1

What is distressing is our dependence on politics to "right" the world when the only thing we are to be doing is imitating Christ. I don't recall political principles being on the top of his list. Love your enemies, "unless it is more convenient to restrain them"!
Hmmmm!
Wouldn't the sanctity of human life be more apparent if we treated all human life as equally loved by God? Did Jesus hang out with the "whores and drunkards"?, Wasn't he accused of being one because of this? He had a tax collectors (extremely conservative) and a zealot (extremely liberal) as 2 of his 12.

He avoided answering heated political questions!

Because there is something much more important. Expanding the Kingdom of God, not depending on running the "Kingdoms of this world".

I am conservative!
I am Christian!
But I would be embarrassed to say that I am a Christian conservative.

You should be too!

2

Instead of relying on Joe's caricature, I would encourage everyone to read the article for yourself and judge the merit the Kirkpatrick's conclusions. Personally, I found it quite balanced and well-researched. Many of the statements describing the changing political focus of evangelicalism are made by evangelical leaders themselves. Even the fact that Joe's boss Tony Perkins is writing a chapter entitled "Is the Religious Right Dead?" is significant. If that's not even a possibility, why address an entire chapter to debunking it?

As to your six principles, they seemed vaguely familiar. Oh yeah, they remind me of the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism:

"1. The inherent dignity and worth of every person;

2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Hmmmmm. Plagiarism, anyone?

3

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus is economical.

Liked #6...

gb/db

4

Principles? That's a real knee-slapper. Any movement that equates the brain-dead to the living has nothing but contempt for life.

Any movement that is so scared of science they have to lie and invent their own has nothing but contempt for the truth.

Any movement that worships their interpretation of a book to the point where they ignore what is plainly in front of their nose is driven by nothing other than narcissism.

5

Any movement that equates the brain-dead to the living has nothing but contempt for life.

This is what happens when someone with only the vaguest understanding of human biology tries to comment on medical issues. Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity. A person who is "brain dead" is unable to breathe without the aid of a machine and has no response to pain and no cranial nerve reflexes (i.e. pupils are fixed and dilated, eyes don't move in response to light or movement, etc.). Nobody is arguing that we should keep brain dead people "alive" indefinitely by hooking them up to heart-lung machines. This was not the case with Terri Schiavo (who mumon is undoubtedly talking about). In Schiavo's case, she had suffered a significant amount of brain damage and may have been is what is called a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), though there is some dispute regarding that, but she was not "brain dead". The dispute with respect to Schiavo was in the absence of clear medical instructions, what do we do with people who through some circumstance become unable to make medical decisions, especially with respect to end of life. If Schiavo had a living will, there would have been no dispute here. The problem was that she didn't leave clear instructions and there was a disagreement between her husband and her parents over what care she would want.

6

I read some of the New York Times article and also an interesting discussion of the article on THE REVEALER website (www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_002888.php).

I would hope the power of the so-called religious right would be declining, but I don't think it will ever totally disappear as manipulation of authoritarian followers by authoritarian leaders is not going away any time soon. Hopefully, in the future more and more christians will reject political manipulation (from the right and the left) and think for themselves.

7

Very thought provoking blog post.

8

Ah yes, John W - oh for the days when every man does what is right in his own eyes!

9

I just cannot get excited about helping the poor as a group. Individuals, certainly, but the majority of the poor are that way for at least one or two good reasons. Should we lament the suffering of the poor in Venezuela, after witnessing them support that tyrant Chavez's destruction of their constitutional system? Pah! Of course not. Let them reap the oppression and starvation that they have sown with their votes. The cause of much of the world's systematic poverty is well known, and no one is forcing those things to change.

If you want to help the poor in America, you can start by making the tax and regulatory systems efficient across the board. Cut off the redistributive schemes, and end the war on drugs. If you do those things, there will be no welfare state, nor will there be much of a lucrative black market to fall back on in order to avoid getting educated and joining civil society. Thugs will starve, not live it up.

10

Mike T,

If those are your views then fine, just don't in any way identify it as Christian (which you haven't).

Politically, I may agree with your solutions but the compassion and caring for the poor must be there REGARDLESS of the reason(s).

11

Wonders,

No it's more like everyman consult the scripture, take input from his local church, uses his reasoning abilitity, and decide what is right.

Christian authorities like James Dobson and Tony Perkins do more harm then good and are the lazy persons way to make decisions on the issues.

12

Mike T,

How do you feel about the destruction of our constitutional system by politicians representing the interests of the wealthiest one percent of Americans and corporate interests generally?

Are you ok with the re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich?

13

Are you ok with the re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich?

By definition, "the poor" don't have wealth, so how do you take redistribute wealth from the poor when they never had it to begin with? Are you trying to make the case that "the poor" did have it at some point and then lost it due to the evil machinations of some individual or group? The reality is that the government doesn't take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich, the government takes wealth from the middle class and gives it to the rich. The folks that get screwed the hardest are the folks who make $100-200k per year; folks that are reasonably comfortable, but that aren't flying off to Vale in their private jets and aren't getting any government assistance to send their kids to college, etc. The folks that benefit are the Clintons, the Murthas, the Duke Cunninghams, etc. and their patrons (the folks who make fortunes off government contracts, are able to give $2k to re-election campaigns and are able to afford an army of accountants to better game the tax system).

14

Christian authorities like James Dobson and Tony Perkins do more harm then good and are the lazy persons way to make decisions on the issues.

Right, right - no authority. Everyone just doing what he thinks is right. That's what I said.

15

Wonders, I reject the idea that to be a christian one must be a right-wing authoritarian follower. People should be careful who they make an authority in their life.

16

Uncengr,

You take wealth from the poor by cutting government spending that offers a safety net and opportunities for educational advancement and spending it on things like war and defense spending that benefits war profiteers. Then you give take cuts for the rich.

Perhaps you should do some research on what percentage of the population earns $100 to 200K a year and what percentage of households earns less. I know recently I read in the Wall Street Journal that income inequality is a very real problem-this was in the News section, not the Editorial section, so it's a balanced report. And one has to earn atleast $300K to be a member of the top one percent of wealth (which controls 23% of the wealth).

I am glad to see you championing the cause of people earning $100 to $200K who are being treating unfairly by a government that only represents the top one percent of the income earners. You should be outraged at this and working for change as surely it is wrong. Do you think maybe the poor and the middle class show join together to work for change and return power to "we, the people"?.

17

Wonders, I reject the idea that to be a christian one must be a right-wing authoritarian follower. People should be careful who they make an authority in their life.

That's not what I said. You seem to be attacking authority in general, because removing all authority has the benefit of removing bad authority.

18

Wonders,

Actually, I had mentioned the authority of the scripture and your local minister. As a christian, I think using the authority of the bible along with someone you trust and know on a personal level is infinitely better than trusting the authority of James Dobson and Tony Perkins when forming your opinions on important issues. Don't you?

19

You take wealth from the poor by cutting government spending that offers a safety net and opportunities for educational advancement and spending it on things like war and defense spending that benefits war profiteers. Then you give take cuts for the rich.

So I was right, the poor don't have wealth; they have government handouts and stealing from them is not actually taking anything from them, it is not giving them a big enough hand out. And the handout comes from rich people like me. How do I know I am rich? Well, my wife and I got a tax cut (from the increased child tax credit) and we have a combined income of over $100k from my job as a mid-level engineer and my wife's as a part-time nurse. Break out the Dom baby; Daddy needs to take a bath.

Perhaps you should do some research on what percentage of the population earns $100 to 200K a year and what percentage of households earns less.

