Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Religious Left
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, June 05, 2006

Barbara O'Brien writes at Unclaimed Territory that "Liberal Theocracy" will be way better than "Conservative Theocracy". Oh sure, that's not what she meant to write, but that's what it means.
I would be thoroughly pleased with a religious movement that sought to disassociate personal values from the political realm.
Sick of the intolerance of the religious right? So is O'Brien! "[T]his will be," she writes, "a request for tolerance". After which she observes — tolerantly! — that the problem isn't religion, but that "we’ve allowed religion to be defined by the stupid and the warped". It's that kind of tolerance that allows people like her to put up with people like the religious right.

In any event, the bulk of her post is an argument for less literalism and more imagination in religious interpretation, about which I have nothing much to say. I'm disinterested in theological treatments, except insofar as they impact me. I would, however, be thoroughly pleased with a religious movement that sought to disassociate personal values from the political realm. O'Brien hints at that...
Thomas Jefferson said “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Likewise, Mr. Seidman need not concern himself with the religious views of others who aren’t concerning themselves with the secularist views of Mr. Seidman. Instead of worrying that the Christian Left will contaminate democracy, I recommend that he, like Jefferson, swear “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” That’s the enemy of us all, religious or not.
the "Liberal Theocrats" differ from "Conservative Theocrats" only in the values they would impose upon us
One might be forgiven for thinking, briefly, that O'Brien was advocating a Religious Left movement that separated personal values from political values — that sought a government that neither "picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Unfortunately, the "Liberal Theocrats" differ from "Conservative Theocrats" only in the values they would impose upon us, not in the question of whether it is morally acceptable to impose values upon us. O'Brien applauds the fact that "Christians have played a leading role in social and political progress...". She cites incidents related to basic civil rights of blacks — about which there is no libertarian dissent — but if one suspects that the Religious and Christian Left has more in mind for us, then one suspects correctly.

Consider Jim Wallis, the man cited by O'Brien's subject as the "most prominent leader" of the religious left.. His political goals include "Promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity".

Further, his organization — Sojourners Magazine, a leading light of the Christian Left — advocates military intervention abroad, advocates higher taxes, and supports increased socialism in general. His "Call To Renewal" movement is little more than religious socialism.
the Religious Left movement ... most certainly does plan to pick my pocket and break a few legs.
As Jefferson said, "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." However, the Religious Left movement advocated by O'Brien, et al, most certainly does plan to pick my pocket and break a few legs.

I would be thrilled to see a political movement determined not to impose their religious values on the rest of us. The Amish and Mennonites come to mind. The Religious Left is not that movement.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Whatever happened to the idea of "Render to Caesar what is unto Caesar..." amongst our supposedly religious friends (of either persuasion)? Seems like the current paradigms espoused by both left and right eschew this idea in favor of a decidedly secularist idea of broad state powers.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Caesar was a dictator not elected by the masses; therefore, rendering unto Caesar was pretty much rendering unto a dictator. Now that we have a representative government (more so than even ancient Rome), we are Caesar, and if we want taxes to go down, then our votes for politicians to make them go down should have that result.

This particular member of the religious right (in bad standing, evidentally), doesn’t want most of the domestic agenda that Bush has accomplished, and doesn’t want any of the agenda that Wallis would try to accomplish.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
D, the problem is that the Constitution is no longer allowed to define what is Ceasar’s, instead the country is for many areas of life a nearly totalitarian and pure majoritarian state.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Oh crap, missed the link to Greenwald’s site. Now I KNOW that I don’t want any of that.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
Consider Jim Wallis, the man cited by O’Brien’s subject as the "most prominent leader" of the religious left.. His political goals include "Promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity".
Who knew the Social Gospel movement was still around?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
His "Call To Renewal" movement is little more than religious socialism.
Really? And where exactly does he call for "socialism"? I certainly didn’t see anything on his site that says he is for a centralized, planned economy. Here is the Mission statement:
1. Full participation by people of all races
2. A living family income for all who responsibly work
3. Affordable, quality healthcare for all, regardless of income
4. Schools that work for all our children
5. Safe, affordable housing
6. Safe and secure neighborhoods
7. Family-friendly policies and programs in every sector of society
So working for a living income for all who work is now socialism? Isn’t that everyone’s goal? Are you against a living income for all who work? Likewise, affordable health care and housing? Are you against those too?

