Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Cross Purposes
In the
American Conservative, Darryl Hart
worries that evangelicals are going to start joining up with
the Left.
In the 1970s, concerns about declining standards of social morality and decency made evangelicals seem like a natural Republican constituency. But biblical standards of morality have a way of nurturing interest in biblical standards of social justice. Where the older generation of evangelicals reads the Bible for its application to sex and family relations, younger evangelicals are turning to holy writ for guidance on war, hunger, and poverty.
Christopher D. Levenick takes to the Claremont Review of Books to worry... actually, he doesn't worry about this at all.
The new Religious Left appears unlikely to gain many converts, preaching an old-time progressive gospel to an aging choir. Dubious assumptions, unsatisfactory methods, and theologically problematic conclusions render much of the project intellectually inadequate and (speaking for myself) spiritually unfulfilling.
Is it possible that they're both wrong?
|2.1.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Meh. As a christian this is ridiculous. The church needs to stop it's love affair with politics, compassionate conservatism, etc. Remind where Jesus said the Roman government should really start giving more to the poor, loving their neighbor, etc. Nope. Didn't happen. Jesus pushed for personal responsibility. Frankly, removing the notion of responsibility for your fellow man as an INDIVIDUAL, is killing the church. Being righteous just comes down to going to church and casting the right vote. Brilliant.
|2.1.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"The new Religious Left appears unlikely to gain many
converts [with] [d]ubious assumptions, unsatisfactory methods, and
theologically problematic conclusions render much of the project
intellectually inadequate and (speaking for myself) spiritually
unfulfilling."
And the religious right doesn't have any of these flaws,
except all of them. I guess point his was that the left wasn't
going to win any converts whereas the right can have all the same
faults but keep its base due to inertia.
|2.1.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Dubious assumptions, unsatisfactory methods, and
theologically problematic conclusions render much of the project
intellectually inadequate...
[GENERIC ATHEIST SARCASM]
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Indeed.
Modern leftist's beliefs are rooted in the ideology of socialism
and communism. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
The so-called "religious left" is merely concocting another
artifice to push that socialist ideology.
Their ideology is all about using government to force some people
to subsidize other people. And that has nothing to do with
Christianity.
|2.1.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
|2.1.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I tend to agree with that, Gilbert Martin. Of course, we have to understand that the religious right is pushing its own version of social control.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"Of course, we have to understand that the religious right is
pushing its own version of social control."
Yeah but the leftist version costs me a lot more money.
|2.1.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Two words "Liberation Theology". You can twist the Bible to support anything. Further, God knows people love the chance to feel superior and feel like they are making a difference, especially if it involves spending other people's money. When people get older and have families and move to the suburbs they tend to get more religious. What scares me is today's hipster city dwelling leftist doofus gets married, has a couple of kids, moves to the suburbs, finds Jesus and hallelujah we get a crusade for social justice. God help us all because I don't think this is that far fetched.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 3:04PM|#
"feel like they are making a difference, especially if it
involves spending other people's money."
LOL
That is one of the things that always gets me about leftists - the
attempt to protray their desire to control and spend other people's
money on something as "compassion".
It's only compassion when you're voluntarily spending your own
money - not when you're lobbying the government to force somebody
else to spend theirs.
Warren|2.1.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Where the older generation of evangelicals reads the Bible
for its application to sex and family relations, younger
evangelicals are turning to holy writ for guidance on war, hunger,
and poverty.
Actually the Bible is dispicable in its treatment of both
genres.
The world needs more atheists. And nothing will get you
there faster than reading the Bible." - Penn Jillette.
|2.1.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"That is one of the things that always gets me about leftists -
the attempt to protray their desire to control and spend other
people's money on something as "compassion"."
Yeah like John Edwards preaching to us without one whit of irony
about "two Americas" from his 28,000 square foot mansion.
|2.1.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Modern leftist's beliefs are rooted in the ideology of
socialism and communism. It has nothing to do with
Christianity.
If this is true, please explain the converse...how the modern
right's beliefs are rooted in smaller government and greater civil
rights. My point of course is that neither the modern left or right
has much to do with their "roots."
The so-called "religious left" is merely concocting another
artifice to push that socialist ideology.
A flat falsehood and betrays your ignorance of a great number of
social trends involving Christianity in general and evangelicals in
particular. It's a common myth that liberals are
anti-Christian.
Their ideology is all about using government to force some
people to subsidize other people. And that has nothing to do with
Christianity.
And the right's ideology is about using government to force rigid
moral and behavior standards on other people...Which also has
nothing to do with Christianity.
Obviously both of those statements are so grossly overexagerated as
to be meaningless. My statement is merely to illustrate how
ridiculous yours is.
TF|2.1.07 @ 3:15PM|#
What is really killing the church from my perspective,
regardless of conservative or liberal political offiliation, is the
dual theological mistakes of dominionism and triumphulism which
pervert the gospel into nothing more than a handbook for self
righteousness and self gratification. The problem is the same in
both in that they take the focus off of what is holy and put it on
what is worldly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
This is the basis of the church's love of politics, turning the
Christian life into little more than a vehicle for furthering the
political goals of politicians who can speak with the "correct"
vocabulary; and demeaning God into little more than an ATM who must
bless you (with money) if you just follow a prescribed schedule of
actions. They no longer wish to exist as an entity apart from the
world or worldly pleasures, but rather want to remake God into a
worldly figure who will rule through a worldly kingdom, and bless
always in worldly ways. The focus is no longer on what God
sacrificed in His Son to bring us to salvation, but rather what we
can do to be blessed. In short, the entire focus of the religion
has been changed from God-centered worship where the individual's
role is to keep the faith and trust is God's righteousness rather
than rely on his own, into a self-centered worship where man can
achieve righteousness by forcing his religious views on others
through the state or just by being on the "right side," if you
will.
The problem could be solved through the church going back to
scripture and realizing that Christ didn't die to save societies,
nations, traditions, or laws; He did it to redeem mankind.
Therefore as my pastor once said (paraphrase) "He doesn't want your
laws or legalism, Christianity isn't about what you or a group does
to prove your righteousness. He wants your heart, He wants your
mind, and He wants to save your soul, if you give these things to
Him, then righteousness will follow. That isn't to say you'll be
perfect, but rather that trusting in Christ's righteousness will
save you, trying to act righteous and expecting salvation for it
will not.
|2.1.07 @ 3:16PM|#
"It's only compassion when you're voluntarily spending your
own money - not when you're lobbying the government to force
somebody else to spend theirs."
While I tend to agree with your point, the above statement isn't
anywhere near true. Why can't a government be labeled
compassionate?
John, if you logic held up, there would never be any representation
for the poor. The second somebody got more money, they would cease
to hold the ideas they held their entire lives, and become
noticeably higher class. I wonder how you feel about middle class
Republicans who favor more power for big business. Hypocrites?
dhex|2.1.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"What scares me is today's hipster city dwelling leftist doofus
gets married, has a couple of kids, moves to the suburbs, finds
Jesus and hallelujah we get a crusade for social justice."
dunno how this is any different than the current batch of bigoted
fuckfaces. actually, i'd be interested to see how this sort of
thing would turn out in regards to gay rights, etc.
yeah yeah, i know, team blue team red blah blah blah.
|2.1.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Ron: I'm with John, I don't think this is such a stretch. Jonathan Edwards, the godfather of American evangelism, concluded in the 1750's that capitalism was un-Christian, and it wasn't that much earlier that lending money held similar status. Gilbert Martin may be right that it is a "leftist" artifice in the context of today, but it would be a mistake to assume that there is not a considerable foundation for it in western theological thought.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"While I tend to agree with your point, the above statement
isn't anywhere near true."
It is absolutely true.
"Why can't a government be labeled compassionate?"
Because a government has nothing to give except that which it has
taken away from somebody else - by force.
|2.1.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Neither of them get it right. God gave us freewill. And with
that freewill, we are to believe that we do need to help our fellow
man. But NO WHERE in the Book does it say, you must force others to
help.
Oh and for "Liberation Theology", I've got one more word for you
Excommunication..:)
Preach to thoughs who want to hear the word. Not force it down
their thoats.
Atleast that's my Roman Catholic belief.
|2.1.07 @ 3:28PM|#
is in the eye of the beholder.
People really don't like cognitive dissonance and will almost
always recast the teachings of their favorite sky fairy to align
with their personal biases.
|2.1.07 @ 3:29PM|#
TF: Benjamin Franklin wrote an editorial (under a pseudonym) saying precisely what you said, although I daresay somewhat more eloquently.
|2.1.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Should've previewed. The first sentence of my comment was
supposed to read:
(insert deity name) is in the eye of the beholder.
|2.1.07 @ 3:30PM|#
TF-
By "killing the church" I assume you mean it in a philosophical
way. As far as numbers go the leftleaning, mainline denominations
are slowly bleeding their members whereas the Catholics and
Evangelicals are continuing to have strong growth.
|2.1.07 @ 3:36PM|#
"Oh and for "Liberation Theology", I've got one more word for
you Excommunication..:)"
Thanks to John Paul II that is true but that didn't stop a lot of
Jesuits from buying into it and don't think for moment people
wouldn't twist the bible into supporting whatever their sacred cow
is.
"John, if you logic held up, there would never be any
representation for the poor. The second somebody got more money,
they would cease to hold the ideas they held their entire lives,
and become noticeably higher class. I wonder how you feel about
middle class Republicans who favor more power for big business.
Hypocrites?"
I am not really sure what you mean. Honestly.
MikeT|2.1.07 @ 3:38PM|#
I'll call bullshit on this one for a few reasons:
1) The Bible is very pro-private property.
2) There are clear-cut examples of the standards of Christ
separating Christians from non-Christians in terms of moral
expectations such as generosity and vengeance.
3) The poor had to pay the tithe, the equivalent of the income tax
in the Old Testament. No exceptions. Same rate as the rich.
4) The only time that property may be taken from one man and given
to another is as a form of restitution for a crime.
|2.1.07 @ 3:39PM|#
The evangelicals were typically voting Democrat in the first half of the century. So this ain't new.
|2.1.07 @ 3:44PM|#
What part of "My Kingdom is not of this Earth" do the "Christian" Bible thumpers not understand? What part of "You cannot serve God and Mammon" do the "Christian" Bushophiles not understand?
|2.1.07 @ 3:50PM|#
John in Nashville...I love that line " My Kingdom is not of this
Earth", has always given me chills.
John...Most Jesuits drive me nuts. I do know some Orthodox ones,
but they are few and far between. And yes, quite alot of them by
into well, Communism.
|2.1.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Reading what conservative libertarians have to say about the "religious left" is like leafing through a Buddhist text for a good beef stew recipe.
|2.1.07 @ 4:00PM|#
RegularRon,
Jesuits drive me nuts to and I am not even a Catholic. Yeah, it is
perfectly okay to think the Pope is an idiot and the Bible means
what you says it does not what the Church says it does. There are
lots of committed Christians who beleive the same things. They are
called Protestants!!
I just don't get people who hate the Catholic church and everything
it stands for yet insist on being not only a member but also
pursuing a religious life within it.
|2.1.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"Modern leftist's beliefs are rooted in the ideology of
socialism and communism. It has nothing to do with
Christianity."
Historically, the socialist movements grew out of christian
communalism, going back to the "Levellers" and before. This is not
a biblical exegesis - as has been pointed out many times, you can
support just about any argument from the bible - but a recognition
of the historical origins of modern socialism and communism.
Further, the church has always disliked the bourgeoisie: i.e.
merchants, moneylenders, businessmen, and traders as opposed to
Royalty and the Nobility.
|2.1.07 @ 4:06PM|#
By the way...excuse my last comment. My computer is acting
up.
John..There is a schism begining in Holy Mother Chruch. Pretty much
what it is, is what you just said. "Cafeteria Catholics" as some
call them. But a lot of us are starting to call them, "American
Catholics". The Protestant influence in our church, here in America
is disgusting.
One thing I've always loved about my faith and it's leaders has
always been the belief that, You should always keep a skeptical eye
on Government, and people who want power.
|2.1.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Aresen,
I think you have to separate socialism from communism. Socialism
most assuredly grew out of Christian communialism. There is a
reason why many European Socialist parties have the word
"Christian" attached to them. Communism of course is the radical
materialism and atheism of Marx and most assuredly not Christian,
although Eurpean Marxists now march hand and hand with radical
jhiadists. I am frankly not sure there is any such thing as true
"Marxism" anymore.
|2.1.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Further, the church has always disliked the bourgeoisie:
i.e. merchants, moneylenders, businessmen, and traders as opposed
to Royalty and the Nobility.
That's because royalty sought the Catholic church's endorsement as
a legitamizer of their rule (divine ruler and whatnot).
The Catholic church, in return, weiled a great deal of power
throughout the dark ages and the renaissance.
The reformation and the age of enlightenment pretty much screwed
that up for the Catholic Church. They've been trying to get it back
ever since.
|2.1.07 @ 4:13PM|#
joe:
I may be misremembering, but I could swear I read somewhere that
the Dalai Lama has told his monks to give up on the vegetarianism.
The thinking went something like this:
(1) Monks are supposed to live exclusively on the charity of
others, including begging for food.
(2) If someone offers to feed you, but all they have is meat,
turning them down implies you're too good to accept their
charity.
(3) That's not really conducive to the whole "destruction of ego"
thing.
So I urge patience: we may get that beef stew recipe yet!
|2.1.07 @ 4:13PM|#
"Because a government has nothing to give except that which
it has taken away from somebody else - by force."
Yeah, and once it takes aways its taxes (death and taxes, the only
constants), it can spend the money on enriching its leaders or on
more compassionate endeavors. Phooey.
|2.1.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Jesuits drive me nuts to and I am not even a
Catholic.
Where do the Jesuits drive your nuts to? Are you allowed to
follow?
I don't think that's what Jesus would do.
thoreau|2.1.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I just don't get people who hate the Catholic church and everything it stands for yet insist on being not only a member but also pursuing a religious life within it.
Simple: From their perspective, they are the correct ones and
everybody else is a heretic.
dhex|2.1.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"Reading what conservative libertarians have to say about the
"religious left" is like leafing through a Buddhist text for a good
beef stew recipe."
funny joke - some buddhists eat meat, including some tibetan sects.
and some justify it on karmic grounds - i.e. this used to be a
person, and now i'm helping this former person burn off their
karmic weight by feeding myself.
is "religious left" any more quote worthy than "religious right"
?
|2.1.07 @ 4:34PM|#
John
I realize Marx rejected religion and embraced atheism, but in the
Communist Manifesto he very explicitly acknowledges Communism's
roots in socialism, describing Communism as "scientific
socialism."
Madpad
I think it goes farther than you suggest. It was not merely the
fact that Royalty [and the Nobility] supported the church - and
this was true in the Orthodox as well as the Roman tradition - in
return for their "divine" right and the Church's endorsement of the
social order. The bourgeiosie challenged the social order and were
a source of independent ideas, which threatened the position of the
church.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 4:36PM|#
"Yeah, and once it takes aways its taxes (death and taxes, the
only constants), it can spend the money on enriching its leaders or
on more compassionate endeavors. Phooey."
Phooey yourself.
NOTHING except volunteering your OWN MONEY for something counts as
compassion. Advocating somebody else be forced to pay for something
requires no sacrifice on the part of the one doing it and it is
therefore not "compassion".
|2.1.07 @ 4:37PM|#
ultron
"I still think what I've thought since I was a kid: church is
boring."
OTOH, the history of the church - scandals, wars, schisms, etc - is
very enjoyable. Provided you didn't have to live through it, of
course.
|2.1.07 @ 4:37PM|#
'Advocating somebody else be forced to pay for something
requires no sacrifice on the part of the one doing it and it is
therefore not "compassion".'
Political advocacy requires no sacrifice?
Tell it to Archbishop Romero.
|2.1.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I am happy that I am agreeing with John again but said that he
is right.
There is a very definite undercurrent in today's Christian and
Catholic churches that is pushing "social justice" through
government action. I know this doesn't make any sense to you purely
secular aethiests but most "religious" people get their message
from their leaders not the "book." And as John said the "book" can
be used to support any argument the leaders chose to present. And
many of these leaders are becoming the same elitist socialists as
those on the left.
Mike Laursen|2.1.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Modern leftist's beliefs are rooted in the ideology of
socialism and communism. It has nothing to do with
Christianity.
All I know is the species of liberal we have here in Nancy Pelosi
country. A typical Northern California liberal is either not
religious or has a fuzzy belief that all religions are valid. But
its likely that same liberal was raised in a traditional religious
home, still believes that all people have an obligation to help
each other out, and sees the government as the obvious vehicle for
organizing the collective effort.
A typical West Coast liberal has never deliberately studied
socialism and wouldn't consider himself a socialist. His socialist
ideas were absorbed by osmosis -- he's surrounded by pretty much
nothing but other liberals. And the relatively rare hard-core
Berkeley-style liberals are always injecting the strange socialist
ideas they got from book learning into the local meme pool.
At heart, most liberals around here aren't that different from
libertarians. They just haven't been exposed to libertarian
ideas.
|2.1.07 @ 4:58PM|#
A fundy type told me he was called by Christ to be involved in promoting legislation that promotes Chrisian values. He cited both Paul and Peter (I think in Romans and I Peter)as saying governments are instituted by God and rulers are to punish bad conduct and wrong-doers. Anyone have a Bible handy to check out these assertions and comment?
|2.1.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Actually, Marx's beef was with religion,
or rather certain aspects of religion, not God per se.
Outside of the US Christianity is frequently associated with
socialism. For example the Welsh socialists who were at the center
of the Coal Miners Union were notorious Wesleyans.
Not to mention the fact that Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian
Medicare was a Baptist preacher. I heard some of his speeches. When
he railed against the evils of "monopoly capitalism" you could feel
the fire and smell the brimstone.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 5:08PM|#
"Political advocacy requires no sacrifice?"
Exactly what sacrifice have you made in your advocacy of the
liberal welfare state?
|2.1.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Ahhh come on joe, there is not much work involved in keeping higher taxes the status quo. :)
|2.1.07 @ 5:52PM|#
I'm not holding out my efforts as heroic.
Just refuting the point that political activism is without
cost.
Edward|2.1.07 @ 5:56PM|#
"Modern leftist's beliefs are rooted in the ideology of
socialism and communism. It has nothing to do with Christianity."
--Gilbert Martin
This leaps out as possibly the most ignorant statement ever made on
Hit and Run, and that's saying something.
|2.1.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Yeah, Edward. Gilbert Martin's done little other than try to ram
his objectivist rants down everyone's throats.
He's just an ignorant, partisan wanker pretending to be an
intellectual.
|2.1.07 @ 6:21PM|#
"I've also paid higher taxes, and worked to make sure that
remains so."
Dick.
;-)
|2.1.07 @ 7:18PM|#
1) The Bible is very pro-private property.
'Cept of course for the whole "Easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle" thing, which implies at *least* that owning
property makes it more difficult to get into heaven. Add to that
the story of the rich man who asked Christ what he need do to get
into heaven. "Give away your possessions to the poor and come and
follow me" doesn't sound conducive to private property ownership
either.
2) There are clear-cut examples of the standards of Christ
separating Christians from non-Christians in terms of moral
expectations such as generosity and vengeance.
Yeah, but Christ *raises* the standards, he doesn't lower them. The
thing about giving away your possessions, for one thing, the
demands in the epistles that followers of Christ take on vows of
poverty and homelessness, as well as the demands that Christians
both forgive and love their enemies and take care of any human
being as if they were beloved family bear this out. Saying that the
rules change without saying how they change is remarkably
disingenuous.
3) The poor had to pay the tithe, the equivalent of the income
tax in the Old Testament. No exceptions. Same rate as the
rich.
Yes, but Christ also says that God loves the tithes of the poor
more than he does the rich; Mark 12 and the story of the widow who
gave all she had says this pretty clearly. It also says, no,
demands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that nobody can allow his
countryman to go poor; he must find a way to help him.
4) The only time that property may be taken from one man and
given to another is as a form of restitution for a
crime.
