Religion, Left and Right

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,093
60,648
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
The following are the facts.
America today.
Quo Vadis.




1.Coming to terms with religion’s public role is one of liberalism’s most fearsome problems: how to make their case to religious America? So far, it has been a failure, which is one reason for the hostility of the left to groups such as evangelicals, even though these folks were brought onto the political scene by a liberal, Jimmy Carter.

a. Gone are is religious wing of liberalism, the prophetic voice of Reinhold Niebuhr, Dorothy Day, Michael Harrington, and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Even while the Democrats scored signal victories in the 2006 election, exit polls showed that some 60% of those who say they attend religious services more than once a week voted Republican, a figure that is consistent with the 2002 and 2004 elections. "....2012 (50% to 48%)1. Obama’s margin of victory was much smaller than in 2008 when he defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin, and he lost ground among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. But the basic religious contours of the 2012 electorate resemble recent elections – traditionally Republican groups such as white evangelicals and weekly churchgoers strongly backed Romney..." 2012 Exit Polls: How the Faithful Voted - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life





3. "The Democratic Party is seen as friendly to religion by 26 percent, while 43 percent say the same about the GOP. That’s a 9 percentage point drop for Republicans since 2008, and 12 points lower for Democrats.." Barack : Kevin Trudeau Show

a. Citizens tell pollsters they attend religious services at least once a week and nearly three-quarters say they pray at least once a day. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/familyvaluesreport.pdf

4. While the number of Americans who have become alienated from organized religion may be increasing, stillTuesday’s Gallup survey shows that 77 percent of Americans still claim a religion, despite the trends toward “unbranded” religion. It also indicates Americans tend to get more religious with age, and speculates that our aging population might also spell an increase in reported religiosity. Gallup Survey Finds a Majority of Americans Still Religious - The Daily Beast

a. About 80% belong to a Christian faith, 79% believe in the virgin birth, 78% say Jesus physically rose from the dead, and 48% claim to have had a “born again experience.” Gordon S. Wood, “American Religion: The Great Retreat”

b. Compared to Europeans, over 60% of Americans state that belief in God is necessary in order “to be moral and have good values.” This is about twice the number of Germans and six times the number of French.
Asmus, Everts, and Isernia, “Across the Atlantic.”

c. “Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.” Barack Obama. Blog ? Barack Obama






4. Following the 1960’s the left made the politically suicidal choice of cultural radicalism, which succeeded, over political and economic radicalism, which failed.

a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation
Thus, the rise of the religious right.





5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid.





6. John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” of the use of ‘moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term as a useful check on antisocial behavior.”

7. “At a valuable conference on liberals and religion organized by Columbia
University's American studies program in mid-February, E.J. Dionne, a
liberal and a devout Catholic, conceded that conservatives have a number
of natural advantages when seeking to marry religious devotion to
politics.
They own the word "tradition," for one.

And as Russell Kirk
pointed out in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, the canons of
conservatism tend naturally to appeal to the faithful: Conservatives, he
wrote, believe in "a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which
rules society as well as conscience." Their attachment to "custom,
convention and old prescription" provides a check on "man's anarchic
impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power."

Liberalism, on the other
hand, arose in revolt against many of these same customs and conventions,
particularly the oppressive power of the church.”
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty - With God on Our Side?




".....You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children..."
You can hardly find a more Liberal individual than Eric Alterman.



What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.
 
What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.


Ah yes its a black and white world and we must choose sides so we'll know which of our neighbors to kill.

Isn't that really the implied message of this thread?
 
I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.
 
What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.


Ah yes its a black and white world and we must choose sides so we'll know which of our neighbors to kill.

Isn't that really the implied message of this thread?

Only to homicidal sociopaths.


Life is filled with choices.
And the one you pick has consequences.
Vote Democrat, and you pick Nancy Pelosi as your voice.
You state that you are willing to accept a low-class, vulgar society, that marks human
life as a lower priority than libertine license.


Your post brings to mind the message of Dr. Thomas Sowell, in his book "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One"
Sowell challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact. Politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
But you should.




Stage one....picking one aspect of a party's platform that you endorse....perhaps gay marriage.
Stopping your thinking at this point means ignoring $17 trillion in debt, and never, ever seeing the federal government attempt to balance it's spending.

It means ignoring that we must borrow from other nations to support that borrowing-binge, and this obviates foreign policy options.

It means blocking the actions that would make America energy self-sufficient, in itself a national security issue.

It means, beyond being a low information voter, becoming the short-sighted voter.



Do I actually have to teach you this?
 
What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.


Ah yes its a black and white world and we must choose sides so we'll know which of our neighbors to kill.

Isn't that really the implied message of this thread?

Christians don't kill their neighbors as a rule. They love them. Jesus said we are to love our enemies. Do you love your enemies, editec?
 
It's an interesting discussion. I see nothing wrong with it. I want to comment on Underhills comment that Jesus wants the rich to give away all their money to the poor. Not true. That is not a teaching of the New Testament. Underhill is referring to the story of the Rich young ruler.

Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and distribute it to the poor and come and follow him? Because the Rich young ruler lied to Jesus. He approached Jesus, not the other way around.

He asked Jesus what he must do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told him you know the commandments. ( love your neighbor as you love yourself. love the God with all of your mind, heart, soul strength ) The rich young ruler said yes and I have kept them since I was a small child. WRONG! Jesus didn't say, you are not being honest here. Instead he asked him the question that would reveal his own greedy heart to him. He said, Good! Now go sell everything you own and sell it, give it to the poor and come and follow me. The rich young ruler upon hearing that news became very sorrowful and left. He didn't want to part with his riches.

Okay, so here is the question. Did the rich young ruler really love his neighbor as himself if he lived in great luxury while his neighbor went without? No, he didn't. Did the rich young ruler really love God with ALL that was within him if he refused to love others enough to share with them? No, he didn't.

Jesus was showing the man his own heart. It was a personal - unique - situation not something to make a doctrine out of. Abraham was a rich man. God had no problem with it. Solomon was given his wealth by God because he asked for the right thing from the beginning. ( wisdom ) God doesn't mind you having money. He minds you not being willing to part with it when you see a need and feel compelled in your heart to help but because of an inordinate love of money, you cannot.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting discussion. I see nothing wrong with it. I want to comment on Underhills comment that Jesus wants the rich to give away all their money to the poor. Not true. That is not a teaching of the New Testament. Underhill is referring to the story of the Rich young ruler.

Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and distribute it to the poor and come and follow him? Because the Rich young ruler lied to Jesus. He approached Jesus, not the other way around.

He asked Jesus what he must do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told him you know the commandments. ( love your neighbor as you love yourself. love the God with all of your mind, heart, soul strength ) The rich young ruler said yes and I have kept them since I was a small child. WRONG! Jesus didn't say, you are not being honest here. Instead he asked him the question that would reveal his own greedy heart to him. He said, Good! Now go sell everything you own and sell it, give it to the poor and come and follow me. The rich young ruler upon hearing that news became very sorrowful and left. He didn't want to part with his riches.

Okay, so here is the question. Did the rich young ruler really love his neighbor as himself if he lived in great luxury while his neighbor went without? No, he didn't. Did the rich young ruler really love God with ALL that was within him if he refused to love others enough to share with them? No, he didn't.

Jesus was showing the man his own heart. It was a personal - unique - situation not something to make a doctrine out of. Abraham was a rich man. God had no problem with it. Solomon was given his wealth by God because he asked for the right thing from the beginning. ( wisdom ) God doesn't mind you having money. He minds you not being willing to part with it when you see a need and feel compelled in your heart to help but because of an inordinate love of money, you cannot.

Thank you for making my point for me.

You are right. You can interpret the story however you like.

Luke 14:12-14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

But yeah, Jesus was all in favor of the rich hanging onto their wealth.
 
Last edited:
The following are the facts.
America today.
Quo Vadis.