What you seem to infer, without evidence, is that if you work for these goals, you are a socialist.

What a croc.

Here is how much of a "socialist" he is. Take a look at what he has to say about the Estate Tax:
Call to Renewal welcomes ideas for reform, such as making permanent the $3.5 million exemption scheduled to take effect in 2009. This would exempt about 88% of households that currently pay the tax. But we do not favor repeal, which would be biblically unjust and would also undermine charitable giving. Repeal would result in a further widening of the gap between the “haves” and “have nots” and a reduction in charitable giving.
What a bunch of wild eyed leftists.

The James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world want to tell me who I can have sex with and in what manner in the privacy of my bedroom. They are theocrats of the first order. Call for Renewal wants to make permanent the 3.5 million dollar exemption to the estate tax. Call me crazy, but we’ve got much more to fear from the former than the latter.

Another case of false moral equivalency.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Tom Perkins, David Block,

Okay, maybe I was a little vague in my citation of Caesar. My understanding of the scriptural text there was that there is nothing inherently holy in the actions of government and that we pay our taxes, tributes, etc. as a matter of rote or physical need and not religious devotion. I think we can strongly argue the same with regards to political advocacy.

I disagree that today "we are Caesar". The elected government of our republic is still very much Caesar and behaves as such. The only difference is that today’s Caesar is very much bound down with Lilleputian strings of Constitutional limits (Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi take note) and it is far easier and less dangerous for the rest of us to beseech the kin...er, seek redress. Still, our representatives do function with a certain elite air about them and, given the extreme incumbency rate, I would say that the populace is just fine with that. So accept today’s Caesar with as much thinly veiled contempt as you would have had 2000 years ago.

If indeed we seek for "taxes to go down" (or to go up in order to service a more "progressive agenda" if that is your bent) let’s do that because it serves the republic better; not because there is any moral/ethical/Godly/etc. reason to do so.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Are you against a living income for all who work? Likewise, affordable health care and housing? Are you against those too?
Sigh....

Still beating homosexuals and crippled children, mk?

Oh, wait.

Another case of false, loaded question from mk.
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
So working for a living income for all who work is now socialism?

If that work involves X taking money from Y against his will and giving it to Z simply because Z works and doesn’t make as much X thinks Z should have, yes.

Isn’t that everyone’s goal?

No.

Are you against a living income for all who work? Likewise, affordable health care and housing? Are you against those too?

Neither for nor against. The terms are too general to be meaningful, in the first place — What counts as living? Merely surviving? (I bet not.) What level of health care or housing? Affordable to whom? In the second place, insofar as the ’solution’ to this ’problem’ is state coerced redistribution of wealth, see above.
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
1. Full participation by people of all races
2. A living family income for all who responsibly work
3. Affordable, quality healthcare for all, regardless of income
4. Schools that work for all our children
5. Safe, affordable housing
6. Safe and secure neighborhoods
7. Family-friendly policies and programs in every sector of society
As Jon said the other day on a different subject, but with the same reason, how about;
8. And while we’re at it, why not a pony?

And I’ll add;
9. World Peace
Because Miss America isn’t here to suggest it.

There’s so much fun on that list I can’t stand it.
’for all who responsibly work’ - that would mean? Exotic dancers working their way though college?, bartenders?, brewers? punk rock musicians?, rappers? Renaissance faire sword makers? Performance artists?
’quality healthcare for all’ - quality hmmmmmm, Soviet style quality? U.S. Quality? German Quality?
’schools that work’ - Define ’work’? Reading, writing, Rithmatic? Possibly learning America is a bad country full of greedy industrialists and right wing religious fanatics who voted for the wrong president and is responsible for most of the suffering in the world?
’Safe, affordable housing’ - Define safe and affordable.
’Safe and secure neighborhoods’ - that should be interesting - can you be guilty of, say, driving while black in these neighborhoods?
’Family friendly policies’ - what about people with no ’families’? Singles? Married no kids? do they get to join the empire?

