History
- Member for
- 24 weeks 3 days
Get E-Mail Updates
Hazel
Top Stories This Week
- A North Carolina Christian’s Response to Pastor Charles L. Worley
by Andrew Simpson 05-23-2012 - 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - A 'Bizarre and Peculiar' Ruling
by E.J. Dionne Jr. 06-01-2012 - What is the Chief Political Concern of the Bible?
by Tim Suttle 05-24-2012 - The Problem with Certitude
by Gary L. Tandy 05-25-2012 - Dear Pastor Charles Worley: We Condemn Your Words of Hatred and Cruelty. REPENT!
by Eugene Cho 05-23-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - Jennifer Grant Asks 'What is an Evangelical?'
by Jennifer Grant 05-23-2012
by Karen Sue Smith 01-01-2012
Fifty years after Vatican II, will a new generation of lay Catholics lead prophetic change in the church and in the world?
by David Cortright 05-01-2010
... and make us all more secure. A pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament.
by David Cortright 08-01-2006
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
Most of the Republcans have been very careful to stay on message and focus on the issues that are important to women: jobs, gas prices and the deficit.
But as pointed out above, Obama has declared a War on Women for his own partisan reasons and it is costing hi, in the new polls. He now stands at a new low of 41%.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/13/Obamas%20War%20On%20W...
You sexist Mennonite. Just because our president has initiated a War On Women doesn't mean I'm required to tolerate derogatory comments about the thickness of my thighs!
We were talking about jobs, gas prices and the exploding deficit. But Obama had the brilliant idea of engineering a war on women to change the topic. It worked, in that he changed the topic to who pays for my contraception. But it didn't work in lifting Obama in the polls.
Obama's "War on Women" has cost him in the polls. He now stands at a new low of 41%!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/13/Obamas%20War%20On%20W...
I did. Seems everyone is trying to come up with justification of why a double standard is OK. But the bottom line is, the left makes a regular practice of abusive language that is celebrated by Sojourners if the target is a hated conservative. But when, like you and the CNN article point out, it is an influencial conservative, there is an organized effort to make it a special case.
Rush Limbaugh is also a comedian. His routine was clearly satire. Yes, he has some influence on conservative thought, just as Jon Stewart has influence on liberal thought.
Are you suggesting that some people, if they are liberal, can get away with slurs and defaming others? Is it right to call Sarah Palin a cunt and a twat just because she is conservative and refused to abort a downs syndrom baby?
Trying to change the topic because it is uncomfortable Michelle? You say that "not all" Tea Party members are like that to imply that many are. That is a flat out falsehood. I've never met a single Tea Party follower that is racist nor seen a racist sign at a rally.
But even if it was true it would be off point. Is it right to call other racist and judge their heart when you don't know them? There are many coeds having sex in college. Does that make it right for Rush to call them sluts?
Why do you fell that it is OK for this blog to make slurs like that but not OK for Rush?
How is Rush calling Fluck a slut that much different than Sojourners calling Tea Party followers racist?
Yes, the Rush satire and the Jon Stewart routine are both cut from the same cloth. But Sojourners laughs at one and crys foul with the other. Is it mere politics or should we expect more from conservatives than we do from liberals?
Valerie quotes Matthew “Judge not, so that you may not be judged" and then she proceeds to judge what she thinks is in Rush's heart.
I heard Rush's satire live. Some of it was inappropriate but it was funny. He didn't judge Sandra's heart or motives. He did absurd satire to point out how absurd Sandra's testimony was.
Rush was wrong for his choice of words but how much more wrong are you for trying to judge what was in his heart.
Wow! For a blog that is consistently intolerant of poor people you sure seem to have a double standard by finding fault with John Piper calling "homosexual relations" sin.
So you would use government action to prevent people from living poorer, smaller, slower lives? Even if they believed that it was better for them personally than living faster and more materialisticly? Why shouldn't one have the liberty to live poorer or richer, smaller or larger, slower or faster?
You can see Joshua's article at: http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2011/12/21/charitable-disconnect
And Valeries at: http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2011/12/16/righteous-indignation-half-america-poor
Both Valeria and Joshua wrote recent pieces saying that with America being the wealiest and most generous nation on earth that we shouldn't "abide" 50% of Americans being poor (as defined by income of less than the median household income). In summary, they were saying that it is wrong to live poorer, smaller, simplier lives and it is wrong for us to allow them to do so.
Well said Bob. It is refreshing to hear you talk about your early pursuit of "poorer, poorer" after so many recent articles talking down those that follow the path of poorer, smaller and simpler.
Tony's philosophy is to lift communities out of poverty. God's Politics is about social activism with a focus on increasing entitlements. They are conflicting efforts. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong just that they are conflicting. Besides, if you lift communities out of poverty it reducies entitlements to go down and threatens the liberal voting base by reducing voters willing to vote for entitlements.
The problem with Tony is that he wants to lift African American communities out of poverty and way from dependency on entitlements. But doing so would threaten the Democrat’s reliance on Black voters who we begin voting more conservatively.
It sounds like we both agree that if the government forced all food providers so serve pork that Christians should object. And I think we are both in agreement that if all hospitals were forced to participate in capital punishment or if all religious organizations were forced to participate in a war that Christians should be unified in objecting. Do I also hear you saying that you agree with everyone else on this blog in joining the chorus in strenuously condemning the administration’s calling for all hospitals to pay for contraception/abortions? Certainly you aren’t saying you are biting your tongue merely for political reasons?
Are your comments politica posturing or are you truly going to fight for the rights of Christians?
You really think the government should be mandating prices of products or the acceptable profit levels of companies?
Back in the 60s and 70s when Liberals first started their major push against the norms of Christians society the Liberals didn't make a distinction between Christians, Evangelicals and conservatives. They just pushed back against everything that they though was rooted in God, absolute truth or morals that made them uncomfortable. That is when the anger and vitriol started.
So I would agree with the comments above. The vitriol from the left is rooted in different reasons than the vitriol from the right.
Why do so many Christians vote Republican? Maybe Tim King should write an article on that.
Our values are expressed in our dreams and fears. I have two teenage daughters. My greatest dream is that they will grow up and have passion for God. I would be delighted if they chose to become missionaries, voluntarily choosing to live life in poverty.
My greatest fears are that my daughters would:
1 ) reject God
2 ) fall into immorality or other additions or sins that cause separation from God, including not having a heart for the poor
3) become affluent and comfortable and forget God
4) exhibit mental illness
5) becoming liberal
6) be beset by physical disease
10+) earn less than the median income
There are things worse than being poor.
I never said that I believed Walmart employees were or were not treated unfairly. The truth is I don’t really know. But I do know that I don’t want the government setting wages or choosing winners or losers. I have no interest in the system used in the Soviet Union. It did not honor God in any way. You seem obsessed with the Walton family and judgmental about their wealth. How do you know that the Walton’s don’t do something with the profits that is even more beneficial than payi ng higher wages? There are only 4 things that business owners can do with profit – invest it, which creates more jobs, spend it, which also creates more jobs, pay taxes or give to charity. Isn’t creating jobs for the unemployed of greater value right now than increasing the standard of living for those already working? And shouldn’t we value the impact made from giving to charity? That could be saving the lives by providing clean water and aids prevention in Africa. I would agree with you that the rich paying taxes doesn’t give much back to society because the government is inefficient in what they do with tax receipts.
So what is the common theme in the two threads above? The key value for conservatives is providing a level playing field and then letting individuals have the liberty to choose their own course, even if that means they choose a course that results in their being poor.
So why is it that that you are less interested in the sexual morals of a person? Would you not bless a person more if you helped them get out of sexual bondage than trying to fix the fact that they are in the bottom 50% of wage earners?
We have gone full circle and we come back to the realization that Ayn Rand had some great insights about how liberals and conservatives think. You have made it clear that you are much more concerned about the economic status of an individual than the morality that they choose to live out. Is that not exactly what Ayn said? But really, isn’t he most appalling thing in America the fact that we are a country with such a rich heritage but still have so many that are not in right relationship to God. Their not being in right relationship with God is more important than whether they are rich or poor.
Christians have not always voted Republican. Until the 60s, southern Christians consistently voted Democrat but then when modern liberal theology blossomed we began seeing Christians vote against the liberals.
In the 60s the belief in evolution quickly blossomed among the educated elite in the cities. This was primarily a response to the dominate belief still held at that time in absolute truth and a God that is involved in our daily affairs. With the rejection of a transcendent God came the belief that the material world is all that there is. This led to materialism and a desire to be insulated from the problems of society, i.e. poverty. Liberals started pushing the government to become the solution to poverty, a role that had been accepted up to that point to be the responsibility of the individual. Liberals began pushing against other norms of society. Liberals viewed the Christian pursuit of purity as a moralistic attitude that brought guilt and shame to those that didn’t live by the same standard. Since liberals believed that there was no absolute truth it was logical that they would start believing that the greatest evil in the world was the moralistic life of those that set an unnecessary standard for others. The Christian said that honoring God was our purpose in life. The liberal responded that self actualization was our purpose in life. So the belief (new at that time) that we must force equal outcomes so that all could experience self actualization began to take hold.
This is all to say that Christians don’t vote with Republicans, they vote against liberals and the idea that government should be the answer instead of the roles and responsibilities laid out in the Bible. This includes both fiscal and social issues. We should not under estimate the importance of fiscal issues to Christians.
Yes, many argue that the stimulus had a significant positive impact. But there is general agreement that the stimulus fell short of its intended long-term impact, that the cost of paying $400,000 per job created was not efficient, and that President Obama missed an opportunity to include Republican ideas in the stimulus making it a better bipartisan effort.
Was the stimulus worth the debt created and the drag that debt is now having on the economy? I don't think so.
I appreciate that you "have a problem when some one is poor due to our culture that prevents that person from being able to follow his or her desire to not be poor". But that is not what Valerie or Joshua was talking about. They were talking about ALL 50% of Americans that they have decided to label as poor or living in poverty. And we have already demonstrated that most of those 150 million Americans are either in life transition or are in their current economic state by choice.
Valerie could have written about the the tragedy of high unemployment, the difficulties of not having health insurance, how awful it is to experience desease or a number of other issues. Of course, those issues are impacting all Americans even if they impact the poor more. But she choose to write about how awful it is that 50% of Americans are what she labels "poor".
It is very much like someone saying how awful it is that 10% of Americans are homosexual or how awful it is that 18% of Americans are African American.
I've appreciated the dialog with you as I am trying to learn more about the core values that drive liberal theology.
Valerie says that she is angry because "so many people are suffering" but she says it in context with 50% of Americans living below the median income. She is telling us that if we are in the bottom half of America, we are suffering in her book. I say, the affluent liberals who look down on the middle class and think they have it all because they have stuff are the ones who are truly suffering.
Removing lower income earners from society will not "promote the general welfare of the nation". We need those that choose the simple lifestyle to continue to be beacons for those that continue to be caught up in their materialistic pursuit.
Maggie, you tell me. Why do you think Valerie is focusing on the bottom 50%? We all know that most of the bottom 50% have not fallen into poverty.