your personal theological positions on things.