Young evangelical: We need more than just pro-life policies from the GOP

posted at 5:13 pm on December 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

In which I once again try to liven up a slow year-end news day with a religion post. As I’ve said before, I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation. So does this guy, evidently, as his choice of priorities between repealing Roe and, say, organizing a congressional bailout of the world’s poor would seem to be different than our readership’s. Scoff and call him a paper tiger if you like, but The One did make inroads with young white evangelicals this year, as this NYT graphic illustrates. The question is whether they broke for Obama because he appeals to them or because leftism does — or, alternatively, because they were turned off by McCain being less ostentatious in his faith than Dubya. Pew’s poll of party ID from September 2007 suggests a trend away from the GOP beginning in 2005, which suggests a fourth possibility: It has nothing to do with Obama, McCain, or leftism, but rather with the same disaffection with Bush that the public generally has felt for the last three years. Whatever the answer, The One knows a paradigm-shifting opportunity when he sees it. If you’ve been wondering why he’s so adamant about having Rick Warren at the inauguration, wonder no longer.

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

Which is precisely why you don’t understand it any better than THIS guy does.

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 5:17 PM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

It is – Jesus infamously said that rich people can’t get into heaven, and that the meek are entitled to salvation like it’s celestial Medicare. Christianity is plainly a left-leaning faith.

Makes you wonder why so few of its adherents seem to have noticed.

Enrique on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

I don’t know about Christianity being more lefty than righty. God ordained the institution of government, and I think Christianity makes a distinction between the actions of the individual, which should be more mercy focused, and those of the government, which should be more justice focused. If you steal my wallet, I should forgive you, and the government should arrest you.

Just my 2 cents.

kc8ukw on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Social gospel was quite popular in the 30s, and evangelicals used to be strongly associated with the left. It would not surprise me if this cycles back.

Doesn’t make it any more right. More important than poverty is freedom.

The Republican party needs to emphasize that that is it’s central plank. Freedom. Not Roe v Wade, not gay marriage crap, but Freedom.

Morality is important, but without freedom, you get Robespierre’s “civic duty” under the threat of death.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Oy… abandoning principals hasn’t gotten us very far since 2004. I don’t think it’ll improve our chances in the future.

AbaddonsReign on December 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

It is – Jesus infamously said that rich people can’t get into heaven, and that the meek are entitled to salvation like it’s celestial Medicare. Christianity is plainly a left-leaning faith.

Makes you wonder why so few of its adherents seem to have noticed.

Enrique on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Not surprisingly, like most athiests, you have screwed up the source material enough that you completely misrepresent it.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:20 PM

I don’t know about Christianity being more lefty than righty. God ordained the institution of government, and I think Christianity makes a distinction between the actions of the individual, which should be more mercy focused, and those of the government, which should be more justice focused. If you steal my wallet, I should forgive you, and the government should arrest you.

Just my 2 cents.

kc8ukw on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

+1.

Smartest thing I’ve read in a while. I think I’ll use that.

BKennedy on December 29, 2008 at 5:20 PM

It is – Jesus infamously said that rich people can’t get into heaven, and that the meek are entitled to salvation like it’s celestial Medicare. Christianity is plainly a left-leaning faith.

Makes you wonder why so few of its adherents seem to have noticed.

Enrique on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Except Jesus also infamously said that the Zealots taking the money from the poor to fund their temples were crooks as well. Christianity is plainly a right-leaning faith.

But then the Zealots still never figure that out.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

thought Christianity was more lefty than righty

Might I suggest a great book? The Bible- works wonders for the soul and the understanding of love. King James version..: o )

christene on December 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM

kc8ukw on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

I wouldn’t say that God ordained the institution, but your point is a correct one. I believe exactly the same thing – Mercy/love are not a functions of the government.

Unfortunately the left, and proponents of “social gospel”, think that is exactly the case, and that the government can love you if only they’re allowed to reform it enough.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Yay! Just what the party needs. /sarcasm

Ian on December 29, 2008 at 5:23 PM

christene on December 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Always preferred New American Standard or Young’s Literal Translation myself. Not nearly as poetic as KJV, but a bit more clear. Also, KJV uses archaic meanings for words, which confuse things – like using “charity” to mean “Christian love”

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Except Jesus also infamously said that the Zealots taking the money from the poor to fund their temples were crooks as well. Christianity is plainly a right-leaning faith.

