"In the Modern Era, Christianity was confronted with various forms of
skepticism and with certain modern political ideologies such as
liberalism, nationalism and socialism. This included the anti-
clericalism of the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and
general hostility of Marxist movements, especially the Russian
Revolution.

Christian commitments in Europe dropped as modernity and secularism
came into their own in Western Europe, while religious commitments in
America have been generally high in comparison to Western Europe. The
late 20th Century has shown the shift of Christian adherents to the
Third World and southern hemisphere in general, with Western
Civilization no longer the chief standard bearer of Christianity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Christianity_in_the_Modern_Era

"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:542b3841-a90c-4c97-a38c-75a64161719a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

tooly wrote:

Christianity in the USA is not Christ-like, and to couple contemporary
American Christianity as necessary in the national leadership would
obviate true Christian morality.

Suck it up.

On Jun 20, 3:49 pm, "tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote:

tooly wrote:

Christianity is obsolete because, as Nietzsche really said, "the
Levantine concept of god is dead". That concept is tyrannic.

This is the internet age of peer to peer communications rather
than top down from the voice of authority in the pulpit. Marxist
notions of the concentrations of power are also obsolete. You
cant run a tyranny without controlling the flow of information,
and there's no way to do that any more that any competent geek
cannot get around.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:48:55 -0700, turtoni wrote:

Christianity is not now nor has it ever been a unified belief system.

"Christian adherents"

By what measure? How does one judge a 'adherent'?

This is being measured, I suspect, via church, "if you go to church you
adhere to the proclamations of that church".

But wait there's more!!:
"This included the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, the Spanish
Civil War, and general hostility of Marxist movements, especially the
Russian Revolution.

Oh, oh. Trouble in wikiland. None of the above were hostile to the
religion, per se, the hostility came from the political complicity of the
church. Huge huge difference. Religion is not necessarily the same as
Church.

This point is of philosophical interest if for no other reason than it is
too easily overlooked and serves a mutual benefit to 'both sides' of the
church/state issue.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:49:56 -0400, tooly wrote:

Well not so solid.

Russia was both christian and the aristocracy certainly considered
themselves part of European Culture. The Czarina WAS Queen Victoria's
grand-daughter and all.

Class warfare? French revolution? the Labor wars in the US? The "new
Deal" which was the adaption of soft socialism only happened to short out
the very, very real threat of a revolution largely among a labor
population that was very new to this culture as many were to the English
language.

Russia did not have a "weaker" national identity at all. One of the
biggest bones of contention with the monarchy was the German born grand
daughter of Queen Victoria who sat in the palace. She was not like
because she was not Russian.