And while we’re at it, why not that pony?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Still beating homosexuals and crippled children, mk?

Oh, wait.

Another case of false, loaded question from mk.
Thanks for making my point. The problem, as you identify it, is unfounded assumptions underlying rhetorical positions. Jon assumes one must be a socialist if one is for laudable social goals and one does not adhere to some traditional notion of conservatism.

Another case of Robb unintentionally making my point. H/T to Robb.
So working for a living income for all who work is now socialism?

If that work involves X taking money from Y against his will and giving it to Z simply because Z works and doesn’t make as much X thinks Z should have, yes.
Right - if. Again, the point is that the source Jon cites doesn’t say that. But I guess you missed that part.

On the other hand, the current dominant philosophy of the right involves X taking money from unborn Y (in the form of borrowing) and giving it to already relatively rich Z. When you finance tax cuts thru borrowing, things tend to work out that way.
And while we’re at it, why not that pony?
Well, why don’t you ask the conservative dominated White House and Congress for the money for the pony. They seem to have no problem at all borrowing the money to buy it for you.

It’s fascinating to watch wingers rail against taxing the living, but spend only a quarter of the same energy railing against borrowing in the name of the unborn.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MKUltra wrote:
"Jon assumes one must be a socialist if one is for laudable social goals and one does not adhere to some traditional notion of conservatism."
Jon only seems to be assuming that if one believes the wealthy should pay for laudable social goals in a manner which nonlinearly increases proportionally to ones wealth—which is socialist.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jon only seems to be assuming that if one believes the wealthy should pay for laudable social goals in a manner which nonlinearly increases proportionally to ones wealth—which is socialist.
And where does Jim Wallis or his organization say they want to do that? Again, my beef is that Jon’s source, once again, does not support his conclusion.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And where does Jim Wallis or his organization say they want to do that? Again, my beef is that Jon’s source, once again, does not support his conclusion.
The problem is that Jim doesn’t say anywhere how he plans to implement these goals. It reminds me of the South Park underpants gnomes plan:

1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. Profit!

We all know how these goals would be funded. Except for the willfully obtuse, of course.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
So working for a living income for all who work is now socialism? Isn’t that everyone’s goal? Are you against a living income for all who work? Likewise, affordable health care and housing? Are you against those too? What you seem to infer, without evidence, is that if you work for these goals, you are a socialist.
No, not at all. If you work to achieve those goals through government, then you are well within the socialist paradigm. Anyway, denying that Wallis is functionally socialist is just stupid. Inter alia...
While Wallis was in seminary, he founded an anti-capitalist magazine called Post-American. In it, Wallis called for the redistribution of wealth and government-managed economies. This anti-capitalist worldview is expressed in religious terms as a quest for “social justice.”

In 1971, Wallis moved his Post-American operation to Washington, DC and renamed it Sojourners.
Sojourners is the evolution of Wallis’ call for "for the redistribution of wealth and government-managed economies". But don’t call him a socialist!
The James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world want to tell me who I can have sex with and in what manner in the privacy of my bedroom. They are theocrats of the first order. Call for Renewal wants to make permanent the 3.5 million dollar exemption to the estate tax. Call me crazy, but we’ve got much more to fear from the former than the latter.
(shrug) You just like the brand of value-imposition of Wallis, et al, more than that of Robertson. The kind of value-imposition of Dobson and Robertson don’t affect me much, but the kind of value-imposition pushed by the religious left "picks my pocket".

