Religion, Left and Right

[Luddly Neddite]

Alabama huh? That person is brave...

I thought the exact same thing.

I wonder how often that car has been keyed!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Alabama huh? That person is brave...

I thought the exact same thing.

I wonder how often that car has been keyed!

I just love it when you dummies try to resort to Jesus for rectitude....

...especially those with an ugly_necktie....


Luke 22:36
"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

 

[hoosier88]

They are synonymous.

...

You're pinning your argument on the fact that one of many synonyms for "religion" is "morality"?

...

Not the case.

The argument is that the Left ....liberals/progressives/ Democrats/ whatever....have taken society on a path that is low-cast and vulgar.

...

(My bold)

The klaxon went off on low-cast. Probably a typo, I assume you mean low-caste. But that's forbidden, it refers to the caste system in Hinduism. Whose validity you (presumably) fervently deny. (It's a kind of predestinationism combined with a rigid class society, v. stratified.) I did like the reference to the path, though. Much more open-minded than I would have expected, all things considered.

You're welcome.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

Is it? Or is it to focus on the dishonest interpretations of the Left--such as I have pointed out in your posts whether your error was intentional or inadvertent--to discredit and diminish the positive influence of religion on this country? Does it increase the divide to expose the frontal and less obvious attacks on people of faith in an effort to deny them a voice in the direction the country should take? Does it increase the divide to expose the Left when it would seek to justify its own immoral acts by accusing Christians and others of faith?

Or is your view that the conservative people of faith should keep their mouths shut and sit meekly, with their hands folded, and accept whatever role and/or characterization the Left wishes to assign to them?

 

[kiwiman127]

The hard right and hard left cherry pick what's important to them in God's Word. If they didn't they wouldn't be true to the respective ideologies. Neither party is more Christian than the other. To think that one's ideology is more Christian than the other is a crock. Each ideology seems to ignore parts of God's teachings when the teachings go against the core of their own ideology. Examples of the teaching of the Bible would be abortion, the environment and helping the weak and poor. Neither the left or the right have real strong records in dealing with just these three issues by following the Bible's direction in a consistent manner.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're pinning your argument on the fact that one of many synonyms for "religion" is "morality"?

...

Not the case.

The argument is that the Left ....liberals/progressives/ Democrats/ whatever....have taken society on a path that is low-cast and vulgar.

...

(My bold)

The klaxon went off on low-cast. Probably a typo, I assume you mean low-caste. But that's forbidden, it refers to the caste system in Hinduism. Whose validity you (presumably) fervently deny. (It's a kind of predestinationism combined with a rigid class society, v. stratified.) I did like the reference to the path, though. Much more open-minded than I would have expected, all things considered.

You're welcome.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched....
( A little Indiana lingo there)



Actually, I meant low-cast, as in thrown in a downward spiral.

And, YOU'RE welcome.

 

[Foxfyre]

The hard right and hard left cherry pick what's important to them in God's Word. If they didn't they wouldn't be true to the respective ideologies. Neither party is more Christian than the other. To think that one's ideology is more Christian than the other is a crock. Each ideology seems to ignore parts of God's teachings when the teachings go against the core of their own ideology. Examples of the teaching of the Bible would be abortion, the environment and helping the weak and poor. Neither the left or the right have real strong records in dealing with just these three issues by following the Bible's direction in a consistent manner.

The divide comes in when those on the right follow their religious convictions and are accused by the Left of 'cramming religion down everybody's throat' or 'trying to make America into a theocracy' or 'using religion to legislate morality' or 'of being hatefully judgmental, racist, legalistic' ect. etc. etc.

No such accusations are leveled at the leftwing religious who are just as likely to quote scripture to support their points of view and use the 'what would Jesus do' argument--and I speak this from first hand experience attending national church convocations and conventions, listening to talking head on TV and the radio, and posting on message boards--but because the leftwing religious support the more radical agendas of the Left, they are not accused of using religion inappropriately.

 

[Underhill]

The hard right and hard left cherry pick what's important to them in God's Word. If they didn't they wouldn't be true to the respective ideologies. Neither party is more Christian than the other. To think that one's ideology is more Christian than the other is a crock. Each ideology seems to ignore parts of God's teachings when the teachings go against the core of their own ideology. Examples of the teaching of the Bible would be abortion, the environment and helping the weak and poor. Neither the left or the right have real strong records in dealing with just these three issues by following the Bible's direction in a consistent manner.

The divide comes in when those on the right follow their religious convictions and are accused by the Left of 'cramming religion down everybody's throat' or 'trying to make America into a theocracy' or 'using religion to legislate morality' or 'of being hatefully judgmental, racist, legalistic' ect. etc. etc.

No such accusations are leveled at the leftwing religious who are just as likely to quote scripture to support their points of view and use the 'what would Jesus do' argument--and I speak this from first hand experience attending national church convocations and conventions, listening to talking head on TV and the radio, and posting on message boards--but because the leftwing religious support the more radical agendas of the Left, they are not accused of using religion inappropriately.

It might happen. But in the 25 years I have been paying attention I can't think of a single case of a liberal politician pulling out bible verses to support his agenda. It might happen somewhere, but it is nowhere near as common as it is on the right.

And when I start accusing people for stuffing religion down our throats it's because they are trying to stuff religion down our throats with their constant bitching about lack of prayer in schools or not being able to put a manger at the courthouse.

 

[Underhill]

I am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

Is it? Or is it to focus on the dishonest interpretations of the Left--such as I have pointed out in your posts whether your error was intentional or inadvertent--to discredit and diminish the positive influence of religion on this country? Does it increase the divide to expose the frontal and less obvious attacks on people of faith in an effort to deny them a voice in the direction the country should take? Does it increase the divide to expose the Left when it would seek to justify its own immoral acts by accusing Christians and others of faith?

Or is your view that the conservative people of faith should keep their mouths shut and sit meekly, with their hands folded, and accept whatever role and/or characterization the Left wishes to assign to them?

It is my view that religious people of all ilks should put away their holy books of any type when talking about law. If you want to base your morality on them, fine. If you would like the laws to reflect their teachings, fine. But don't whip them out, chapter and verse, and expect them to have any authority outside your religious community.

You claim the bible says one thing. Fine. But I can show you plenty of websites where people disagree with you on just about everything controversial and use the bible to back it up. It is not conclusive, not only because it has nothing to do with the law, but because it is so open to interpretation. A classic example is that bumper sticker. Would Jesus carry a gun? I kind of doubt it knowing the things he said. But I'm sure others will try (as someone here did) to make the point that he just might.

But that is not the question. The question is does the left whip out their faith like the right does. I've seen left wing politicians pray, but beyond that, even Jimmy Carter was not as likely to spout godisms as GWB was. And he was a former preacher.

 

[hoosier88]

Not the case.

The argument is that the Left ....liberals/progressives/ Democrats/ whatever....have taken society on a path that is low-cast and vulgar.

...

(My bold)

The klaxon went off on low-cast. Probably a typo, I assume you mean low-caste. But that's forbidden, it refers to the caste system in Hinduism. Whose validity you (presumably) fervently deny. (It's a kind of predestinationism combined with a rigid class society, v. stratified.) I did like the reference to the path, though. Much more open-minded than I would have expected, all things considered.

You're welcome.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched....
( A little Indiana lingo there)

Actually, I meant low-cast, as in thrown in a downward spiral.

And, YOU'RE welcome.

(My bold)

LOL. The chickens count dates back to a fable, attributed to the slave Aesop circa 600 BCE. (He was Greek, FYI.) & you might cast your eyes to my location, 2nd line from the upper right-hand corner.

My browser blanks on low-cast as you define it, & keeps offering low-caste as an alternative. Ah, well, what does it know?

 

[Foxfyre]

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

Is it? Or is it to focus on the dishonest interpretations of the Left--such as I have pointed out in your posts whether your error was intentional or inadvertent--to discredit and diminish the positive influence of religion on this country? Does it increase the divide to expose the frontal and less obvious attacks on people of faith in an effort to deny them a voice in the direction the country should take? Does it increase the divide to expose the Left when it would seek to justify its own immoral acts by accusing Christians and others of faith?

Or is your view that the conservative people of faith should keep their mouths shut and sit meekly, with their hands folded, and accept whatever role and/or characterization the Left wishes to assign to them?

It is my view that religious people of all ilks should put away their holy books of any type when talking about law. If you want to base your morality on them, fine. If you would like the laws to reflect their teachings, fine. But don't whip them out, chapter and verse, and expect them to have any authority outside your religious community.

You claim the bible says one thing. Fine. But I can show you plenty of websites where people disagree with you on just about everything controversial and use the bible to back it up. It is not conclusive, not only because it has nothing to do with the law, but because it is so open to interpretation. A classic example is that bumper sticker. Would Jesus carry a gun? I kind of doubt it knowing the things he said. But I'm sure others will try (as someone here did) to make the point that he just might.

But that is not the question. The question is does the left whip out their faith like the right does. I've seen left wing politicians pray, but beyond that, even Jimmy Carter was not as likely to spout godisms as GWB was. And he was a former preacher.

Ah yes, the same Jimmy Carter whose most famous religious quotation was "We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon" delivered in an official speech on Mar. 1976.

But he is liberal and thinks Republicans are evil, so his religious faith doesn't count. For that matter, GWB did mention God frequently in speeches as did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and all who preceded them. But I don't think I have ever seen a President who directly quoted Scripture as much as Barack Obama has done.

Some other great lines from former Presidents:

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God...... Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty...... With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."--Inaugural Address - Friday, January 20, 1961- John F. Kennedy

Part of our essential humanity is paying respect to what God gave us and what will be here a long time after we're gone--William J. Clinton


"And we're also remembering the guiding light of our Judeo-Christian tradition. All of us here today are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sons and daughters of the same God. I believe we are bound by faith in our God, by our love for family and neighborhood, by our deep desire for a more peaceful world, and by our commitment to protect the freedom which is our legacy as Americans. These values have given a renewed sense of worth to our lives. They are infusing America with confidence and optimism that many thought we had lost..."--Temple Hillel & Community Leaders in Valley Stream (Oct 26, 1984) - Ronald Reagan

And from President Obama himself:

From the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Washington on Dec. 2, 2011:
"More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among the cattle and the sheep. But this was not just any child. Christ's birth made the angels rejoice and attracted shepherds and kings from afar. He was a manifestation of God's love for us.
"And he grew up to become a leader with a servant's heart who taught us a message as simple as it is powerful: that we should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves. That teaching has come to encircle the globe. No matter who we are, or where we come from, or how we worship, it's a message that can unite all of us on this holiday season."

Easter Prayer Breakfast on April 19, 2011 at the White House
"But then comes Holy Week. The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we're reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection."

National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 6, 2009
"I didn't become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- His purpose."

So all of our Presidents--every single one of them--have at some point referenced their Christian faith during the course of carrying out their presidential duties. George W. Bush didn't do it any more than the others and not as often or much as some. He was the one targeted and condemned the most for it, however.

But for the life of me, I cannot see how any of them including expressions of their Christian faith and center in their conversations with the American people have harmed us in any way.

I see great harm being done in the hateful and deliberate attempts to squelch, remove, and suppress Christian or other religious faith from being part of the national conversation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PC: The problem is we keep defining each Religion based on the rightwing denomination of each.

If you start including the leftwing/secular side of each Religion and the rightwing/religious side, then you can see EVERYONE is included.

All people have a denomination of some sort, but if you only define RELIGION to mean a certain sector more vocal or more visible, then you are leaving out half of humanity.

And no, we can't just blame the media, govt or parties for doing this.
If we run around only validating and recognizing fundamental muslims as defining Islam, or rightwing Christians as defining Christianity, then we are doing it to ourselves. the media and govt and parties follow what the people and market forces will honor and reward.
so if we quit PATRONIZING this one-sided way of thinking and framing things, it can change!

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.

I pick recognizing Constitutional beliefs as universal to everyone.
And organizing leftwing believers in diversity and inclusion around a PEACE party or branch,
and organizing all the rightwing believers in rule of law and enforcing checks against abuses around a JUSTICE party or branch. And including all people of all views in the democratic process without bullying by coersion or exclusion, and basing policies on that input. Where if people don't agree, they can fund/support their own agenda through their own parties.
And reserve the govt and public laws for areas all people and parties AGREE to fund.
this would check and limit govt while organizing resources for people to freely pursue their own bleiefs and agenda without imposing on each other or abusing govt to do so!

Whaddya say, PC are you in?
Wanna start this Spiritual Senate with reps from every party collaborating on a Constitutional convention to organize in teams around each issue that the parties have different views on?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear FoxFyre: if we base our perceptions of left and right on what we see in the media,
both sides complain it's the other that keeps reacting this way, when both sides are guilty.
i find as many people on both sides painting the other with a broad brush, and wondering whey they are stereotyped the same way. I find as many on both sides who DON'T do this.
THOSE are the ones I focus on, who think and answer for themselves, because they will also allow the others to do the same, instead of painting each other in preconceived boxes.

I find the key difference is whether people criticize each other out of Forgiveness. If they don't forgive first, it's easy to express the objection by targeting their group, affiliation, race, party etc. etc. as the justification for the blame or anger.

Where people forgive, they tend to define things based on the problem, the conflict, the situation, not targeting the person or their group!

So guess which one you will see in the media? Usually the ones the media can follow with the labels and namecalling and blame projected on a group they can identify.

You won't see the real mediation and constructive criticism going on behind the scenes.
it's usually one-on-one, and crossing over the party and religious lines, where people address each other as people not as labels.

I am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

Is it? Or is it to focus on the dishonest interpretations of the Left--such as I have pointed out in your posts whether your error was intentional or inadvertent--to discredit and diminish the positive influence of religion on this country? Does it increase the divide to expose the frontal and less obvious attacks on people of faith in an effort to deny them a voice in the direction the country should take? Does it increase the divide to expose the Left when it would seek to justify its own immoral acts by accusing Christians and others of faith?

Or is your view that the conservative people of faith should keep their mouths shut and sit meekly, with their hands folded, and accept whatever role and/or characterization the Left wishes to assign to them?

When I'm coming from the left, I embrace the right.
When I'm coming from the right, I embrace the left.
We need to find more allies and form more partnerships with people from either
side willing to embrace the other. We can make much more effective corrections
that way, as peer to peer with respect for our relationship we can be building and restoring, not as enemies or adversaries trying to compete to make the other wrong.
why not compete with ourselves to make things right, how can we challenge ourselves
to be more effective in how we communicate and correct problems together in teams?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

We have models we can use today, that people didn't have in the past, to bridge these gaps between rich and poor WITHOUT depending on charity [OR arguing about who is trying to redistribute the wealth of OTHER PEOPLE and criticize others for what they don't do either].

I hope to promote a program that combines the ideas from Habitat for Humanity with Lifestyles Unlimited to break the cycle of poverty by teaching financial and property business management, not just owning a home, but how to purchase and manage rentals in teams for sustainable revenue for individuals and charities at the same time.