But then the Zealots still never figure that out.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Jesus also violently upended change tables in a temple and cast out the money changers with a vine whip.

Tell me, people of the left: How does this documented example of Jesus’ righteous rage being doled out on the perverters of the house of God jibe with your hippie dippie love-peace-non-judgemental (unless you’re a racist or bigot or xenophobe) version of Christianity?

BKennedy on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

leftist christians do not understand the Bible, which many of them come from more leftwing(non-bible beleiving) humanist churches.

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

I said this earlier, but this guy uses some midleading numbers.

3,000 abortion in the U.S. each day compared to 30,000 hunger deaths WORLDWIDE is not an argument to stop fighting against abortion and towards fighting hunger. Less than 3,000 children die from hunger in the U.S. each day and there are likely more than 30,000 abortions in the world each day. So this guy’s argument collapses on itself from the very numbers he’s trying to use to argue it.

Plus, Christians spend a lot of time and money trying to help feed the world’s poor already.

BadgerHawk on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Social gospel was quite popular in the 30s, and evangelicals used to be strongly associated with the left. It would not surprise me if this cycles back.

Doesn’t make it any more right. More important than poverty is freedom.

The Republican party needs to emphasize that that is it’s central plank. Freedom. Not Roe v Wade, not gay marriage crap, but Freedom.

Morality is important, but without freedom, you get Robespierre’s “civic duty” under the threat of death.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Not just in the thirties. Liberation Theology was quite popular in Latin American in the 1970s.

Illinidiva on December 29, 2008 at 5:27 PM

BKennedy on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Just remember when you ask yourself:
What Would Jesus Do?

Sometimes the correct answer is:
Grab a whip and drive out the evildoers!

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Because we all know the richest always GIVE the most to the poor… such as Biden, a millionaire gave less to charity than Palin who makes less than 250000 a year.

You also have to remember the times the bible was written, Carpenters (which jesus was) were not rich. Today they are (in obama’s eyes). Rich means those who have not earned it or do not give their fair share to the poor… thankfully the government steal it from them to give to the undeserving… /sarc

Donut on December 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Capitalism and Freedom is the only way to help the world’s poor. Not robbing from one group to help another group.

lodge on December 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM

I think part of the problem is that for 30 years Abortion has been an issue, they have got Repubs elected yet still its legal. Some fatigue has set in, too bad they are too stupid to realize what type of Judges Obama will nominate and what that means.

as for Leftism on economics, the Bible is pretty plain about that in the very beginning and then throughout.

“Thou Shalt not Steal” (socialism)
“Thou Shalt not Covet” (how Socialism is sold, Envy, Class warfare).

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Charity is a right-wing value. Government welfare is a left-wing value.

Christianity calls for charity. Charity is given privately and voluntarily, not at the point of a gun by government coercion.

OscarSchneegans on December 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Francis Schaeffer referred to Marxism as a Biblical Hersey and that was the only way for it to be properly understood.

I think there is a desire for younger evangelicals to want to interact with the Culture around them, which naturally would open doors like this as a bridge.

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM

xcept Jesus also infamously said that the Zealots taking the money from the poor to fund their temples were crooks as well. Christianity is plainly a right-leaning faith.

But then the Zealots still never figure that out.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Jesus also violently upended change tables in a temple and cast out the money changers with a vine whip.

Tell me, people of the left: How does this documented example of Jesus’ righteous rage being doled out on the perverters of the house of God jibe with your hippie dippie love-peace-non-judgemental (unless you’re a racist or bigot or xenophobe) version of Christianity?

BKennedy on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

His rage was directed at the local FOREX guys.

lexhamfox on December 29, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Makes you wonder why so few of its adherents seem to have noticed.

Enrique on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Of course you would wonder. You’ve misreferenced the Bible.

It is – Jesus infamously said that rich people can’t get into heaven

No, he said it’s harder for them to get into heaven. There’s a difference. Can’t you agree?

and that the meek are entitled to salvation like it’s celestial Medicare

That’s not even in the Bible.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:34 PM

The Republican party needs to emphasize that that is it’s central plank. Freedom. Not Roe v Wade, not gay marriage crap, but Freedom.

I agree with this wholeheartedly in principle (that freedom should be the bedrock principle/message of the Republican party) but it’s a concept that directly ties into abortion and gay marriage.

There seems to be a lot of “lets get back to basics – and abandon any social issues” posts/comments lately. I’m a conservative Christian and I think the Republican party should return to basics but fight the social fight as well. I think the biggest problems of the Republican party are not ones of appealing to moderates but of not actually standing up for what they say they do (e.g., fiscal conservatism, small government etc.).

gwelf on December 29, 2008 at 5:35 PM

What do you make of post-resurrection verses like Acts 4:32

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Capitalism and Freedom is the only way to help the world’s poor. Not robbing from one group to help another group.

lodge on December 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Exactly. That’s the problem here. People think only government can fix this, when historically that’s been proven false.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Tell me, people of the left: How does this documented example of Jesus’ righteous rage being doled out on the perverters of the house of God jibe with your hippie dippie love-peace-non-judgemental (unless you’re a racist or bigot or xenophobe) version of Christianity?

BKennedy on December 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Weren’t the people he drove out for-profit businesses who were offending the Lord by bringing commercial activity into the Temple?

Jesus did create a disturbance, but he was arrested and eventually executed as a result of the incident and what he said in captivity.

dedalus on December 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Communism is, in the last analysis, a Christian heresy, and it has the magnetism of a heresy. Where Christianity teaches that we are all children of God, with God-given human rights, destined for a heavenly kingdom, communism teaches there is no God, that life begins and ends here, that the Communist state is man’s teacher and guide, that building paradise is the business of this world.

To those in the West who have lost faith in Judeo-Christian values, traditions and beliefs and, indeed, have come to despise their Western heritage, Communists, no matter how brutal in practice, will always have the appeal of men of action who do more than talk; thus, the party will never lack for secret admirers and self-appointed public defenders in the West.

–Francis Schaeffer

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Because they CHOSE that life; it wasn’t forced on them, nor was it forced on others.

Just because you choose to share your things, it doesn’t mean you want the government forcing you to.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I reamed this little a-hole last night… I’m not going to waste the keystrokes a second time.

D2Boston on December 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Weren’t the people he drove out for-profit businesses who were offending the Lord by bringing commercial activity into the Temple?

dedalus on December 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM

More specifically for turning worship into a commercial activity, like some churches in the past that offered salvation for a price.

Not just for commercialism period.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

It doesn’t say anything about the government enforcing this. If people of faith do this of their own volition then that is righteousness – but to require this of people through government is not.

gwelf on December 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM

There’s a Christian book called, “The Good of Affluence” which debunks much of the leftwing critiques of Capitalism, Wealth in relation to Christianity. Much of its source materials comes from one of Dinesh D’Souza’s book I beleive.

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Donut on December 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Honestly, Jesus wasn’t a class warrior :P Enrique up there is just misquoting. Jesus said that it was easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. There may be multiple meanings behind the odd phrase, but the real reason for this, as it was just demonstrated a few minutes before he said it, is that Jesus calls for people to give up what they have and follow Him. It is not that it is impossible for the rich to enter Heaven, nor that it is hard for the rich because they are a different class. It is because it’s hard to give up all of that stuff.

Some actually believe the phrase was alluding to a very narrow gate (nicknamed ‘the eye of the needle’) in Jerusalem, where camels, in order to go through, had to be stripped of all their baggage. This meaning would’ve been more clear to the audience.

None of this has to do with taxes, which Christ was largely ambivalent about. He must’ve thought money was not nearly as important as your relationship with God.

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM

They formed a co-op.

You see, this is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam. Simply because some important people in Christianity (the disciples in this case) did something, doesn’t mean that’s the way that life must be for all of us. We’re to follow Christ’s spirtual path, not his physical one. We don’t all have to become carpenters. We don’t all have to walk the same places. Even Paul mentions that gathering with followers (i.e. Church) isn’t mandatory, but is just a good idea.

So they formed a co-op. And guess what! Someone stole from it.