I realize you don’t mind that kind of theocracy, but it’s no different in principle.
Right - if. Again, the point is that the source Jon cites doesn’t say that.
I won’t take the time to walk you through it piece by piece. Suffice it to say that, when you demand a full welfare state, with things like a "living wage" and government subsidized health care and housing, then there’s just nothing else to call you. That’s socialism. It’s not communism, which is what you seem to be thinking of. In any event, everything I pointed to said what I noted it said. You may exist in some world wherein government redistribution from the haves to the have-nots is really capitalism, but that’s not our reality.
Take a look at what he has to say about the Estate Tax:
Take a look at what else he says about the estate tax.
The Bible does not condemn prosperity — it just insists that it be shared. To repeal this tax would be to disregard biblical warnings about the injustice of improper wealth accumulation. An accumulation of wealth that allows some people to live in luxury while others are left behind was unacceptable to the prophets and should be unacceptable to us. That is not "class warfare" — it is biblically based Christianity. Six hundred religious leaders have affirmed this by signing a petition suggesting that the estate tax be reformed to more fully protect small businesses and family farmers, but that it should not be repealed.
The Left loves this kind of theocracy.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mk - you’re so cute when you’re right.
The current version of a Republican Administration IS borrowing lots and lots of money. In fact, almost everyone here has derided them for it, and acknowledged that if this were Hollywood, we’d be giving the Oscar to the Republicans for their recent stellar performance as Democrats.

But let’s be adult, short of re-engineering humans the grand scheme to achieve steps 1-7 (sans Pony....costs too much extra) is all well
and good, but it’s exactly like asking for step 9 - World Peace.

Grand and laudable ideas, socially unworkable on any meaningful scale, destined to p*ss away lots and lots and lots of money, which the government can only possibly get from one primary source.

If Pat Robertson was suggesting this, you’d be throwing an ape-fit.
In fact, if you look hard enough, you can probably assemble all those requests from his various collected mumblings. And you know very well what he MEANS when he says those things.
Defending these from the other side and asking silly questions like "aren’t you for...." is quite disingenous.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Look, I am a libertarian, but I cannot remove personal values from public ones, and I would not want to. After all, I get a lot of my libertarian views from the teachings of my religion. "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s"
"Thou shalt not steal, or covet" "Compel no man"
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
No, not at all. If you work to achieve those goals through government, then you are well within the socialist paradigm. Anyway, denying that Wallis is functionally socialist is just stupid.
Each side of the political divide in this country uses tax/fiscal policy to achieve their political goals. Again, you adhere to this rather silly notion that using tax policy to achieve an economic goal necessarily makes one a socialist. It doesn’t. Bush recently signed a bill that raises the marignal rate for Americans living abroad. Under your definition, that would make him a socialist.

Look, you linked to a website as proof Wallis is a socialist. I visited the site. There is nothing on there to support the notion that he is a socialist. He is not talking about nationalizing industries. Hell, he isn’t even talking about single payer health insurance, at least nowhere that I looked. "Socialist paradigm" and "functionally socialist" are meaningless rhetoric.

To prove he is a socialist, you cite something he did 35 years ago. While he was in seminary. Wow.
The kind of value-imposition of Dobson and Robertson don’t affect me much, but the kind of value-imposition pushed by the religious left "picks my pocket".
So allowing you to exempt 3.5 million from the reach of the estate tax picks your pocket? You must be doing well. Hats off to you.
I won’t take the time to walk you through it piece by piece. Suffice it to say that, when you demand a full welfare state, with things like a "living wage" and government subsidized health care and housing, then there’s just nothing else to call you. That’s socialism
I didn’t see where he demanded it. Didn’t read that part at all. Again, you are confusing ends with means. Where does he demand a "full welfare state" - (whatever that is)? If I am a dyed in the wool capitalist, and I believe my lassiez faire policies would bring about a living wage for all, does that make me a socialist? No. Of course not. Nor does it make me a socialist if I work to effect changes in the tax/fiscal systems that - in my opinion - bring about that result.
You may exist in some world wherein government redistribution from the haves to the have-nots is really capitalism, but that’s not our reality.
I do. It’s called the United States. The poor get more back than they pay in. Many of the rich get less than they pay in. It is redistributive.

Where do you live?

Your problem is that you take an absolutist position on the issue when the are no absolutes. What we are really talking about here is differences of degree. You want the rich taxed less, I want them taxed more. But to suggest that I am for "redistribution" and you are against it in its entirety is ridiculous. No modern society could function if one received only and precisely those amount of services that one is taxed for. But that is what you are you are talking about. It’s silly, really.
The Bible does not condemn prosperity — it just insists that it be shared.
The Left loves this kind of theocracy.
True believers love every word Jesus spoke.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
True believers love every word Jesus spoke.
Oh great mk, now you are endorsing the winger version of theocracy as well? That is just what we need, a centrist theocracy where the government looks into our bedroom and our pocketbook. As usual you can’t seem to distinguish the difference between libertarians and christian conservatives or for that matter garden variety liberals and a left winger. Wallis is the latter and I find it hysterical you can’t acknowledge that and resort to all the sophistry you display here.