1.Coming to terms with religion’s public role is one of liberalism’s most fearsome problems: how to make their case to religious America? So far, it has been a failure, which is one reason for the hostility of the left to groups such as evangelicals, even though these folks were brought onto the political scene by a liberal, Jimmy Carter.

a. Gone are is religious wing of liberalism, the prophetic voice of Reinhold Niebuhr, Dorothy Day, Michael Harrington, and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Even while the Democrats scored signal victories in the 2006 election, exit polls showed that some 60% of those who say they attend religious services more than once a week voted Republican, a figure that is consistent with the 2002 and 2004 elections. "....2012 (50% to 48%)1. Obama’s margin of victory was much smaller than in 2008 when he defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin, and he lost ground among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. But the basic religious contours of the 2012 electorate resemble recent elections – traditionally Republican groups such as white evangelicals and weekly churchgoers strongly backed Romney..." 2012 Exit Polls: How the Faithful Voted - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life





3. "The Democratic Party is seen as friendly to religion by 26 percent, while 43 percent say the same about the GOP. That’s a 9 percentage point drop for Republicans since 2008, and 12 points lower for Democrats.." Barack : Kevin Trudeau Show

a. Citizens tell pollsters they attend religious services at least once a week and nearly three-quarters say they pray at least once a day. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/familyvaluesreport.pdf

4. While the number of Americans who have become alienated from organized religion may be increasing, stillTuesday’s Gallup survey shows that 77 percent of Americans still claim a religion, despite the trends toward “unbranded” religion. It also indicates Americans tend to get more religious with age, and speculates that our aging population might also spell an increase in reported religiosity. Gallup Survey Finds a Majority of Americans Still Religious - The Daily Beast

a. About 80% belong to a Christian faith, 79% believe in the virgin birth, 78% say Jesus physically rose from the dead, and 48% claim to have had a “born again experience.” Gordon S. Wood, “American Religion: The Great Retreat”

b. Compared to Europeans, over 60% of Americans state that belief in God is necessary in order “to be moral and have good values.” This is about twice the number of Germans and six times the number of French.
Asmus, Everts, and Isernia, “Across the Atlantic.”

c. “Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.” Barack Obama. Blog ? Barack Obama






4. Following the 1960’s the left made the politically suicidal choice of cultural radicalism, which succeeded, over political and economic radicalism, which failed.

a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation
Thus, the rise of the religious right.





5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid.





6. John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” of the use of ‘moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term as a useful check on antisocial behavior.”

7. “At a valuable conference on liberals and religion organized by Columbia
University's American studies program in mid-February, E.J. Dionne, a
liberal and a devout Catholic, conceded that conservatives have a number
of natural advantages when seeking to marry religious devotion to
politics.
They own the word "tradition," for one.

And as Russell Kirk
pointed out in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, the canons of
conservatism tend naturally to appeal to the faithful: Conservatives, he
wrote, believe in "a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which
rules society as well as conscience." Their attachment to "custom,
convention and old prescription" provides a check on "man's anarchic
impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power."

Liberalism, on the other
hand, arose in revolt against many of these same customs and conventions,
particularly the oppressive power of the church.”
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty - With God on Our Side?




".....You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children..."
You can hardly find a more Liberal individual than Eric Alterman.



What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.

Whew!

There is so much in there that I can actually find things I agree with.
 
I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?
 
It's an interesting discussion. I see nothing wrong with it. I want to comment on Underhills comment that Jesus wants the rich to give away all their money to the poor. Not true. That is not a teaching of the New Testament. Underhill is referring to the story of the Rich young ruler.

Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and distribute it to the poor and come and follow him? Because the Rich young ruler lied to Jesus. He approached Jesus, not the other way around.

He asked Jesus what he must do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told him you know the commandments. ( love your neighbor as you love yourself. love the God with all of your mind, heart, soul strength ) The rich young ruler said yes and I have kept them since I was a small child. WRONG! Jesus didn't say, you are not being honest here. Instead he asked him the question that would reveal his own greedy heart to him. He said, Good! Now go sell everything you own and sell it, give it to the poor and come and follow me. The rich young ruler upon hearing that news became very sorrowful and left. He didn't want to part with his riches.