So, you know? Maybe not the best idea. Paul wasn’t a part of that co-op. Paul did tentmaking.

It squares because there’s no command in the Bible to form a co-op.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Because they CHOSE that life; it wasn’t forced on them, nor was it forced on others.

Just because you choose to share your things, it doesn’t mean you want the government forcing you to.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM

So if they had chosen to keep their property private for themselves, it wouldn’t have affected their relationship with Jesus or the church?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM

For what it’s worth, here’s a comment that I left on LaShawn Barber’s site more that two years ago:

What Christians need to remember is that Jesus was neither a “liberal” nor a “conservative”. He was, in fact, considerably better than both (well, at least judging by the “liberal” Christians and the “conservative” Christians that I have met in my lifetime). As Christians, we ARE NOT confronted with a choice between being “liberal”or “conservative”– which some others in this thread have likened to a choice between compassion and purity. We are called to be BOTH compassionate AND pure. Don’t believe it? Go back and re-read the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John when the woman caught in the act of adultery is brought before Jesus. I offer this story as “proof” that Jesus was BETTER than BOTH the “liberals” AND the “conservatives.”The “conservatives”wanted to stone this woman to death. First, Jesus exposes these men for what they are, viz. hypocrites. We read in John 8:7 “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”I believe that Jesus was behaving like a “liberal” here. When all of the woman’s accusers left, Jesus uttered the first part of John 8:11 “Then neither do I condemn you.”Look at THAT, an act of “compassion” — He forgave her. Once again, he is acting like a “liberal”. But wait. There’s more. Then there’s the other half of John 8:11 where Jesus says “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Look at that. IMHO, that statement is at least two “conservative”ideas stated succinctly in a single sentence. First of all, He doesn’t mince words. (Jesus wasn’t politically correct.) He calls adultery what it is, viz. SIN. His statement is an acknowledgement that SIN is real, it is wrong, and that this woman is guilty. Second, Jesus makes it clear that He respects God law AND that He expects others to do the same. He exhorts the woman to lead a life that is “pure”. Now He is behaving like a “conservative”. So you see, Jesus was BOTH compassionate AND pure, BOTH “liberal”and “conservative” He is the best of both. I submit to you then, that Christianity is NOT an either/or proposition. Compassion and purity are NOT mutually exclusive. Get it?

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Plus, we’ve already had this bailout of the world’s poor from Dubya. His spending on foreign aid is massive. Even the great Geldof approves (or was it Bono?)

lodge on December 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM

So if they had chosen to keep their property private for themselves, it wouldn’t have affected their relationship with Jesus or the church?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Nope!

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:45 PM

So if they had chosen to keep their property private for themselves, it wouldn’t have affected their relationship with Jesus or the church?

So what if it had? Their association with the Church and Christ is voluntary. Christ or the Church wouldn’t have imprisoned them or taken their property forcefully if they didn’t give it up.

gwelf on December 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM

in some ways Jesus was a small ‘l’ libertarian, in that in a sinless, perfect world(which he was) No Govt. would be needed. Problem is we don’t have such a world, so a Utopian ideology such as libertarianism is irrational. Not that certain princples in it can’t be applied to conservatism.

sinless man needs no Govt., yet another example of how Socialism is a Christian heresy.

jp on December 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Going to give that read.(Young’s Literal Translation )THX..: o )

christene on December 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM

So if they had chosen to keep their property private for themselves, it wouldn’t have affected their relationship with Jesus or the church?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Of course it would have affected them both, but affect is a neutral connotation. It’s neither good nor bad.

Everything you do has an effect on you and your relationships.

Would it have affected them negatively? Not necessarily. As someone else mentioned, Paul wasn’t a part of that group, and he seemed to do just fine.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

I. Am. Shocked.

jimmy the notable on December 29, 2008 at 5:49 PM

My collie says:

As for this “recovering evangelical”, one only needs to read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” in order to understand why he is SUCH a deluded and dangerous individual.

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 5:50 PM

More specifically for turning worship into a commercial activity, like some churches in the past that offered salvation for a price.

Not just for commercialism period.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I agree with your reading. My point was simply that the time Jesus became the most demonstrative in his anger it was against commercial activity rather than against a goverment social program.

I’m not looking to the actions of Jesus as a justification for tax policy or government spending. Others, like Hayek, have written better on the importance of markets to freedom.

dedalus on December 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Would it have affected them negatively? Not necessarily. As someone else mentioned, Paul wasn’t a part of that group, and he seemed to do just fine.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Yeah, trust me. If you’re a missionary for any length of time, you get a real different view of capitalism.

Suddenly you need people to be out in the world making money, in order to pay for you. Suddenly tentmaking doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.

Amazing how that works :P Like a friend of mine who owns a small business – “There’s no such thing as a liberal small business owner.”

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

It’s pretty clear this guy is simply a leftist, however moderately so. To argue that evangelicals should support Democrats because more people die globally from poverty than domestically from abortion seems to be tantamount to arguing that the solution to global poverty is to give money to the poor people. To be fair, he may have meant something more nuanced than that, but in broad brush strokes that’s what the party affiliations mean here. That God’s image bearers ought not to suffer in poverty and that the strong should defend the weak are propositions not meaningfully in dispute among Christians; however, the means by which we might best accomplish those ends are vigorously and appropriately disputed. He is simply presuming the left-wing solutions to be correct, just as his parents might have presumed the same of the right-wing solutions.

To say nothing of his attempt to do systematic theology by verse count. This is like stamping “n00b” on your forehead.

And I love the line about 3,000 abortions a day being “too much for a caring society.” Yeah, I think we should be shooting for, like, 500 max. Totally more caring that way.

tlberglund on December 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

So much for the “Uncompromising Word of God” I guess.

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected?

Given his track record, he may be afraid of what’s being preached being played on the evening news.

Between Wright and Pfleger and Farrakhan, it’s enough to make a man lose his faith in…loudmouthed racist preachers.

sulla on December 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM

I agree with your reading. My point was simply that the time Jesus became the most demonstrative in his anger it was against commercial activity rather than against a goverment social program.

dedalus on December 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

True, but he didn’t rail against the government for not having a social program either. He addressed activities within the church. That doesn’t mean what he said there necessarily has anything to do with what he felt about the government.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM

>>I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.<<

I direct you to the Parable of the Talents.

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Suddenly you need people to be out in the world making money, in order to pay for you. Suddenly tentmaking doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.

apollyonbob on December 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Certainly makes sense.

My old youth pastor has just started a new church, and the only way he’s able to afford it is with some wealthy backers.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

It seems like some of these young Christians are falling into two common traps:

The first is the mistaken belief that money thrown at a problem will solve it. We can throw all the money in the world at Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc and, while they’ll probably have some great new residences for the people in charge, not a whole lot will have changed. Republicans are NOT greedy and heartless just because we demand results for the money that we spend.

The second mistake is that you are compassionate if you spend your neighbor’s money on relief and aid. If the US went to Canada and threatened them with force if they did not give more money in Africa, no one would be lauding the U.S. for their charity. In fact, most around the world would be utterly appalled. Similarly, it is not Christian compassion (or any kind of compassion and charity) to get the government to take your neighbor’s cash and spend it on the poor and needy. The Bible lauds the widow for tithing her own mite, not for getting the government to make the rich man tithe his. Republicans are NOT evil and greedy just because they want people to decide what to do with their own money.

JadeNYU on December 29, 2008 at 6:02 PM

I always find it fascinating how many people will tell Christians what they believe instead of asking them. This is especially true when it comes to those who vehemently disagree with Christians. This man does not represent Christianity any more than Allahpundit represents Atheism (if there is an organization). If you have questions about what Christians believe just ask. They are always willing to answer. Quoting scripture and providing your own interpretation is simply antagonistic and certainly doesn’t sway anyone to your point of view.

Mormon Doc on December 29, 2008 at 6:02 PM

I direct you to the Parable of the Talents.

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Somehow, I think Jesus wasn’t really talking about money…

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM

I direct you to the Parable of the Talents.

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

That’s actually a very good one.