More importantly you don’t address the main point. If you think using the public square to enforce Wallis’ values is okay, then all your moaning about Dobson doing the same is rank hypocrisy.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
MK,

I feel that a few questions may be necessary here in order to determine your position on this issue. At the end of your last post, you said clearly that "True believers love every word that Jesus spoke."

May I assume then that you are essentially speaking from a left/liberal Christian point of view?

If so may I point out a key flaw in the entire right-wing Christian/left-wing Christian argument. I find that in reading a great deal of the right-wing Christian articles, speeches, blogs, etc. a great deal of precedence is placed on adherence to Old Testament scriptures and laws (i.e. against homosexual unions, against abortion, etc.), whereas in similar left-wing Christian venues, emphasis is placed on the New Testament. I believe the answer here is that you are both wrong. In order to faithfully call yourself an adherent to Christianity (be it in the form of Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.) [or a True believer to use MK’s term], you must accept the Bible as a whole (the Old and New Testaments).

The problem that I find with modern Christianity is that it is entirely selective in its approach to stated Christian beliefs and scriptures. Traditionalists wish to emphasize the laws of the OT while ignoring some of the essential teachings of Jesus [pbuh]. On the other hand, progressives seem to wish that the Bible started with the gospel of Matthew and completely ignore all of the stated laws and prohibitions of the OT. What this amounts to (to slightly misquote prominent Catholic thinkers) is cafeteria Christianity. Pick and choose what you like and then pronounce yourself a faithful Christian.

This is nonsense and a position that I can find absolutely no defense for. In addition, the entire issue raised here by Jon, MK, Tom, etc. revolves around the idea of separation of religion and politics. While I daresay that most on this site are entirely in support of the idea of separation of church and state, I have to ask MK (given your defense of Mr. Wallis’s positions) are you?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
"Whatever happened to the idea of "Render to Caesar what is unto Caesar...""

It has been superseded by the quaint little phrase: "You can give your soul to Jesus but your a** belongs to me!", which I interpret as meaning that the only reason you get to control your soul is that Caesar can’t tax, assess, condemn, or otherwise grab it too.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"I would be thrilled to see a political movement determined not to impose their religious values on the rest of us. The Amish and Mennonites come to mind."

But since traditional Amish and Mennonite belief teaches that believers should refrain from participation in wider society, and especially in the society’s government, that would then negate the possibility of it being a political movement. It would just be a movement (which it has been).

Is politics a means to impose one’s values (or the values of one’s faction, nod to Madison) on the populace? Or is politics a means to defend one’s self interest (and is that not in itself a value) against the wishes of the populace?

The conflict is between the desire/conviction that the government should act to make things be a certain way (and everyone, from socialists to libertarians, thinks along these lines), and the desire to be left alone. The latter is hard to reconcile with most religious teachings, which tend to frown on self-centeredness and promote interaction with the world to make things "better."

Lately I’ve tried to discipline myself to follow Rawls’ "difference principle": to look for solutions that, while they may increase inequality, also increase everyone’s share. If the pie grows enough that everyone gets more, I will (try to) not be too concerned that one or two people got a lot more.

Of course, what actually does "lift all boats" is up for debate, but I think that’s a good place to be. We should be debating whether cutting taxes (supply siding), increased spending (Keynesianism), or budget balancing (politicus extinctus) increases the total pie and everyone’s individual slice the most.

That kind of debate produces compromises and arguments like "My opponent does not increase individual prosperity enough." It’s definitely preferable to arguments like "My opponent hates God because he does not follow His commands."
 
Written By: Adam Sharp
URL: http://www.vayd.org/blog/15
MK seems to be insisting that Wallis is not a communist, rather than not a socialist, and that the fact that the US already has many components of socialism somehow means that people advocating those policies are not actually advocating socialism. Wallis favors socialist measures, and speaks favorably about "christian socialism".

But you don’t mind that mix of personal values and politics.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
It’s late to this thread, but Jon as the saying goes, "He’s not the kind you wind up on Sundays." IF my religion is the revealed word of God, I am OBLIGATED to shape my society in it’s image, sorry. You don’t want me to "impose" my views on you, but if your actions are wrong I am almost obligated, religiously, to attempt to correct you. Religion can NOT stay in the pulpit, if it does so then it has no effect outside the Church and therefore, violates God’s plan ofr us and his World. It’s simplistic and needs nuance, I freely admit, but your desire to be free of my religious meddling fundamentally misunderstands the whole POINT of religion, religion is NOT simply a personal internal experience.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s not? So, your religion obligates you to force me to change my sinful ways? Not to rebuke me, but to force me to change? I guess Christians have given up on that whole "in the world but not of it" thing.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well Jon, yes it does, now I am bound by the US Constitution, good for you... but Jesus said, "Go out and Preach the Good News to all the world".... there is this ethereal view of Christianity, that is at odds with portions of God’s Plan. We ARE of this world we live here and we have a duty to transform it... that all doesn’t just happen in the "End Times" or after "The Tribulation" or in the "Millenium". Every day we are supposed to be transforming the world... if that means a boycott of those that support Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl or a boycott of those that adverstise on "Skin-amax" that’s what it means.

Being Christian is about being "good" "pure" and "nice" it’s also about changing your life and the lives of those around you. I can point out that for my sect we oppose abortion as murder... and YES, Jon, if that means you and yours can not have abortion on demand, except in certain very limited cases, then we will force our beliefs upon you. We think the unborn are babies and that the "Culture of Death" needs reform. We’d like to change your mind about abortion, BUT in order to proetect the innocent we’ll use the law, too to save the lives of the unborn.

So yes, we Christians ARE in this world and we need to transform it, even before Christ returns. Changing the world around us means many things, but it is the outward sign of the indward change that is CONVERSION.

Again, "he’s not just the kind you wind up on Sundays" his teachings are for EVERY DAY, at home, at work, and at play... religion it’s not just for Sundays any more.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

Your diatribe is filled with non-sequiters. You can say all you want about changing the world and boycotts, but that in no way implies you have a right or obligation through government force to coerce me.

As for abortion, that is a different kettle of fish. If your claim is that the unborn are children, you have a valid point. They may then be supposed to have rights and determining the appropriate amount of protection is legitimate. You and I may disagree about what that amount, where it begins or even if they are children, but it is a legitmate for you to act on a claim that a person’s right to exist is being defended and appropriate no matter your politics or religion.

Jon’s argument in no way invalidates that, however it does challenge your right to impose your beliefs upon our behavior that does not include what you believe is murder. To take my property to give to someone else, or circumscribe who I can have sexual relations with violates my rights. No third party is threatened with death by me in those instances. Condemn me, grieve for my soul, but don’t tell me I should welcome the heavy boot of the law at my door.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Wow,

Compare and contrast:

Thomas Jefferson:
“it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Vs.

Joe:
“IF my religion is the revealed word of God, I am OBLIGATED to shape my society in it’s image, sorry.”

Personally, I’d rather live next door to Jefferson than Joe. I think Jefferson was probably a wee bit more intelligent than Joe also.
 
Written By: Dark Lord Xenu
URL: http://
Joe, for someone who normally writes some of the most perceptive comments on this site, I think you’ve really gone off the rails here.

Christianity is about persuasion, not force. If you force someone to do something you regard as moral, then you also take away his ability to voluntarily choose that course of action. Therefore you take away his ability to make a moral choice.

In the libertarian view, certain choices can obviously be denied - murder, theft, etc. - because they take the life or property of another person. But other choices - taking a drug or whether to contribute to charity - are presumed left up to the individual. I see justification for a Christian to attempt to persuade someone that they shouldn’t do drugs and should help the poor, but I can think of no Biblical interpretation that would say it’s fine to force that choice on another person.

Am I just misunderstanding what you’re saying here?

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider