1

I just wrote something on this too. More specifically, Why I'm not a liberal democrat. It's odd, but most of the comments made about the post are in a comment field at the top of the page under Daily notes.

The definition of liberal has changed over time. I mention in the comment field that if we really want to make old definitions new again, there would be nothing wrong in calling me a gay liberal. (i.e. happy to liberate.) But since definitions do change, I would rather not be labeled that way.

Heres the link to that piece.
http://brianscott.blogspot.com/2004/08/why-i-am-conservative-part-1.html

2

Thanks for the link, Joe. I'm glad you addressed other issues in the column. If I'd written about all of his inane statements, I'd still be writing. You should trackback so my readers can see your post: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/06/jesus-was-liberal/trackback/

3

I'm unconvinced that the left is willingly accepting the label; it's now that they simply have to make the best of the box they've built around themselves.

And using some twisting of Historical figures to justify their current position seems right in line with their nomral tactics.

4

Whoa nelly - Jefferson and Washington were both from Virginia. Now some ignorant kids in South Carolina once called my family Yankees because we were from =North= Carolina, but I wouldn't call Jefferson and Washington northerners...

In any case, even Jefferson wasn't a liberal in today's terms (Washington, assuredly not).

5

Meep,

...but I wouldn't call Jefferson and Washington northerners...

Here in Texas we consider anyone who lives above the Red River to be "northerners" if not outright Yankees. Oklahomans, for example, are the first northerners on the map. Even people from Amarillo are a bit suspect. ; )

6

Joe, your policy is a sane one indeed. Whenever one is tempted to place one's faith in any other person living above the TN-AL state line, he really is taking on an unnecessary risk.

I've heard good things about those Yankees in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Virginia, but I'm too nervous to take anyone's word for it.

7

The real question is did Jesus believe in this trickle-down cut-taxes-for-the-rich baloney that George Bush shoved down our throats?

He's fallen JUST A TAD SHORT on his estimations of what would happen if America followed his "plan." At least, he's fallen short if you look at the average worker.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

On the other hand, I'm sure Halliburton and the oil companies are doing just fine. In fact, oil prices are at RECORD HIGHS. How wonderful for Human Scum Cheney and his ilk. If the rich are happy, then Jesus is happy. Right? Doesn't it say that in your holy book?

8

I realize that not everyone who posts on this site shares this view, but I believe that Jesus is the one and only true God. I don't think that trying to pin one modern political label or another on God really makes much sense or is theologically sound. It almost seems that by doing so, we are saying that either liberals or conservatives (take your pick) are more God-like, when the truth is that we all fall so far short of God's glory that our political differences don't really make much differences.

Moses, on the other hand, was definitely a conservative. ;-)

9

Good point, Dave. In making it, you remind me of my mom: Whenever somebody claimed that God was on his side (whether it be the Arabs, the Israelis, or the Georgia Tech basketball team), she would always say, "God doesn't pick sides. We do."

True enough.

10

"Moses established a theocratic government and instituted laws against sodomy."

..Sodomy, Masturbation, and Pork Rinds actually.

It's also a safe bet that a "Conservative" today is nothing like what the Founders would consider to be a conservative.

Any more meaningless labels you would like to toss around?

11

Joe, this isn't exactly fair. He's siding with suffragettes in their women's suffrage and not in their support of slavery, Washington and Jefferson in their support for an independent nation and not in their support for slavery, etc. I didn't even read his whole context, and that was still clear just from what you quoted.

I do think your major point is at least in the right direction, but there are many different axes along which you measure whether someone is liberal or conservative. Jesus was conservative with respect to sticking with the spirit of the Torah that Pharisees were being liberal with in trying to get away with whatever they could rather that following the original point. He was thus conservative in hearkening back to the ancient traditions. Yet he was liberal in the sense of opposing the prevailing social order of his day.

What Jackson is doing is inappropriate but not because he got the answers wrong. It's because he isn't asking the right questions. There are too many answers to the questions he's asking, and they don't all agree with him. If he focused more on whether specific policies were consonant with biblical principles, that would be a real discussion with real answers that I think might vary from issue to issue.

12

Jeremy,

Joe, this isn't exactly fair. He's siding with suffragettes in their women's suffrage and not in their support of slavery, Washington and Jefferson in their support for an independent nation and not in their support for slavery, etc. I didn't even read his whole context, and that was still clear just from what you quoted.

