Tuesday, March 14, 2006
wanna read something?
hey, if you've got a little free time and would like to interact, please read this article. the basic subject of the article is faith and politics. i won't give you my impressions yet. don't want to influence your reading. so, check it out, and let's dialogue on our impressions in comment section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
And some wonder why I won't even talk about the subject of religion and politics, makes my stomach burn!
I hate this statement in regard to the group gathering in Washington after the election: "They had won, and now they wanted to collect." What did "they" win and what were they aiming to "collect."
I wish Christians would stick to preaching and advancing the Kingdom rather than bashing the NEA,which is a dispicable organization yet none of the business of the evangelicals. Worry about your own business before sticking your nose in others. Didn't Jesus say something like that? One my guest presenters in seminary said Dobson and Focus lost their credibility when they began to branch out from their focus, the family. Stick to what you do and are good at and you'll be fine.
I like this Brinson guy, I don't think I'll be joining the Dem party anytime soon just like I've stayed away from the Rep party, but he seems like he know what he's talking about.
The last thing I want is this Bible literacy being made into a political pawn. I don't want the Bible in the schools, can you imagine how watered down it would be?
Reading this article was the first time in years that I've felt hopeful that Christians would wake up to the scam. Not saying the Democratic party is more Christ-like, but I've been saying for years that Republicans are pandering and playing Christians for fools. Amazing that some of them are starting to figure it out.
The ones that really make me crazy are guys like Dobson. He's such a power hungry bastard, so craven, the way he slapped the guy down over global warming and the environment...the mind reels. It's so encouraging that some of the leaders have figured out that the priority is business. And they fly the flag of Compassionate Conservatism, which Bill CLinton described as a way to tell voters that we really wish we could help solve their problems with health care, education, and wages, but we just can't, and we're really sorry about it.
i appreciated some of the sentiments of the article, like the acknowledgment from Xian leaders that when economy is up against morality, economy always wins out.
but, i agree that neither party has all of the solutions. but, i was encouraged to hear that some more people are wising up to that.
one of the sentiments that i heard several times at the ccda conference i attended last semester was about how social justice issues are prolife issues, moral issues. now, this wasn't something that i'd never heard, but it came up a lot. now, that org is heavily populated with blacks and lefty whites, so they may be dems already. but, there was definately a call for people to push for a recognition that morality issues aren't just gay marriages and abortion.
i also liked the fact that they weren't shying away from these traditional morality issues either. like, i don't think abortion is a good thing. but, i also think the more responsible thing is to teach people about abstinance and birth control, rather than relying on an after solution.
But aren't the Dems basically just pandering as well?
"Oh, well we just need a small percentage of the evangelical vote to get back in power (what most politicians ultimately want) and we're golden."
Both parties are just doing whatever they can to get people in the middle to slide more their way.
that's a good point adam. it's true, both parties are trying to get into, or stay in power. and so, if the dems are just going to use people, or try to manipulate them through tactics like religion, fear, marketing, whatever, then it should be seen noticed.
out of curiousity and laziness, was that quote actually from the article, or just something you thought up as an example of the thought process?
but, again, i agree with your basic assessment. parties want to stay in power, and do whatever they can to get the few available swing votes. and, manipulation sucks. that's my thought, not something you said.
i suppose one of the main aspects off the article that i appreciated was that some Xians are wising up to the reality of the republican party. not that dems can't be just as shady, but that the repubs aren't some exact representation of Xian values. or that Jesus didn't come to make the republican party.
You can always make the argument that the Dems are pandering as well, sure. It can also be viewed as a case where the Dems are looking at policy areas where their interests converge with those of evangelicals. If a Dem leader and an evangelical both agree that the environment is worth saving and that global warming is a real phenomenon, is it pandering for the dem to point that out? I find substantial difference between the aforementioned and the pandering the repubs do on so-called morality and "family values" (whatever that is) issues. The business interest oriented GOP guy like Norquist and the evangelical agree on opposing gay marriage or abortion only because Norquist knows the CHristian will back him up with tax cut rhetoric in exchange for support on the other stuff. And you know it's true because these repubs are doing this even though it betrays their claims of being leave-me-alone libertarians at heart.
I really liked Adam's comments.
Both parties are pandering, all they desire is power. Let's be honest, what difference would there be in our lives had John Kerry or Al Gore won the last two elections? What difference will there be if Hillary Clinton or whoever the Reps through in there win in 2008? I'd argue not much...
Ed, that was a quote I made up to illustrate my point.
I also agree with JPN's last comment. How much of a difference is there really between the two big parties? I mean really, the right has very much pulled away from long ago claims to small government and whatnot (examples of this include things like the Patriot Act, highest national debt ever, etc) and the left has moved to a more moderate position as well. They're converging and that's why they have to fight for the middle because that's where they're both headed.
I've read several blogs in recent times by self-described Dems who are totally disgusted with their party and a lack of representation for its constituency. As well, this article definitely points to the same happenings on the Repub side of the issue as well. All the people in power have utterly lost touch with the population and are all now grasping at whatever straws they can to stay in their elected position for another term.
I'll agree that on many issues the differences between the parties are not all that huge, but to ask "what difference would there be in our lives had John Kerry or Al Gore won the last two elections?" is going waaay too far. You really think we'd be in endless war in Iraq right now if GOre had won in 2000? You really think Gore would have turned a projected multitrillion dollar surplus into a multitrillion dollar deficit? I submit that a Gore administration would have kept competent management at FEMA like James Lee Witt (Clinton's highly praised FEMA chief), which could have made a real difference for people along the gulf coast last summer. The only thing good about the last 5 years is that now no one can say with a straight face that the repubs are the mature competent party.
Post a Comment