Okay, so here is the question. Did the rich young ruler really love his neighbor as himself if he lived in great luxury while his neighbor went without? No, he didn't. Did the rich young ruler really love God with ALL that was within him if he refused to love others enough to share with them? No, he didn't.

Jesus was showing the man his own heart. It was a personal - unique - situation not something to make a doctrine out of. Abraham was a rich man. God had no problem with it. Solomon was given his wealth by God because he asked for the right thing from the beginning. ( wisdom ) God doesn't mind you having money. He minds you not being willing to part with it when you see a need and feel compelled in your heart to help but because of an inordinate love of money, you cannot.

Thank you for making my point for me.

You are right. You can interpret the story however you like.

Luke 14:12-14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

But yeah, Jesus was all in favor of the rich hanging onto their wealth.

Not one of the examples is a commandment or even a suggestion for the rich to divest themselves of their wealth. Each one is a teaching that God does not reward or punish people for how much wealth they do or do not accumulate in this lifetime, but rather rewards them for what is in their hearts. Further, neither should we exalt ourselves for what we have or consider ourselves unworthy because we are poor.

Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha was obviously not a poor man. Zacheus, the rich tax collector, was honored by Jesus who invited himself to Zacheus's home for tea. Jesus had no harsh words for wealthy employers or anybody of wealth and no teachings to suggest that it was evil or wrong to be wealthy.

But the PC trend goes along well with your erroneous interpretation of these scriptures. And it is the mission of the Left, it seems, and even a few anti-religious on the right, to destroy the faith and misteach the scriptures in an effort to create a totally secular/Atheist society that you think will be far superior to one inhabited by so many evil Christians.

But be careful what you wish for. Other nations have not fared well once they manage to snuff out all or most visible Christianity.
 
I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?

I did. The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it. It sounds like most people agree with me.
 
I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?

I did. The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it. It sounds like most people agree with me.

Of course the anti-religious on the Left agree with you. Which is sort of the point of the thread is it not?
 
It's an interesting discussion. I see nothing wrong with it. I want to comment on Underhills comment that Jesus wants the rich to give away all their money to the poor. Not true. That is not a teaching of the New Testament. Underhill is referring to the story of the Rich young ruler.

Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and distribute it to the poor and come and follow him? Because the Rich young ruler lied to Jesus. He approached Jesus, not the other way around.

He asked Jesus what he must do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told him you know the commandments. ( love your neighbor as you love yourself. love the God with all of your mind, heart, soul strength ) The rich young ruler said yes and I have kept them since I was a small child. WRONG! Jesus didn't say, you are not being honest here. Instead he asked him the question that would reveal his own greedy heart to him. He said, Good! Now go sell everything you own and sell it, give it to the poor and come and follow me. The rich young ruler upon hearing that news became very sorrowful and left. He didn't want to part with his riches.

Okay, so here is the question. Did the rich young ruler really love his neighbor as himself if he lived in great luxury while his neighbor went without? No, he didn't. Did the rich young ruler really love God with ALL that was within him if he refused to love others enough to share with them? No, he didn't.

Jesus was showing the man his own heart. It was a personal - unique - situation not something to make a doctrine out of. Abraham was a rich man. God had no problem with it. Solomon was given his wealth by God because he asked for the right thing from the beginning. ( wisdom ) God doesn't mind you having money. He minds you not being willing to part with it when you see a need and feel compelled in your heart to help but because of an inordinate love of money, you cannot.

Thank you for making my point for me.

You are right. You can interpret the story however you like.

Luke 14:12-14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

But yeah, Jesus was all in favor of the rich hanging onto their wealth.

Not one of the examples is a commandment or even a suggestion for the rich to divest themselves of their wealth. Each one is a teaching that God does not reward or punish people for how much wealth they do or do not accumulate in this lifetime, but rather rewards them for what is in their hearts. Further, neither should we exalt ourselves for what we have or consider ourselves unworthy because we are poor.

Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha was obviously not a poor man. Zacheus, the rich tax collector, was honored by Jesus who invited himself to Zacheus's home for tea. Jesus had no harsh words for wealthy employers or anybody of wealth and no teachings to suggest that it was evil or wrong to be wealthy.

But the PC trend goes along well with your erroneous interpretation of these scriptures. And it is the mission of the Left, it seems, and even a few anti-religious on the right, to destroy the faith and misteach the scriptures in an effort to create a totally secular/Atheist society that you think will be far superior to one inhabited by so many evil Christians.

But be careful what you wish for. Other nations have not fared well once they manage to snuff out all or most visible Christianity.

I'm not trying to snuff out anything. I am simply making a point, and if you are honest, you know I am right.

The whole notion that the republican position is the christian one, while the democrats are heathens is obviously shit. The majority of democrats are christians.

Just because people view their religion differently, or their views on politics differently, does not make them good or evil. Both sides love their wives and kids. Both sides want what is best for the country.

This is part of what is destroying this country. Rather than focus on the stuff that matters, you people are too busy placing labels and trying to tear down the other side. Meanwhile those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, have been destroying our country for decades.
 
I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?

I did. The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it. It sounds like most people agree with me.


Religion, Left and Right


10/4 ... not left or right but Heavenly.

The Pyramid by God is the Map - accumulating religious beliefs energetically ever rising for a singular Completion upon the Apex - there for God's Judgement for the Freedom of the Everlasting to be Granted ....
 
There IS a solution guys:

Communist Goal #27:
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.
What IS that Social Religion?

One World Religion run via the United Nations!:

United Religions Initiative

I suggest you be named 'the clever American Communist,' so as to differentiate you from the tons of soporific American communists.


Mainline Protestant groups have done what you suggest.....

1. In 1907, a group of Methodists formed the Methodist Federation for Social Service (MFSS). The aim was to influence other Protestant groups. The next day, the group is received by President Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. One of the leaders, Harry F. Ward drafts a Social Creed that will be adopted by the 1908 General Conference and by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.
MFSA » History Timeline


2. In the early Twenties the Communist Party made considerable gains in its program to infiltrate the churches. This effort was led by such prominent "American" clergymen as Harry F. Ward ( "one of the leading collaborators of, and apologists for, the Soviet Union." ...), Jerome Davis, William B. Spofford, and Albert Rhys Williams. at the 1942 convention of the Federal Council of Churches called for: Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers." Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism. Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. International control of all armies and navies. A universal system of money.... Worldwide freedom of immigration. Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade .... A "democratically controlled" international bank ....
APOSTASY -- The National Council Of Churches


3. The Social Gospel enthusiasts switched the aim from labor rights to attacks on the “profit motive,” …capitalism.

a. “The church, therefore, in the opinion of the federation, must accept
the Marxist point of view…The federation, therefore, wants the religious leaders to preach a religious creed, not based upon the Bible and in defense of the American way of life, but one that is based upon the atheistic foundations of the philosophy of Marx. The federation wants the ministers to declare their judgment against the social economic system under which Americans live and prosper today in favor of the Socialist system, which in Russia and the satellite countries has brought the peoples.” Read the ebook Investigation of Communist activities in the New York City area. Hearings (Volume pt. 5-6, pp. 1969-2143) by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-Am


Is that you humming the Internationale?
 
Yah, the OP is a fantasy world:

"5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid."

(My bold)

As if liberals were in control of US popular culture. When radio & TV first showed up in the US, no one knew how to make a buck off them. So they were relegated to experimental use @ universities, which implemented classes & concerts, lectures, plays over the air. It wasn't until some bright lad figured out how to estimate audience size & tied program sponsors to ad revenue that the media turned into the 24/7 devourers of talent & programming that we've come to know & loathe. If it had been up to liberals, we probably would have followed the UK model - BBC-like central programming, supported by annual licensing fees for each radio or TV receiver. Yah, you'd likely get Shakespeare instead of I love Lucy. No doubt that Lucy fulfills some demographic, but in the long run, I think Shakespeare is worth promulgating - the jury is still out on Lucy & all the also-rans.