Link for those interested.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM

The young, whether right or left, are prone to fall for the most glib and charismatic candidate out there and that was definitly Obama. We shall see 4 years from now when we have someone glib and charismatic of our own. Obama ‘s people knew how to appeal to them and did. The GOP did not. Etched on my brain are the images of giddy young college girls jumping up and down on the traffic circle thrusting signage with platitudes about Obama in my face–risking their lives and mine.

jeanie on December 29, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Incidentally, I don’t know what difference it makes that Obama has not attended a public religious service. I think it is a very weak point and certainly doesn’t prove anything. The guy has enough real problems with policy and ignorance that his church attendance seems likely to be a distraction rather than authentic criticism.

Mormon Doc on December 29, 2008 at 6:05 PM

I direct you to the Parable of the Talents.

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Have you seen the wiki entry on this?!

Wikipedia

William Herzog offers an alternative interpretation of the parables of Jesus. According to his interpretive scheme, Jesus employed parables in his verbal engagement with his contemporaries for the purpose of getting them to think about God’s justice and their social responsibility. His stories expose the social inequities in Palestinian society that violate the teachings of the Torah and motivate the hearers to live and work for peace and justice.

According to Herzog’s reading, the point of the parable is to show how much it can cost for an underling to expose the truth about injustice in society. Jesus’ hearers, for the most part poor villagers, would have asked themselves the difficult question about how they would behave toward an aristocrat’s former helper who had become a whistle-blower and had been thrown out of rich man’s household (“wailing and gnashing of teeth”). They would also learn from the parable the necessity of not isolating themselves, so as not to play into the hands of the ruling elite.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Ah, but he WAS talking about CAPITALISM

Barrack on December 29, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Somehow, I think Jesus wasn’t really talking about money…

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Christians believe that both our literal talents and our money are gifts from God. To misuse either is a sin.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:07 PM

One more point. I purposely avoided calling myself a Christian in my other post because I know how upset that makes some people and I wanted to make my pint. Nevertheless I do consider myself a Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the light of the world and the only way by which man can return to God as do all Mormons. We preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ which has no resemblance to what this young man is promoting. Accepting the murder of innocence for political expediency is the very essence of drawing people away from from Christ and can only result in eternal misery.

Mormon Doc on December 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

President Bush was ostentatious about his Christian beliefs. Yeah, right, the only time I’ve heard him acknowledge those beliefs was primarily when asked by leftist journalists in a demeaning tone.

rlwo2008 on December 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Yes, that’s one person’s interpretation, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jesus starts the parable by saying it’s just like the Kingdom of Heaven. So what is Herzog suggesting, that Heaven needs a whistle blower?

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

“…Christian beliefs?”

rlwo2008 on December 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

Which makes sense, seeing as you don’t understand Christianity.
You also have to understand liberals, they only talk the talk…they say they care about the poor, but the give much less then conservatives to non-profits.
The conservative values takes care of the poor, the less fortunate, we are the ones who want to teach, feed, give jobs and not welfare to the least among us.
Being a true conservative, is being compassionate, caring, and sharing.
The lefty part is taking and using other peoples resources…the right has always had a problem explaining the difference in true giving. We let the left do the talking while we carry the water.

Liberals don’t build hospitals, they don’t house the poor, they don’t take care of abused children…only as a government program. They never organize and actually do anything without the faithful leading the way.
Even Carter’s Habitat for Humanity, is now driven by the faithful.
*
Liberals share what you have, conservatives share what we have.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Christians believe that both our literal talents and our money are gifts from God. To misuse either is a sin.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:07 PM

I get that, but being a parable, it wasn’t about smart financial investing so much as about whatever God gives you, don’t just sit on it – do something with it, whatever that might be.

I also get that the “all things common” reference is not about the government, but the church. So, a question: how do you address Christians who start applying church principles to secular government practice? Are they wrong to do so? Or do they need correction?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:12 PM

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Just wondering, are you advocating communism?

Johan Klaus on December 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Enrique,

No reason to blaspheme Jesus by saying he said something he didn’t (about rich people getting to heaven). It’s sort of scary you have that little respect for him that you insert your socialist political opinions and stick his name on it.

You also need to do some research on “the eye of a needle” reference that he made, and what it means in terms of ancient cities.

Solomon was one of the richest men ever. I wonder where he is now…

Like the apostle Paul said, “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.” Seems at odds with the democratic mantra, etc?

TTheoLogan on December 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Yes, that’s one person’s interpretation, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jesus starts the parable by saying it’s just like the Kingdom of Heaven. So what is Herzog suggesting, that Heaven needs a whistle blower?

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Didn’t you know that Jesus was a community organizer. Only in this light can the ultimate truth be seen in his words and parables

gwelf on December 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM

This guy is an example of the new breed of evangelicals. Stupid, vapid, touchy, feely, it’s all about emotions, I’m ok, your ok type of guy. Let us save the world and we shall be saved!

These people don’t know what it means to teach people how to fish!

Vince on December 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

Because your understanding of that faith is so stunted that you’ve never noticed the differences in how the Bible speaks about individuals and governments.

Lazy thinking.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 29, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Gee, AP may have finally gotten the right header to get those year-end hits (what a hitwh#%#!).

As I’ve said before, I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

Well, that’s what your Lefty friends want people to believe. You – and probably most so-called Christians – should do a little research. Jesus was a jew, and may have been more conservative than most could believe possible. He was enmeshed in a movement at the time to carry judaism, as a religion, into the Roman mainstream of belief (a plot by Herod, who though this might ensure his seed ruled the world) in order to ensure survival of the jewish principals – er, beliefs.

Because of the mess of records – not to mention present power centers – and the two splintered groups trying to control this plot, we will probably never know who “Jesus” was (or if he were real).

Or even what Christianity was really meant to be. Like all religions, there is some universal – hence, Godly – truth in it.

But any religious belief system is at heart conservative.

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Yes, that’s one person’s interpretation, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jesus starts the parable by saying it’s just like the Kingdom of Heaven. So what is Herzog suggesting, that Heaven needs a whistle blower?

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

It just amazes me that somebody could find that moronic of a spin on it.

Although I am intrigued because I had never noticed that the “lord” had been pointed out as a man in the wrong-

I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed

For some reason I had always read that as the lord was a taskmaster and the servant was afraid to cross him. But now I realize he was pointing out that his lord was a criminal… (or one who had achieved his wealth through ill-gotten means)

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Being wealthy never bothered Jesus. Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead (no small feat)was one of the wealthiest men in town. If he had a problem with wealth, he would have used him as an example of not being able to buy your way out of death. Instead he “re-instated” his life, and he went on to be wealthy and a supporter.
Jesus had no problem with wealth, he had an interest with how one obtains it and uses it.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

It is. Just like global warming is. Some people will latch onto anything and the Left seems to latch on to just about any nonsensical theory (or messiah).

grdred944 on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

One doesn’t need to go to a building and attend masses to have a spiritual life.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Just wondering, are you advocating communism?

Johan Klaus on December 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM

I believe in self-detrminination, liberty, and free market capitalism. I’m also not a Christian, though I used to be.

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

But any religious belief system is at heart conservative.

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:18 PM

And, I might add, as a means of control!

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Jesus infamously said that rich people can’t get into heaven

Here’s someone who’s never read the Bible — the rich man in question had an obstacle to faith, his possessions; so Jesus made it clear that unless he cleared the obstacle, he would never have the faith to believe.

It’s not what you have, but what you do with what God has given you.

Richard Romano on December 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I get that, but being a parable, it wasn’t about smart financial investing so much as about whatever God gives you, don’t just sit on it – do something with it, whatever that might be.

Sure, including money.

So, a question: how do you address Christians who start applying church principles to secular government practice? Are they wrong to do so? Or do they need correction?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:12 PM

In general, I think there’s not necessarily anything wrong with it; however, I think if they’re going to do that they must also have a secular (not Christian) reason for what they’re doing. Otherwise the government (at least our government) has no business even touching it.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

One doesn’t need to go to a building and attend masses to have a spiritual life.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Especially if he can’t listen to his favorite American-hating preacher there, as well!

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

He’s free, oh Lord! Free, at Last!

Or maybe he’s not so free — burned by association with Wright, burned by association with Warren…

He needs to stop associating with preachers whose surname begins with “W”…hey, doesn’t the current President’s middle name begin with “W”? I begin to see something sinister here…

unclesmrgol on December 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Your collie doesn’t like to post over at Barber’s?