Most of the ocnflicts over redistribution of wealth are coming from "one set of people trying to tell another set what to do". they are not arguing over the same thing. they are arguing over why are YOU trying to tell ME what to do, look at YOU and what YOU are doing or not doing. Why should I have to pay for THAT when you are not paying for THIS, etc etc etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dear FoxFyre: if we base our perceptions of left and right on what we see in the media,
both sides complain it's the other that keeps reacting this way, when both sides are guilty.
i find as many people on both sides painting the other with a broad brush, and wondering whey they are stereotyped the same way. I find as many on both sides who DON'T do this.
THOSE are the ones I focus on, who think and answer for themselves, because they will also allow the others to do the same, instead of painting each other in preconceived boxes.

I find the key difference is whether people criticize each other out of Forgiveness. If they don't forgive first, it's easy to express the objection by targeting their group, affiliation, race, party etc. etc. as the justification for the blame or anger.

Where people forgive, they tend to define things based on the problem, the conflict, the situation, not targeting the person or their group!

So guess which one you will see in the media? Usually the ones the media can follow with the labels and namecalling and blame projected on a group they can identify.

You won't see the real mediation and constructive criticism going on behind the scenes.
it's usually one-on-one, and crossing over the party and religious lines, where people address each other as people not as labels.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

Is it? Or is it to focus on the dishonest interpretations of the Left--such as I have pointed out in your posts whether your error was intentional or inadvertent--to discredit and diminish the positive influence of religion on this country? Does it increase the divide to expose the frontal and less obvious attacks on people of faith in an effort to deny them a voice in the direction the country should take? Does it increase the divide to expose the Left when it would seek to justify its own immoral acts by accusing Christians and others of faith?

Or is your view that the conservative people of faith should keep their mouths shut and sit meekly, with their hands folded, and accept whatever role and/or characterization the Left wishes to assign to them?

When I'm coming from the left, I embrace the right.
When I'm coming from the right, I embrace the left.
We need to find more allies and form more partnerships with people from either
side willing to embrace the other. We can make much more effective corrections
that way, as peer to peer with respect for our relationship we can be building and restoring, not as enemies or adversaries trying to compete to make the other wrong.
why not compete with ourselves to make things right, how can we challenge ourselves
to be more effective in how we communicate and correct problems together in teams?

Dear Emily,

I know you mean well, but frankly I get a little weary of this philosophy of going along to get along. I see no benefit in embracing what I believe to be evil or destructive if that is the only way to 'get along'. I will hear anybody out. I will appreciate and praise a well argued position on anything whether or not I agree with it. And I too get really tired of the demonizing and accusing and paint brushing as it were. But I don't see seeing things as they are to be anything other than necessary in order to achieve worthy goals. Whatever we think of the media, sometimes it is the only source of information we have to know the details or facts in any given situation.

We can believe that the left believes they are morally centered when they try to achieve a more and more secular nation while we are supposed to ignore THEIR intolerance. But believing they think they have the moral high ground does not extrapolate to it being constructive to agree with them.

And yes, there are those on the right who get it wrong too even though they believe they are taking the high road. And I won't defend the indefensible on the right either.

The key is to agree on a goal first, and then argue out the best route to get there. And sometimes we can get there via different routes. We will never get there using any means, however, when the goals/destinations are different and in opposition to each other. When it comes to left and right in this country these days, without a common religion/value system to bind us and inform us of right and wrong, common goals become quite elusive indeed.
__________________

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Emily,

I know you mean well, but frankly I get a little weary of this philosophy of going along to get along. I see no benefit in embracing what I believe to be evil or destructive if that is the only way to 'get along'.

no it does not mean to embrace the problems, but embrace the people we are trying to address including THEM in the corrections and resolution process, not imposing it on them.
that's what went wrong with the health bill, half the nation was excluded from the process of reachin gthis so called "consensus" based on "grassroots" -- which doesn't really count if you leave out half the population. so embracing either the proponents or opponents to ACA does NOT mean embracing all the problems, it means to include each other in corrections.

I will hear anybody out. I will appreciate and praise a well argued position on anything whether or not I agree with it. And I too get really tired of the demonizing and accusing and paint brushing as it were.

yes, this is what I mean, I see you already take this into account and you are trying
to work around this and not buy into or perpetuate it. I see it in how you talk about the problems you are trying to be inclusive and not divisive. thank you, as this is more effective.

But I don't see seeing things as they are to be anything other than necessary in order to achieve worthy goals. Whatever we think of the media, sometimes it is the only source of information we have to know t"othhe details or facts in any given situation.

that is why we need to hook up directly with the people from different sides to get to the same sources directly, not depend on what the media says each side represents. we can better check and balance each other, and then solve problems and present solutions ourselves, so the media reflects those results and conclusions not the divisions and conflicts.

We can believe that the left believes they are morally centered when they try to achieve a more and more secular nation while we are supposed to ignore THEIR intolerance. But believing they think they have the moral high ground does not extrapolate to it being constructive to agree with them.

no, it's not ignoring their intolerance but recognizing the division and rejection is mutual.
there ARE as many rightwing intolerant closeminded fundamentalists as liberal leftwing.
you and I are not so closed, so that's where we begin. I approach people on both sides and find areas where they would trust to connect with the "other group" such as on vet housing or constitutional outreach to prevent bullying abuse and crime, start with safe issues that people feel open to working with others, and then build relations from there. once you know each other, then some of the touchier areas can be addressed. but not as enemies.

And yes, there are those on the right who get it wrong too even though they believe they are taking the high road. And I won't defend the indefensible on the right either.

Yes, this is why you are one of those who can bridge the gaps because you
hold both sides equally to account, not just the one you relate to more.
that's all it takes to stop the defensiveness, this attitude you have already makes the difference in how people will see and talk with each other openly and not play those games!

The key is to agree on a goal first, and then argue out the best route to get there. And sometimes we can get there via different routes. We will never get there using any means, however, when the goals/destinations are different and in opposition to each other. When it comes to left and right in this country these days, without a common religion/value system to bind us and inform us of right and wrong, common goals become quite elusive indeed.
__________________

Yes, FoxFyre this is wonderful! Yes to all the above!
with each person I find unique points where we connect.
but most people agree on Constitutional values so I try to frame and explain things that way.

When I work with advocates on both sides of thing like abortion/deathpenalty
we can agree on defending the equal views of whatever they believe as protected
under religious freedom or consent of the governed, and then I explain that
Constitutionally the other views are equally trying to defend their beliefs and views.

For my friends who don't get why keep the choice of abortion legal when abortion
is messed up, I explain the same reason why they want to keep the choice of the
death penalty when actually carrying that out gets very messed up also. And wehre
we agree is PREVENTING capital crime so there is no need for capital punishment
and PREVENTING rape and relationship abuse to REDUCE the incidence of unwanted
pregnancies unwanted children or unwanted abortion, because people have
healthy relations to begin with and not dysfunction where these things happen as a result.

so whatever problems we solve need to be addressed where people agree on
central solutions that don't violate anyone's beliefs. when we stick to that, it is
usually to correct and prevent problems, and not to punish or penalize after the fact
which is wehre most of the disagreements come in. if we work on prevention (of rape, crime, murder, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted abortion, relationship abuse)
nobody disagrees with solutions that prevent the problems in the first place.

Thanks FF I am so glad to find you as someone who is firm in convictions and will not compromise, but is inclusive and not divisive in your approach to working things out.
We need both things in order to lead partnership type coaltions to bring more
people together, where we get used to interacting directly and not letting media define us.

I couldn't believe it, but I do find people who really believe that conservatives or Christians are impossible to approach becuse of the perceptions in their minds. I take it for granted I have friends with a wide range of political or religious persuasions I can talk to when I have questions or issues. And we can talk with each other like human beings not media labels.

How can the right information ever get through if we don't consult with each other directly?