Opie & Anthony run on satellite radio XM? So it's a self-limiting problem. Besides, if I understand the term shock jocks, isn't this what they do for a living? It's remarkable that they have work, but if you want me to police the airwaves, I'm game. Just give me the job - I'll clear all the deadwood, never fear.

I've never heard of the State Property line of clothing, either. I must be the wrong demographic. But again, you want to address the marketing droids, who most likely are not liberals. They are probably advertising folk, with finance minors. Bean-counters, in a word.
 
The following are the facts.
America today.
Quo Vadis.




1.Coming to terms with religion’s public role is one of liberalism’s most fearsome problems: how to make their case to religious America? So far, it has been a failure, which is one reason for the hostility of the left to groups such as evangelicals, even though these folks were brought onto the political scene by a liberal, Jimmy Carter.

a. Gone are is religious wing of liberalism, the prophetic voice of Reinhold Niebuhr, Dorothy Day, Michael Harrington, and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Even while the Democrats scored signal victories in the 2006 election, exit polls showed that some 60% of those who say they attend religious services more than once a week voted Republican, a figure that is consistent with the 2002 and 2004 elections. "....2012 (50% to 48%)1. Obama’s margin of victory was much smaller than in 2008 when he defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin, and he lost ground among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. But the basic religious contours of the 2012 electorate resemble recent elections – traditionally Republican groups such as white evangelicals and weekly churchgoers strongly backed Romney..." 2012 Exit Polls: How the Faithful Voted - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life





3. "The Democratic Party is seen as friendly to religion by 26 percent, while 43 percent say the same about the GOP. That’s a 9 percentage point drop for Republicans since 2008, and 12 points lower for Democrats.." Barack : Kevin Trudeau Show

a. Citizens tell pollsters they attend religious services at least once a week and nearly three-quarters say they pray at least once a day. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/familyvaluesreport.pdf

4. While the number of Americans who have become alienated from organized religion may be increasing, stillTuesday’s Gallup survey shows that 77 percent of Americans still claim a religion, despite the trends toward “unbranded” religion. It also indicates Americans tend to get more religious with age, and speculates that our aging population might also spell an increase in reported religiosity. Gallup Survey Finds a Majority of Americans Still Religious - The Daily Beast

a. About 80% belong to a Christian faith, 79% believe in the virgin birth, 78% say Jesus physically rose from the dead, and 48% claim to have had a “born again experience.” Gordon S. Wood, “American Religion: The Great Retreat”

b. Compared to Europeans, over 60% of Americans state that belief in God is necessary in order “to be moral and have good values.” This is about twice the number of Germans and six times the number of French.
Asmus, Everts, and Isernia, “Across the Atlantic.”

c. “Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.” Barack Obama. Blog ? Barack Obama






4. Following the 1960’s the left made the politically suicidal choice of cultural radicalism, which succeeded, over political and economic radicalism, which failed.

a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation
Thus, the rise of the religious right.





5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid.





6. John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” of the use of ‘moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term as a useful check on antisocial behavior.”

7. “At a valuable conference on liberals and religion organized by Columbia
University's American studies program in mid-February, E.J. Dionne, a
liberal and a devout Catholic, conceded that conservatives have a number
of natural advantages when seeking to marry religious devotion to
politics.
They own the word "tradition," for one.

And as Russell Kirk
pointed out in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, the canons of
conservatism tend naturally to appeal to the faithful: Conservatives, he
wrote, believe in "a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which
rules society as well as conscience." Their attachment to "custom,
convention and old prescription" provides a check on "man's anarchic
impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power."

Liberalism, on the other
hand, arose in revolt against many of these same customs and conventions,
particularly the oppressive power of the church.”
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty - With God on Our Side?




".....You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children..."
You can hardly find a more Liberal individual than Eric Alterman.



What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.

Whew!

There is so much in there that I can actually find things I agree with.


Wow!


What an amazing post....


....one that could almost pass for a doctoral thesis!
 

Forum List

Back
Top