Incorrect. Leviticus 25 demands that all property sold be returned
to it's previous owners every 50 years. It's called the Jubilee,
and it's to be carried out regardless of the term of sale of the
land. It also says in Deuteronomy that a person's slaves must be
freed every seven years, regardless of their status. There are
cases where property is taken for the common good all the time in
the Bible.
|2.1.07 @ 7:35PM|#
"Further, the church has always disliked the bourgeoisie: i.e.
merchants, moneylenders, businessmen, and traders as opposed to
Royalty and the Nobility."
[various other restatements of traditional Whig/liberal
anti-Catholic historiography]
Why not just summarize the history of the Catholic Church, from the
liberal perspective:
"Once upon a time there was this nice guy named Jesus, who thought
that being nice was a good thing. That message was too threatening
to the Establishment, so they killed Him. Then this guy name Paul
came along and got together with some follower of Christ, and said,
'I know! Let's found a Church named after Jesus Christ. We'll call
ourselves priests and use our Church to rule the world.'
"'Can we wear dresses?' asked someone in the audience.
"'Don't see why not,' said Paul.
"'Can we repress the divine feminine (except for our dresses)?'
asked another.
"'Knock yourselves out,' Paul replied.
"And from that day to this, the Catholic Church has tried to rule
the world. They managed to overthrow the Western Roman Empire and
institute the Dark Ages, during which they consolidated their power
by overthrowing the Merovingians. They abolished science. When
Galileo said the earth was round, they laughed at him and made him
decant.
"Then, brave freedom-lovers led by Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther
and Henry VIII overthrew the tyranny of the Catholic Church in
England and Germany, followed by liberation movements in other
countries. Despite the best efforts of the Church and its albino
monk assassins, freedom has been on the march ever since."
By the way, "albino monk assassins" would be a great name for a
rock band.
|2.1.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Is there a doctor in the house?
Can you diagnose the girl in the picture by looking at her
tongue?
Has she been drinking milk or "cream"?
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 11:28PM|#
"Just refuting the point that political activism is without
cost."
It costs you nothing to advocate spending somebody else's money.
That money is coming out of their pocket not yours.
Gilbert Martin|2.1.07 @ 11:30PM|#
"This leaps out as possibly the most ignorant statement ever
made on Hit and Run, and that's saying something."
The only response necessary to that is :
Says you.
|2.1.07 @ 11:42PM|#
The only response necessary to that is : Says
you.
Wow, Gilbert...you really know how to underscore our negative
impressions of you. The plain fact of it is, you've pretty much
been a caustic prick since your first post on this thread.
That's not - in and of itself - deserving of scorn. There's lot's
of colorful obstinates on this board. But you have so little style
and wit about you in this enterprise. You're obviously not
well-read and you don't have the chops to keep up a good
argument.
If you're going to throw out these arguments, have the nuts to go
to the mat for your postition. "Says you" is for wankers.
|2.2.07 @ 12:31AM|#
Where the older generation of evangelicals reads the Bible
for its application to sex and family relations, younger
evangelicals are turning to holy writ for guidance on war, hunger,
and poverty.
Libertarian Christians read of a sacrifice for each and every one
of us and see it as a divine imperative for individual rights and
liberties.
...Does anyone else see a pattern here?
Paul|2.2.07 @ 12:38AM|#
When evangelicals join the left, they will have finally come home where they belong.
|2.2.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Libertarian Christians read of a sacrifice for each and
every one of us and see it as a divine imperative for individual
rights and liberties.
I'm not sure what exactly tou're saying here, ken...but I'm pretty
sure it's based on your prejudices of liberal Christians rather
than any actual experiences with them.
Like so many others on this thread, you've just mashed together
your hatreds of both Liberals and Christians into this straw man
beast that has little to do with reality.
Do you really think all degrees of liberals who happen to also be
Christians really think like this?
|2.2.07 @ 10:19AM|#
When evangelicals join the left, they will have finally come
home where they belong.
Fortunately we have things like evolution, abortion, sex education
in schools and a bunch of other cultural issues keeping that from
happening.
It is a good thing that selfrighteous busybodies, whether secular
or religious, have factional divisions. It's the only thing keeping
us from outright dictatorship. :)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245