'Non-partisan' pastor selected for address signed letter blasting Rick Warren critics
Two things to get out of this story:
1. Obviously Dem's are going to try to convince everyone they are not secular progressives, because most people don't think like that. So again, Dem's have a strategy to trick people into thinking they are more conservative than they actually are.
2. The media bias is amazing. This guy gets to be called a "non-partisan"....
That is one of the tricks of the media. Labels. Liberals are almost never liberal, conservatives are always conservative or "far-right wing"...no one is EVER "far-left wing"
So people read this story, and the AP calls this obvious liberal hack "non-partisan"
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Democrats pick evangelical
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
First of all. The operation is suposse to be "secular" by intent. We don't have a baptist government or a catholic or morman government. To be secular in that respect and still being able to have a spiritual or even religious side to your personal life is not cognatively dissedent in the least. There is no "trick". It has nothing to do with trying to be more conservative.
Second, I don't know much about this guy but taking what you say as "gospel" , if someone that has a "liberal" view of religious theory is a "partisan hack" then the same would necessarily apply to the one professing from the right. Which is why our forefathers said religion and politics should not mix.
If someone from the religous right talked they would for sure be labled so.
But you are labelling Wallis a liberal partisan hack. Therefore he not unlabelled. Besides, having views that may coincide with views of Democrats does not make one a partisan.
"Secular progressives" or SPs is a term that Boob O'Reilly made up because he didn't have John Kerry to rag on. It's a phoney term that is made up to demonize those who would like to maintain a public arena that is not devoid of religion but not dominated by it either.
Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever, do not seek a culture devoid of religion but one this is not dominated by any single one.
Your problem is that Wallis, like most Democrats are middle-American main stream as evidenced by the November election. You can't stand that moderates are actually main stream, and Bush Republics are not.
I can't stand media bias...that is what the article is about...not about this guy, its about the fact he is called non-partisan...thats all
Nice spin, guys. It's often said by the left that God isn't conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. I couldn't agree more. God is God and there is only Him and His Will. As to His followers, here's a basic lesson in how the left views them: If the follower, in this case Wallis, holds views similar to the Democratic party, particularly on social issues like abortion and/or gay rights, or things like how government can do more for the poor, they are "mainstream" or "non-partisan". If the follower holds to Biblical truths about life, sexual morality, the support of the individual for the poor and needy, they are dangerous, Talibanic, hate-mongers of the Conservative Christian Right-wing Bushhitlers.
For a preacher to talk about "social justice" and "moral center", there can be no doubt that he has strayed from the truth of Biblical teaching. Now is when the perenial favorite catch-phrase, "different interpretations" enter the discussion. But that's just more rhetoric meaning "I'll change or eliminate those rules to which I'd rather not adhere." It's also a variation of "monopoly on truth". But here's the kicker: those who are condemned for their faithfulness have merely sought the truth, found it in the Bible, and try their best to live by it. On the left, they re-interpret in order to have it conform to how they are already living or to how they would prefer to live.
This is the type of Christian a Harry Reid would select as a speaker. This type is a prop for the Harry Reids to present themselves as a moral group in order to persuade those of faith that the Dems aren't so bad after all. That's why they started making more Biblical references after the 2004 election. But it will still come down to the same demographics. Those who tweek their behavior to match the Bible will vote Republican, and those who tweek the Bible to match their behavior will vote Democrat.
To clear things up, "secular progressives" no matter who first coined the term, is a pretty accurate one, especially considering that "progressive" is preferred by the left over "lib" and "secular" is what they believe everything absolutely must be in policy discussions in order for it to be legit. But Jim, there is no doubt that anything that sounds as if it comes from Scripture is routinely dismissed for the sake of the mythical "separation of Church and state". It doesn't matter what practical applications or benefits would result. It doesn't matter if it simply aligns with Scriptural teaching. Religion is used as a means to confound attempts to persuade in the conservative direction. It is a tactic applied in this manner: "you are trying to force your religion on us". There is NO serious attempts to do this by anyone on the political right. Any such attempts you might dig up have NO support by the vast majority of conservatives.
Finally, and this is a pointless exercise I fear, but Wallis or Democrats are NOT mainstream middle America. Not by a long shot. The November elections was an indictment of the behavior of too many Republicans in office, not of conservative philosophy. Future elections will bear this out.
“Those who tweek their behavior to match the Bible will vote Republican, and those who tweek the Bible to match their behavior will vote Democrat.”
That’s about it in a nutshell.
Great synopsis MA!
Whoa marshall, I wouldn't even know where to start. I would need a Jasonesk thesis on that rabble. Blamin..precisely the point of where church and state do not mix. I have no problem in living and voting on principal but when you profess all righteous correctness and use religion as a political debate point I'm out.
"Jasonesk thesis". Nice one Ron.
Oh c'mon, Ron. Give it a shot. Use the quote Blamin did and tell me how it's wrong. (I acknowledge it's a generality, but it works here.)
BTW, I think it would be, "Jasonesque".
You are right marshall, Jasonesque Im a speaker not a writer.
Because it leaves no room for any other opinion to even get a crack in the door. It's the same to me as the idioligy behind the Taliban. No room for anything. Either you are completely right or you are completely wrong. I'm sorry I don't make a good fundamentalist. What if I am so sure I am right but turn out to be wrong? I will feel pretty bad about forcing something that was wrong on people. God probably wouldn't take much to that either. Religion is a matter of personal belief. It may be the most important thing in your life. It is also the most important thing in another persons life..pardon for sounding "hippie" here but if you start messing with somebodys spiritual path you are asking for some bad karma. That is their PERSONAL relationship with God. Leave it alone and for religion and states sake, leave it out of politics.
Ron,
As we've determined that you are indeed the hippie of the group, I'll not be put out by you sounding "hippie" in your comments. I still speak hippie, BTW.
What needs to be remembered in speaking of faith, is that there is such a thing as "absolutes". What most seek is what those absolutes are. I should say, what I hope most seek. (This is in regards to the spiritual out there, but works for those who aren't as well, if they chose to actually seek.) The difference is where one begins the search. Some, and these would be most conservatives or fundies, begin by wiping clean the slate and then doing the searching. From what they find they will base their lives and behaviors. Others, begin with their own desires or proclivities, and search for justification. They know they need what faith or religion offers, but they need to rectify those desires first. They don't necessarily wish to cast them off, so instead, they try to see how there might be loopholes in the absolutes that allow for what they prefer to keep doing. This is how you find particular denominations or congregations being "open and welcoming", which is another way of saying, "you can be as gay as you want here." Unfortunately, these people have made a grievous mistake. They haven't found what they were hoping to find as much as created it. Yet, they haven't changed the mind of God as much as created a new god which is of no use to them or anyone. It isn't a matter of interpretation, because they haven't interpretted but instead have re-created or invented something new.
Now bear in mind, this is all based on the assumption that God exists. If He does, as even these unfortunates believe, then it's incumbant on us to determine what HE wants and live accordingly. Yet they do this only to the point that meets their personal proclivity and then turn away and pretend that there is some Biblical justification for their desires. If you think THIS is sticky, you should delve into the debate amongst those who can translate the original manuscripts. They're dealing with the original Greek (an ancient version) and Aramaeic and it's really deep. What I've found is that the conservative side always seems to make more sense and does so with a natural feel than does the opposition, which feels like they're really scraping the barrel to make their arguments.
So now we have ministers as well as believers of varying stripes and degrees of belief. All these different "interpretations" and you know that somebody's really wrong and others are pretty close to the truth. All are free to believe as they choose, but not all believe in what is true. It's not possible logically that there can be more than one truth on any given point. I can believe along with millions that God exists. I can believe along with hundreds of thousands that Jesus is God made flesh. I can believe with every one of them that He said to love one's neighbor as one's self. And still a ton of us can be so very far from the whole of it. That we all share the above isn't enough to say that we are all close enough to the truth. As we more finely present our beliefs, we find differences and it's in those differences where debate rages and to simply say that we should all be allowed to believe as we choose is not even an issue to the vast majority of us. Yet if I truly care for my brother, I can't simply let him go on believing nonsense, nor should he of me. I am totally open to the other side and await their evidence in support of their views. I ask only that they remain open as well. It is not to rule, but to school. For a believer, a true believer, eternity is the bottom line. You can believe what you want. If you choose to announce your position on faith, you need to back it up as you would your position on politics or whatever. And you have to be prepared to acknowledge when your arguments fall short.
These ministers that the left points to shore up their stated "religiosity" are each an example of those who have, for whatever reason, reached a point where they have blurred the absolutes. They generally do not really stand firmly for anything and fall back on nice sounding words like, "We must remember God is love" and such drivel. The love and tolerance they preach are not found in the Bible. It's as simple as that. They have created a new god. The love and tolerance found in the Bible does not allow for bad behavior. One must cease the bad behavior. The ministers that the left point to enable bad behavior by their wishy washy version of the Bible. They have tweeked the Bible to allow for the bad behavior. Our side tweeks our behavior to align with Biblical teaching.
All in all, as said, believe what you choose to believe. But if you have any belief in eternity, make sure you believe the right thing. It's an ongoing process, really, but for some, there's no doubt in my mind that they have missed the boat. The average right-wing Christian only hopes to influence the other's desire to continue the search for their own sakes.
Post a Comment