BadgerHawk on December 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM

For some reason I had always read that as the lord was a taskmaster and the servant was afraid to cross him. But now I realize he was pointing out that his lord was a criminal… (or one who had achieved his wealth through ill-gotten means)

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Well, so he says. The guy makes the complaint but has nothing to back up what he’s said. Those who used their talents wisely were given money and weren’t stolen from by their master.

I’ve always read that part as more of an excuse from a servant who messed up.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM

The problem with liberals in terms of Christianity, is for one, none of them take the bible literally(ask them if they believe without christ people go to hell).

Also, any charity that christ talked about was never to be mandated by a government, and there’s no scripture to say so. They believe not only in the GOVERNMENT forcing you to be charitable, but charitable for unbiblical and immoral causes.

TTheoLogan on December 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected?

Shirts are required.

Ronnie on December 29, 2008 at 6:29 PM

I’ve always read that part as more of an excuse from a servant who messed up.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Yeah but the lord agreed with him. (Yeah I got them in an ill-gained manner but you could’ve at least done SOMETHING with them that wouldn’t sully your reputation… yadda, yadda).

After giving it some thought I’m thinking the interpretation is that you have to do the best with what you have… even if the feel the “gift” is tainted in some way.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM

This fool is die hard left posing as “evangelical”. He believes in global climate change … ’nuff said.

darwin on December 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM

One doesn’t need to go to a building and attend masses to have a spiritual life.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Other words, don’t bother me with details, I will make my own rules…

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Just got to watching the video – what an idiot! Compares 3,000 daily US abortions to 30,000 daily world deaths of living children (uh, why wasn’t this number challenged/questioned – et tu, Fox?).

Dude, maybe we can help those children by republicanizing their marxist dictatorships!!!!

M-O-R-O-N.

Now, back to the religious debate….

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected

It conflicts with his work-out schedule…

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

right2bright, you might want to do a little research. Non-religious NGOs provide more humanitarian aid around the world than do religious based organizations. Not sure if these NGOs are lefty, righty or of no orientation at all, but you should get your facts straight prior to making a typically sanctimonious pronouncement about how wonderful Christians are.

dakine on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Yeah but the lord agreed with him. (Yeah I got them in an ill-gained manner but you could’ve at least done SOMETHING with them that wouldn’t sully your reputation… yadda, yadda).

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM

I didn’t see it as agreeing with the man but rather as saying, “even if that’s true, what you’ve done is even worse.”

But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest!

To me, it reads as him mocking the characterization. Like with people who act as though Bush is the mastermind behind 9/11. If they really believe that, then they should keep their mouths shut.

Because the master didn’t take the money earned by the other servants, so I don’t believe he really meant that he would have taken the money had it earned interest in a bank. If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he take the other money earned?

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I believe in self-detrminination, liberty, and free market capitalism. I’m also not a Christian, though I used to be.

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Profit is the goal of capitalism.

Johan Klaus on December 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

right2bright, you might want to do a little research. Non-religious NGOs provide more humanitarian aid around the world than do religious based organizations. Not sure if these NGOs are lefty, righty or of no orientation at all, but you should get your facts straight prior to making a typically sanctimonious pronouncement about how wonderful Christians are.

dakine on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Proof.

Johan Klaus on December 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM

typically sanctimonious pronouncement about how wonderful Christians are.

dakine on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Well, let’s see your stats.
I say the faithful out give the unfaithful by a large amount…in other words, conservatives give more then liberals to non-profits (discounting political organizations).
So give us your facts straight prior to making a typically sanctimonious pronouncement about how wonderful Christians seculars are.
And just to straighten you out, I almost always use the term “faithful” when referring to building and giving. The Jews, Christians, Mormon’s, all give and have built what you seculars feed off of.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM

right2bright, you might want to do a little research. Non-religious NGOs provide more humanitarian aid around the world than do religious based organizations. Not sure if these NGOs are lefty, righty or of no orientation at all, but you should get your facts straight prior to making a typically sanctimonious pronouncement about how wonderful Christians are.

dakine on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Proof.

Johan Klaus on December 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Yeah, me too. I call big stinky BS!!!

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3