Read the whole context and you will see that Jackson was selectively choosing historical figures that held the moral high ground and then slapping the “liberal” label on them. His methodology is corrupt and inaccurate.

I do think your major point is at least in the right direction, but there are many different axes along which you measure whether someone is liberal or conservative. Jesus was conservative with respect to sticking with the spirit of the Torah that Pharisees were being liberal with in trying to get away with whatever they could rather that following the original point. He was thus conservative in hearkening back to the ancient traditions. Yet he was liberal in the sense of opposing the prevailing social order of his day.

Precisely. Jackson presents a false dilemma by trying to associate himself with these people.

13

I'm guessing that modern conservatives would be considered something along the lines of tories back in the days of our founders, while the libertarians would be closer to the original Democratic-Republican party that the opposition to the Federalist Party of Hamilton ran under.

14

"Jesus fed crowds of people exactly two times. It’s not like he was running a food kitchen for free-loaders who didn’t want to get a job."

Umm, Joe: Jesus only died for our sins once -- does that mean we shouldn't give that as much weight as things he did many times?

15

Now what would a "liberal" Jesus do to a "Reverend" Jesse Jackson/ Feared Extortionist whose trade in part relies on his claim to be God's servant? Anyone remember Jesus beating up and whipping people?

16

Another Kevin?

Henceforth, my username is Kevin W

17

The bit about the number of times Jesus fed the crowds misses the point. As a conservative, I believe that the needy should be helped. I just don't think that the government should do it -- it's far too inefficient and impersonal.

Larry, I went to the site you mentioned. I see that unemployment is down to 5.5% (and this 5.5% is a percentage of the largest number of people ever employed), and that wages are up. You're obviously angry about something, but I can't tell what it is.

18

Wrf3 writes

"I see that unemployment is down to 5.5% (and this 5.5% is a percentage of the largest number of people ever employed)"

Now THAT is a new spin on employment figures. Nice.

As to the rest of the economy, what's helpful is to compare the number of new jobs created last month (32,000) with the number of new jobs that Bush promised would be created each month with his asinine tax-break-for-the-rich strategery. Do you recall what Bush promised AMerica in order to sell his fatcat-feeding regular-guy-screwing plan? Let me remind you (because you obviously have forgotten): 300,000 jobs per month. That's THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND jobs per month. 32,000 is like 10% of that. Pathetic.

19

Larry wrote: Now THAT is a new spin on employment figures. Nice.

Is there something that I said that isn't true? More people are now employed than ever before in our history, and the unemployment rate is the same as, or less than, what it was when Clinton was in office.

His "tax-break-for-the-rich" stragegy isn't asinine. It is the wealthy (in particular, the small business S-corp owner) that creates jobs. Have you ever had a poor person offer you a job? I haven't.

Also, how did Bush's tax cuts "screw" the regular guy? How does allowing people to keep more of their money hurt them? I certainly have more money and I'm not rich.

You act as if economic predicitions are an exact science. They aren't. Nevertheless, the economy is growing, jobs are being created, and people are keeping more of their hard-earned money.

Finally, suppose the tax cuts hadn't been enacted. Do you think that unemployment would be at or better than 5.5%? How would this have led to more jobs?

20

Dear Larry,

5.5% is what used to be considered full employment. Since it doesn't sound like you've spent the last couple of years out of work and looking, as I was, maybe you should compare the want ads in any paper you'd like from today's to those exactly one year ago. Even someone as close minded as you should be able to see how many more there are now, than there were a year ago. And yes, I did take a low paying job when my unemployment ran out. I went to a highwer paying job a month ago, and just took an even higher paying salaried position this week.

You may be able to fool other liberals, but you can't fool those of us getting hired these days.

21

Good post.

So Jesse stands with the many against the few?

Sounds good, but many are against gay marriage. Leading up to the civil war, many were for slavery.

Or at one time, many were against sufferagettes.

Many were for gassing the Jews in the 3rd reich and unfortunately, it would appear many are again for pushing the Jews into the sea. Hmmm, wonder how Moses and Jesus would view that?

How about when many were for Jim Crow laws, and siccing dogs and turning the firehose against the few that dared to protest..

Jesse and his posse are a bunch of punks! :

22

Thanks for the post. That was funny. Jackson should write for Saturday Night Live. He should also brush up on his history... wait, naw, he would lose the comic element of his writing then.

23

Jesus revealed views on politics (including all of the Bible, Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) aren't precisely that of either the State Totalists of the Democrat Party, nor the Neo-cons (former Southern Democrats) who mostly run the GOP.

Commpassionate Conservatism was developed mainly by Marvin Olasky to be a specifically Christian view. This also can be said of the Declaration of Independence and the Philadelphia Constitution. Likewise for official Catholic social thought from Papal encyclicals (not the hippie Marxists at your local parish, nor the 'What's good for the Democrat Party must be what God really meant' USCCB) such as Rerum Novarum and Centissimus Annus.

You will notice that while there are similarities, they are not identical. There is room for people of good intent to differ, but there is not infinite room for this.

I suppose the Constitution Party is closest to the views of the Founders of the Republic. Libertarianism just isn't compatible with Christianity, when closely examined, though Christians could live well under such a system.

24

"Anyone remember Jesus beating up and whipping people?"

Didn't He kick a bunch of money-changers butts?

25

Jesus is a theocrat. He believes very strongly in the goodness of the comming global Christian theocracy. So do I.

26

jesus wasn't just a liberal, he was a pinko-commie too!

27

Thank-you, Peter.

JEREMY, good comments about Jesus being a restorative conservative. Every time I here someone claim that "Jesus was a revolutionary" I wince.

PATRICK, Jesus may have thrown over the tables, and chased them off with the threat of an impromptu whip of cords, but there is no record of him ever "kick[ing] a bunch of moneychangers' butts." Your attempt to change history through a bit of clever word-play can't go unchallenged.

The title of Jackson's article hints at its motivation for being: liberalism is getting a bad name. Of course, that cannot be because of the moonbats the Democrats attract, or their championing of the politics of victimization; liberalism has been given a bad name by the evil conservatives. So he attempts to rehabilitate liberalism with these absurd comparisons.

Liberals understand better than the right about the plasticity of language, and its Orwellian power to influence thought, so they are always trotting out new euphemisms in order to re-package their same old ideas. Political Correctness is their great triumph in thought control.

Now that the wackiness in the new liberalism is starting to shock and repel mainstream America, Jesse wants to re-define liberalim through a bit of revisionist history, or paste the euphemism "Progressive" over it. Progressive? Reminds me of the social movements of the early 20th Century. Is that really the image Jesse wants to create? Maybe, since he trots out the sufferagettes. This is just a re-skinning; liberalism still contains all the corrupting power it has had since it threw off the restraints of morality and social controls back in the '60s.

Who listens to Jesse Jackson? He's a cartoon. Sure, this article is irresponsible, but what do you expect of him?

Dems just can't stand losing power. Jesse Jackson is no exception: I expect to see him wherever there is a television camera. He is addicted to his own relevance. This is just another verse of their old song "Rast Right-wing Conspiracies are Keeping us Down." They wind up appearing nutty.

Thanks for the entertainment, Jesse.

28

Paul sounds a lot like a "liberal" in Romans 13:1-7. One of his arguments sounds eerily reminiscient to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the government."

29

Whether Moses was a liberal or a conservative could be debated, but a better analogy of liberal vs conservative in Moses' time would have been this, in my view:

Liberals would represent the portion of the Israelites, that despite having just seen God's miraculous deliverance from Egypt, complained vociferously about the lack of food and water and other conveniences in the desert, and asked to go back to Egypt; and later, were embodied in Korah and his followers who challenged the authority of Moses to rule alone (they thought this was unfair and unnecessary, they too were holy), and were strictly judged by God Himself.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who followed Moses, and trusted in God to provide. Boring yes, but obediant to God and His leader.

30

The labeling is an anachronism. Liberal and Conservative are enlightenment concepts, and as Jesse uses them even more narrowly construed to 20th century usage. Jesus and Moses and whoever never thought in those categories, and applying those labels to them is simply idiotic. It doesn't mean anything.

31

C. S. Lewis in, I'm pretty sure, Mere Christianity addresses the issue of liberal vs conservative christianity. I'm away from my copy, but he basically says you can find support for whatever position you want. Paul at one point says, "If a man shall not work he shall not eat." But in Acts, they talk about pooling all of their resources and taking care of each other. He is a far better writer than I, so I recommend his essay. I'll try to find it later.

Also in The Screwtape Letters, he addresses those who use God to justify their own positions. Again, I don't have the exact quote, but the senior devil says (to the junior temptor) that the important thing is to get the human to think that the Church is important because it supplies excellent arguments for the British War effort or for Pacifism (it doesn't matter much which) rather than because it is true, and that if meetings and pamphlets become more important than prayer, sacrament, and charity then the Human is won for Hell.

The older I get the more I see that "Christian" is a totally different concept than Liberal or Conservative. It's a call to obedience, love, and charity to others and it's totally personal.

32

Wrf3 writes:

"More people are now employed than ever before in our history "

There are more people, period, in the US now then ever before in our history. So what? My point is not that Bush's tax cuts have made employment levels remarkably awaful, but that they simply have NOT produced the new jobs which he promised us that they would. Not even close!!! Just a tad over 10% of what he predicted!!!

Btw, I'm glad you're employed. I hope you enjoy your job and I hope it pays you well enough to buy a house or do whatever it is we Americans are supposed to do if we are living "the American Dream".

"Trust me Larry, if it's appreciation for your intellect you desire, you'll be far more successful. I and probably a lot of others on this blog could be just as crude as you. "

Don't bet it on it! I'm holding back 99% of the time. :)

Seriously, though, I am fascinated by what appears to me as a genuine "identification" with these political figures. It seems to me that to be offended by a term such as Dickless "Human Scum" Cheney is to really be deluded as to who these people are and what they think about us. Which is to say me and you. I can assure that I don't use the term Human Scum lightly. These folks in DC are playing games with the world in ways that are non-trivial. These guys are not like Pizarro or some other explorer getting in a ship for half a year and then killing whoever they meet on the other side for their "nation." These guys want the world and they want it NOW, as my boy James sang a few years back. And the sick thing is that they don't try to hide it. If I saw a shred of evidence which indicated that Cheney had one ounce of human decency in him -- that he was capable of being contrite and admitting failures, lies, mistakes, for existence -- I might be able to contain my loathing for the guy. But I'm just not seeing that that. I'm seeing a lot of the opposite.

33

References: Screwtape Letters, number 7, and Mere Christianity, part 3, chapter 3, Social Morality. (see previous post.)

34

Jesus performed His miracles to prove He is the promised Messiah..in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

I would ask Jackson about that first. Then I would ask his view on if Jesus is also the same God who authored the Law of Moses..leading to the reference on the law of gleaning.

I would then ask Jackson his view on the writings of Paul. Did Paul write inspired Scripture or not? If so, the passage mentioned earlier from Thessalonians would be proper.

35

To Steve_in_Corona -- Or more likely, the folks who wrote the gospels decided their messiah needed historical credibility and well after his death decided to write up a testimonial of miracles matching up with OT prophecy. People at that time placed a premium on the ancient, and newfangled teachings like Christianity had little chance of taking hold in some circles if it couldn't link itself directly to the OT.

Placing modern political/philosophical labels on ancients in wildly different cultures is largely pointless. They didn't have the same concepts and values at work, and modern labels really don't fit well. Jesse is trying to appease the godly within the Democratic party, a silly exercise in my view. The party of the theocrats is the Republican party, I have no idea why Democrats would want to try and attract people who want their religious myths turned into public policy. Let it guide your own life if you feel the need, don't force it on everyone else.

36

Jeff, You should do some serious study in textual criticism of the New Testament for yourself..rather than simply swallow some "easy-skeptic" view that has been disproved for several decades but continues to flourish among the uneducated.

I am not saying you need to BELIEVE the gospels..but to argue they were written "well after his death" went out of educational favor quite awhile ago, and by repeating it you lose all credibility on the topic.

If that matters to you...

37

Steve_in_Corona, I have done a little dabbling in textual criticism of the NT. The scholarly view that the gospels were likely not written by the apostles or their associates themselves but sometime in the late 1st century CE by educated Greek-speaking Christians is far from "disproved" or "uneducated". Bart Ehrman (http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/EhrmanCV1.html), for example, makes that case in his "The New Testament". Sometime in the 2nd century CE the dominant Christian faction that shaped the Christianity we know now decided they needed apostolic authorities and attributed the four books we take as the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But by all means, don't take my word on it, do the research yourself.

38

. The scholarly view that the gospels were likely not written by the apostles or their associates themselves but sometime in the late 1st century CE by educated Greek-speaking Christians is far from "disproved" or "uneducated