I really don't care what percentage of people make more than $100k. In my neck of the woods, a couple of mid-grade civil servants (GS-12+), a couple of senior enlisted people (E-7+) or a couple mid-level military officers (O-4+)earn over $100k/year. It's really not that hard and it's not that much money. Truthfully, the difference between $125k and $75k is not all that great. The biggest difference between my family and one making $75k/year is that I can afford to drink imported beer if I want and I can stay in a little nicer hotel when we go to Disney World.

20

Uncenfger,

Previously, you said it was the middle class (those earning $100 to $200K) that are being screwed and having their wealth transferred to the rich. However, now it sounds to me like you are saying it's the poor and not the wealth elites that control the government that are giving you and the rest of the middle class a hard time.

Interesting.

21

You take wealth from the poor by cutting government spending that offers a safety net and opportunities for educational advancement and spending it on things like war and defense spending that benefits war profiteers.

The entire DoD procurement budget (The stuff that goes to "war profiteers", as opposed to what goes to soldiers and sailors and their dependents. Of course, really it all goes to soldiers, sailors, etc. but that's another discussion) for 2007 was $84.2 billion and the total DoD budget for 2007 was $399.3 billion. Contrast that with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administrations, and the Department of Education budgets for 2007 which were $696 billion, $625 billion, and $67.2, billion respectively. So, the social safety net is roughly 16.5 times the size of the military procurement budget and 3.5 times the size of the entire military budget. Looks like the evil Bush-Hitler administration's budget priorities line up a lot more with yours than with mine.

22

Previously, you said it was the middle class (those earning $100 to $200K) that are being screwed and having their wealth transferred to the rich.

Actually it's more like the upper middle class gets their wealth transferred to the rich and the poor (see the above post).

23

Uncenger,

Ok, you win-there's way way too much spending on coddling the lazy poor compared to what is being spent on defense and military operations in Iraq. Based on your income though, you are not upper middle class, so nobody is taking money from you.

24

I'm a little surprised to see no mention of homosexual marriage as an issue, which seems to be right up there at or near the top with many evangelicals, or perhaps I missed it.

25

Ok, you win-there's way way too much spending on coddling the lazy poor compared to what is being spent on defense and military operations in Iraq.

Glad you agree. hard to argue with the numbers, isn't it?

Based on your income though, you are not upper middle class, so nobody is taking money from you.

Then what class do I fall in? Rich? Well I am not typing this from my mansion in the Hamptons or my private Gulf Stream so probably not. Poor? Well I am typing this from my own computer and drinking an imported beer (Sam Adams, so it is really not imported, but it is priced like one), so again, probably not.

26

ucfengr,

Actually, I don't agree with you on the budget, but that's ok. Apparently, you don't include the descretionary spending part of the budget used on defense or the costs of the Iraq war funded by supplementals in your numbers.

Also, by your own definition from your previous comments, you are middle class-not poor, not upper middle class, and not rich.

27

Actually, I don't agree with you on the budget, but that's ok. Apparently, you don't include the descretionary spending part of the budget used on defense or the costs of the Iraq war funded by supplementals in your numbers.

An appropriate response would have been to would be to show me where my numbers are wrong and reply with correct ones and cite sources. I got my numbers directly from the websites of the various government agencies. Where do yours come from? As to supplemental war funding, I purposefully didn't include that because a significant portion of that money goes directly to the soldier in the form of "family separation allowances" and "combat pay" and to support their tax exempt status (soldiers serving overseas pay no federal taxes) and another significant portion goes towards rebuilding the Iraqi and Afghani infrastructure. If you want to include PFC Snuffy and Iraqi/Afghani school children as "war profiteers", then by all means add $100 billion or so to the annual DoD budget. It still shows that social services receive significantly greater funding than the military.

28

So, actually, the $500 Billion costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is really insignificant-it's really really tiny in comparison to what those fat lazy welfare queens are taking away from the rich and upper middle class. Sorry, I was all wrong. Thanks for setting me right.

29

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

30

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion