164 thoughts on “Taking Credit”

    1. I’ve always felt like the “Jesus wasn’t political” position is a bit unfair. Jesus was born to poor, working-class people in a conquered client state of an Imperial power. There were no politics for people like him. Jesus may very well have been more political in a modern democratic state, we just don’t know.

      Further, Jesus’s message is, in many ways, deeply political, in that local political power tended to reside in the religious authorities that Jesus criticized regularly. It seems less political to us now, used to 200 years of separation of church and state, than it would have seemed at the time.

      1. By Jesus Christ being political I suppose you mean he would have voted for the “lesser of the two evils?”
        I am sorry but I can not imagine Christ voting for any evil, and I wonder why supposed Christians think that when rePublicans win office that God is getting back in.
        This is one are of Fundamentalism that is still hard to shake. I still take a little pleasure in seeing rePublicans get elected. I don’t know why, other than the fact that after 30+ years of hearing the same message propogated by people like Guy Beaumont, that I was brainwashed.

      2. Ok, except he said explicitly that His kingdom was not of this world. The Pharisees did wield some civil power, but it was their activity in their religious offices that Jesus criticized. I think today, the extent of it would be to proclaim that the rulers are subverting justice, but Rome did that also and he didn’t mention it.

  1. Ahhh, yes. Because Jesus supported politicians who ran for office on a platform of taking away healthcare from people, cutting food stamps, reducing unemployment insurance (and pretending that would reduce unemployment!), cutting taxes for the rich, supporting polluting industries, limiting choices and freedoms.

    Very godly, these politicians, eh? It appears that the very Elect have been deceived indeed! It turns out to be completely possible. And not just possible, but easy! Satan himself appears as an angel of light, and his ministers as ministers of righteousness.

    Gag.

    1. Well said, my friend. If that’s Christianity, I want no part of it. I don’t, however, believe that’s it’s Christianity. “I never knew you” comes to my mind.

    2. Very true, but do not forget those that support the murder of children (abortion) (Ps. 139) and financing the lives of those that do not work for a living (welfare and disability) (2 Thess. 3), though many of them can (I am not against helping people that really cannot work, because Jesus did say to help the poor, but am for stricter accountability for welfare/disability). It is sad when we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils!

        1. I’m in northern Ireland and in the last 12 years I have had a series of temporary jobs with pwriods of unemployment in between. I would like a permanent job but it hasn’t worked out that way, and a temporary job is better than none. While out of work. I have had to take unplyment benefit (“The Dole”) which is not much to live on, but it’s better than nothing and a lot of the time it’s all I’ve had. I’m in a temporary contract right now and it finishes in the middle of March. I would appreciate prayer for a more permanent job. In the meantime I and a lot of people who are out of work right now, would be royally pissed off if some well-paid politician decided that it would be The Godly Thing To Do to take that help away. Christians are not supposed to believe in Evolution but many of the more Right-Wing certainly believe in Social Darwinism.

        2. You want to know why the Democrats treat the Republicans as though the Republicans were blacker than coal while the Democrats were whiter than snow? It’s because the Republicans treat the Democrats as though the Democrats were blacker than coal while the Republicans were whiter than snow.

      1. Leaving aside the issue of abortion (which is much more complex than anyone seems willing to admit), I might note that conservative attitudes toward helping the poor are atrocious.

        You may talk about welfare, but it does not exist in the form it did under Johnson’s War on Poverty. The rhetoric and the myths have not changed, however. You can talk about disability. Unless you are actually involved in the lives of the families, however, you are almost certainly misinformed as to the nature of the need or the circumstances or the ability of the individual to get a good job.

        As a teacher, I have dealt with hundreds of students who have come under such cases. People do not flaunt their disabilities around to others to justify their status. Can you by looking tell whether someone has Crone’s disease? No. They may look well enough to work. But if you had their condition, you couldn’t, either.

        The money paid for disability or for (quote) welfare (unquote) is not enough to live on. People exist in desperate conditions. If they could work, they would.

        Not to mention the unemployed, including those who have (supposedly) left the job market. There are precious few jobs available out there, and there are always lots and lots of applicants. I am currently looking for work. Am I to work for starvation wages? “Get a job, any job!” I hear people say. If I got a minimum wage job I would still wind up losing my home and my family (being unable to support them).

        The vast majority of food stamps goes to people who are working in minimum wage jobs. Walmart’s multi-billion profits come on the backs of the poor, and are assisted by the government having to give their workers something to eat.

        Frankly, I would rather give food to those who don’t need it than to not give food to those who do. It is not evil to be generous. It is evil to look at others with an eye of judgment and condemnation.

        With all due respect, sir, I have myself been in need, seen and felt the condemnation of others, and recognized that my own condemnation based on the external I saw were unjust. When you can see with the eye of God, let me know.

        1. But therein lies the rub. You are correct that without being involved in their lives you don’t know the nature of or solution to the need. Which is exactly the position in which the government finds itself.
          My father left us pretty desparate and my mother saw no choice but to take food stamps while she went to nursing school. It helped us. But she also cancelled it as soon as she got a job. This experience led my sister to get into social work. She wanted to help the people like our mother. She quit a few months in because she found no such cases.
          I do not believe that all the people on assistance are indigent and only want handouts. I do believe it makes no sense to take a job when it means you will make precious little more from a job than you would from no job. It isn’t that people on the dole have weak morals, it is that they make rational decisions in their given circumstances.

        2. But at least the government has tried to do something positive. Leaving people out on the streets, some starving is not the solution. Punishing children for the mistakes of their parents does not help, either.

          I cannot speak about the experience of your sister. I have known social workers who, as fundies, viewed every case as the result of people making bad decisions who should reap the full reward of misery as punishment.

          I, for one, am not interested in punishing people except where it absolutely must be done to keep others safe. I am for getting people help, to give them self respect, to train them to do good work at a job which will allow them to live. To leave them alone in the assumption that “they earned it” is immoral. If you believe in that scenario, reject salvation and cheerfully go to hell, which you have earned.

          Jesus told a parable about the two debtors. It is worth rereading.

        3. Economics is, of course, amoral – it does not and cannot take ethics into account. But from a purely economic standpoint, the social safety net is a fantastic and necessary part of a free, stable, and successful economy. The math is fairly straightforward, and contained in any freshman level econ textbook, so I won’t rehash it here. What continues to surprise me is the way that some political positions don’t want to pay for social services but are ok paying to have troops in Japan or Germany, for example. Really odd values statement there.

        4. I live in a rural community that has a lot of very poor residents. I agree with rtgmath on this. A lot of people on disability would work if they could. A lot of other poor people would work if they could find a job, or work for better pay if they could find a better paying job. Probably more working poor on food stamps out here than people not working at all. If not for the food stamps they wouldn’t be able to afford the roof over their head – and with a lot of people, the roof is a single wide trailer 1960’s or 1970’s vintage.

        5. I would agree with you, rgtmath, on most of what you said. Except that I do have an alternate perspective on this based on my family experience. My own sister and brother-in-law have a bizarre relationship with the welfare system. He is on staff at the IFB church where I grew up. He quit a decent job (blue collar and low wage, but it still paid the bills and supported his family) to go work at the church for extremely low pay and use his WCBC degree. He and my sister had a baby without any health insurance. They refused to get Medicaid because it is welfare. Then, they needed cheaper housing so they went out and got income-tested housing. And they told everyone that is not welfare because the government does not give them a check for housing that they cash and use to pay their rent. Apparently, they think that a government-funded reduction in their rent does not count. Everyone in the family went on and on for several weeks about how proud they were that my sister and her husband were not using welfare. It was ridiculous!! We have asked them if they plan to get Medicaid for their child or Obamacare for health insurance or WIC or anything and were arrogantly lectured on how they will not take handouts from godless democrat politicians. So, they refuse assistance that they actually need (although the need is of their own making) because their church looks down on welfare use. It’s frustrating and ridiculous!

          Also, I know for a fact that Heartland Baptist Bible College in Oklahoma City provides information to their students how to get welfare benefits in Oklahoma while they are students. New students are often teamed up with older students to coach them on this. The level of fraud is rampant because the students do not list any support or gifts from churches as income. And, because Heartland is not accredited, the normal rule that a student enrolled in college cannot get welfare does not apply to them.

          I say all of this to make the point that welfare abuse is a problem and it seems to be a growing problem in the IFB. That fact, coupled with the continued promotion of the tea party agenda by the IFB is just another example of the cognitive dissonance that affects that cult!

        6. Ahhh, the old double standard is in play here, too? Why am I not surprised? Assistance for IFBers, but not for other people! Just like the desire to restrict voting to Republicans and take it away from Democrats. Shades of the Soviet Union!

          Welfare abuse occurs, I am sure. And I am also pretty sure that there are moles on the inside to help IFB people game the system and restrict others. IFB people (among other conservatives) have infiltrated places like military schools to create cultures that favor certain groups and disfavor others.

          I agree, BTW, that the Welfare system and all should be reformed. One thing that could help would be for Congress to appropriate upgrades in computer equipment and other technology, so that data could flow more freely between departments. We have the technological capability to make everything work better, but the desire to make government dysfunctional (a Conservative desire) makes it reliant on old-fashioned paperwork.

          So let me clarify my stance. I am not against welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, and such. I definitely AM for reforming the system, making it work better, combining functions to reduce abuse and somehow making it proof against manipulation. The poor and needy definitely need the help, but a better system with improved communication is necessary.

        7. “Get a job, any job!”

          When I went back into the work force after grad school and prolonged illness, I had 2 little ones. I got a part-time job, which was all I could find or manage with my health. When I took the job, I lost our food stamps and my health insurance. I also lost our heat assistance and had to start paying for daycare.

          We were worse off when I was working than we were when I was on welfare. Without a church group helping, we wouldn’t have survived. That said, if I hadn’t taken that job, I wouldn’t have my full-time with benefits job I more l now have.

          It’s just a lot more complicated than people think.

        8. @Tiecey
          I HATE that part of our welfare system. I believe there is a whole swath of unemployed people who get a job and find themselves in your situation, or don’t look for a job because they would lose benefits their family depends on. That conundrum doesn’t help anyone.
          We need to find a solution where people can move from welfare to work without that penalty. Having a job brings dignity and self worth, and it can lead, as in your case, to a better job or a full time position.
          Congratulations on working your way thru, I am sure that wasn’t easy.

      2. Ahh there it is, support of my comment above. What do you mean “forced to choose between the lesser of two evils”? Perhaps the “sad” part is thinking this way when the Bible says nothing of this. How about not voting for evil at all? The things you mention are terrible (abortion, supporting laziness, etc), but having a rePublican in office will not change any of it (only assuming by lesser of 2 evils you mean rePublican).

        1. .” She quit a few months in because she found no such cases.”

          She probably didn’t look very hard.

          If she was hired as a social worker, it was because the agency saw a need and hired someone to meet that need. Agencies do not hire people for the fun of it. Most agencies serving needy folks are short-staffed and wish there were funds available to hire more social workers and others.

        2. ” She quit a few months in because she found no such cases.”

          I kind of have to call BS on that one. My wife worked for the local (not out of altruism; it was the only job available at the time) and brought home heart-breaking stories on a weekly basis.

  2. Those pastors wasted their congregation’s money to pay for all those trips to DC. IIRC they met with members of Congress and gave them Bibles.

    So whose vote – specifically – did they change?

    Which voters changed from Democrat to Republican due to their influence?

    And why didn’t Chappell’s and Treiber’s participation matter at all in California elections?

  3. Look on the bright side: if over the next couple years the GOP majority congress fucks things up as bad as we know they are capable of doing, Hillary (or Warren) will be a shoo-in come ’16. Will Bro. Beaumont take credit for that as well?

        1. Sorry, Joshua, but I can BS on that. There are plenty of politicians at all levels that work hard and are a necessary part of the legal freedoms we enjoy. It reminds me of the mindless comments I hear about “lawyers” (Really? What kind? Trial lawyer? Tort lawyer? Business lawyer? Contract lawyer? Tax lawyer? Human rights advocate lawyer?) – everyone makes fun of them until you need one.

      1. Yeah, um, Condoleezza Rice (I doubt you are on a first-name basis with her, so let’s drop the “Condi” shall we?) is not going to be running for president.

        And perhaps you are being sarcastic, but regardless, you are correct that the Republican attitude that “Hillary’s a woman so we’ll just run a woman too” illustrates everything that is wrong with the Republican party today – totally tone deaf.

        1. Yay! Sarah for half-term President! Sarah for a half-wit foreign policy! Sarah for half the intelligence of George W. Bush! Sarah for shooting game from helicopters!

          Looking at the fact that Sarah Palin’s following has been roughly 25% of the voting population, I have some very strong feelings. Learning that 25% of the voting population is THAT stupid makes me sick to my stomach.

          McCain was fortunate to not win the Presidency with Sarah as his running mate. She may be stupid, but she is cunning and ambitious, and I was giving McCain a year in office before a Sarah-arranged “accident” carried him off.

        2. Y’all are just believin’ that ole lame stream media that don’t like her ’cause she’s all pro-gun rights and agin big guvment.

          In over 2 decades in AK, believe it or not, I consider her to have been our most socialist governor. She added $1,200 to every resident’s permanent fund one year to help pay high heat bills. That was in addition to the $2,000 we all got anyhow. She raised the taxes on big oil more than any governor in AK has. (Her successor has lowered oil production taxes considerably).

          She didn’t go all conservative until McCain nominated her, and conservatism became her schtick.

          She’s still a fabulous prevaricator. One of the most mendacious prevaricators I’ve ever seen in public office.

        3. Not sarcastic but certainly cynical. Democrats like to frame Republicans as old, white, men. And it works because it’s true. Running a young(ish) black woman takes away the democrat trump card. But again, whether they self-identify as democrat or republican it’s all the government party.

  4. Perhaps he was referring to the Sacramento-based lobbying firm.

    Or, maybe he was referring to the Washington, DC-based cable TV service.

    Or, maybe he was referring to the Capitol Connection we all assume he’s referring to, whose mission it is to motivate independent Baptists who were already going to vote Republican to vote Republican.

    1. LOL, motivate Independant Baptists who were already going to vote Republican to vote Republican! Isn’t that the truth!

      It seriously drives me COOKIES when people say or act like all “true Christians” are Republicans. It even drives me more cookies when something along those lines is preached from the pulpit. I mean, seriously, while Republicans are pro life, it’s often the programs put in place by Democrats that allows a poor woman to get the medical care she needs through her pregnancy and have her baby. And we could go on and on about a litany of issues.

      1. Indeed. Republican policies are pro-birth, not pro-life.

        Jesus did not say, I have come that you may have life, and misery in abundance! Before we went on food stamps years ago, between grad school and my first job, we faced a choice of gas in the car so we could look for work, or food. Not both. Our kids faced hunger. And yes, we were members of a church — who helped, occasionally, but not much. Finally we broke down and applied for assistance. And we suffered the looks and scorn of people who saw us using it.

        And yes, the talk against the poor and the programs angers me. You could probably tell from my writing. But God allowed me to be in that position of need so I would stop thinking ill of others.

        I have seen Republican congressmen complain that they need bigger salaries, while refusing to raise the minimum wage or while advocating the cutting of health care and food assistance. True evil exists.

        1. rtgmath:
          I just wish the Democratic Party was pro life. For so many people that is the sticking point. If they kept everything they are right now, but took a pro life stance, the Republicans would never win another election.

        2. Mark, the issue is complicated. Very complicated. The problem is that most people want to think of it simplistically. In fact, there is not a single facet of the issue that is easy or simple to understand.

          First, when does “life” begin? There are at least a half dozen reasonable stances on that. Even with “life,” when does the soul come into existence? And despite Psalm 139’s “fearfully and wonderfully made,” what about the zygotes and fetuses with birth defects so severe that they die before birth or are spontaneously aborted? Did God say, “Oops! Made a mistake there! Toss it!”? You can’t credit God for all the good and not have Him take credit for the bad as well.

          Even God did not regard the lives of the unborn when He flooded the world or when he had the women of Jericho murdered or when he told Saul to wipe out the Amalekites. He does not regard the lives of the “children” who are spontaneously aborted, many of which the mothers never knew existed.

          The Hebrews believed that “life” began when a child drew its first breath, as did Adam. Adam breathed the breath of life and became a living soul. God says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. The zygote does not produce blood until what, 17 days after conception?

          There is room for a lot of opinions, a lot of legitimate differences. For every Scripture reference or inference you can put forward for your interpretation, two can be put forward for another.

          So how did we come to this pass, where differences of interpretation make people so angry as to incite murder of doctors and bombing of clinics? Why aren’t the same people outraged over the high number of innocent people who are executed each year? Why are the same people so eager to kill women and children in foreign lands? (Yes, they are. War will do it. Being for war mean being for the incidentals accompanying that.)

          Not to mention the question, should a woman be forced to carry the child of her rapist? Who has more rights? Does the rapist have the right for the woman of his choice to bear his baby, and she have no right to refuse?

          Hmmph. God even killed David’s baby, remember. Maybe it wasn’t abortion, but God didn’t see that baby as having a right to life. Though somehow God allowed David to live, contrary to the express declaration of the law that he and the woman he committed adultery with (with child, presumably) should be stoned to death.

          Did I say it was complicated?

          I don’t know about anyone else here on the board, and I am certainly not intending to make any of you angry with me over this subject. But the way I see it, you may judge others on this topic only if you are God, know everything, and have the right to discount what others believe, why they believe it, the circumstances they find themselves in, and the state of their hearts.

          I am a Democrat. I am not pro-abortion. But the situations are not mine to face, nor have I the right to make the choices for those people in those situations. I am not God. Letting them make their own choices is the best I can do. It is the most humane thing I can do.

          If you can determine that you know all the answers, have the right to make the choices, and are certain that others should have no right to think or do differently than you desire on the issue, then you are far more convinced of your own Godhood than I could ever be.

        3. The weird thing is, when a teenage girl gets pregnant, most Christians would be horrified if she had an abortion but many treat he as a “slut” and an outcast and the baby as a “mistake”. I have heard a few Christians say that a pregnant teenager should not get help from the State or anyone, even (especially?) christians because that only encourages girls to become pregnant because they think the State or someone elsewill look after them. In many cases, apparently, a mother a child are considered precious only before the birth takes place.

        4. You are right, Paul. Christians love the OT Law that proclaims that adultery is worthy of death, unless it is the MoG or a prominent person. There never is actual forgiveness. The baby is looked on as “punishment” under “this is what you get for being disobedient!” They want the mother to have no access to help for daycare, education, food or living — so mother and child both suffer.

          After all, God said that a bastard should not enter the “camp” of Israel. We used to call them “illegitimate” children. It was no better if the girl was raped. Of course, the OT prescribed that for fornication, the punishment was to get married, no divorce option. For adultery, the punishment was death. But in Christ’s day as in ours, only the women are punished or scorned. Men get off easy. We emphasize that girls should be virgins when they get married, but the admonitions to the boys are much weaker. Besides, boys can lie about such things and get away with it, so that makes it okay if they cheat.

          Right?

          Fundamentalists have a conveniently applied double standard, in which they claim righteousness for themselves in their unwillingness to show mercy and grace. Their intolerance of the sins of others is only matched by the justification of their own sins, attempting to appear pure and godly when they are anything but.

          I will believe that the “Pro-life” movement is really pro-life when they are concerned about what happens after birth, that the child grows up well educated and well fed, with good things. That the adult can have a good job with a living wage, and that provisions are made so that the unemployed can work, be useful, have dignity and contribute until they are employed in their market again. That the court systems and laws be changed so that punishments are truly proportional to the harm the crime causes, that the innocent are exonerated, and that no innocent person ever suffers loss of life to the state.

          Pro-life must be more than pro-birth. Any follower of Jesus should be able to see that.

        5. rtgmath and Paul Best:
          I agree with virtually everything you both just said. I would put an “Amen” at the end of just about every one of the sentences of both your posts. Despite this, I remain opposed to legalized abortion in most cases. Nobody understands the complexity of this issue more than I do. I am about as well informed as a person can be. It is possible to be very well informed and to not see things simplistically and still maintain a pro life (legal) position. I am completely aware of the same old arguments about prolifers not caring about mothers and babies after the babies are born. Of course this argument has its foundation in some truth as all effective arguments do. But not all pro lifers should be characterized the way you have characterized them. You are painting with a really broad brush. I suppose we could agree that you are just speaking in generalizations. In fact, in the context of SFL, what you say is mostly fair. Since this blog is dedicated to IFB’s, then I will assume that when you refer to the pro life position, you are mainly referring to the pro life position as it is reflected in much of the IFB community. In contrast, I would contend that there are very many people who are not at all IFB, who are very socially conscious, who care about the poor, who live by the Sermon on the Mount and who otherwise support primarily the agendas of the Democratic party—but are not pro choice. Most people put people in boxes—and I would say that includes me and you both. We tend to think that people are either one way or another. It would behoove us all to remember that people have varied and seemingly conflicting or contradictory opinions—people are complex….and that’s a good thing.
          Best regards my friends,
          Mark

      2. http://www.buzzfeed.com/personhoodusa/top-10-mind-blowing-images-of-human-life-in-the-wo-drqv

        Clump of tissue. Yeah, right.

        Sorry, but the scientific consensus is indeed clear. Human life begins at conception. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new being comes into existence. It is a living being with unique DNA. And it is human. It will not be born as a puppy, frog, or armadillo. It will be born as a human baby. Which is what it already is.

        1. Now you’re going way overboard.
          There is no “scientific consensus” on when personhood begins.
          How could there be?
          It’s a spiritual or philosophical question, not a scientific one.
          There’s no scientific consensus on whether or not Jesus is Lord, or whether or not Mother Teresa was a good person, for the same reason. Those are not the kind of questions the scientific method is set up to answer.

  5. My favorite part isn’t the self-delusion. It’s the misogyny. Godly MEN should be involved in politics. Not God’s people, not godly women, but godly men. Way to count out more than half the church, Guy.

    1. Interestingly, the “Capitol Connection” was all about getting a photo up with incumbent politicians and giving them an expensive Bible. Yet this election was largely about throwing incumbents (at least Democratic incumbents) out of office. So I really don’t see how Capitol Connection made any difference in this election whatsoever!!

      But, to misquote the “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” letter: if you hear it from a MOG, it is so.

  6. So when this crew murders more foreigners, wiretaps more, budgets more for planned parenthood, and spends us further past oblivion, I will know just who to blame. Republicans are not godly men, they just know how to play you.

  7. The sad thing is that a lot of these pastors belong to a fellowship I go to. They had a fellowship meeting that day, which usually one a month and has decent preaching and encouraging fellowship. Instead of having preaching and fellowship, they cancelled and went to this political rally. Needless to say, my wife and I were not pleased that day. Oh, and we did not go either. I believe that believers ought to be working on the Great Commission, instead of playing in politics (per the scriptures’ examples).

    1. I don’t see a problem with believers working for political solutions to things. When the attitude toward it is that somehow it will bring revival/the Second Coming, then I see it as problematic. Political activism should not be anyone’s deity, and for some fundies it is.

      The voting process is seriously flawed. I dislike that my vote in the presidential election means nothing. So I generally cast a blank ballot or write in Mickey Mouse or CPT America.

  8. Dear Guy Beaumont:

    http://tinyurl.com/nv7c99v

    http://tinyurl.com/pgnb4lm

    http://tinyurl.com/oupxq2f

    How might one have voted to oppose the expanding war in the Middle East, the expansion of domestic spying on US citizens, deeper attacks on jobs, wages and benefits to working people, and more tax giveaways to corporate America and the wealthy?

    How does a two, corporate-controlled party gang-up against the working class constitute the kind of godly effort for which we should be thankful?

    Christian Socialist

  9. I am liberal but I work for an organization that leans conservative. Many of our employees, however, do much more than merely “lean” conservative! Today, an older gentleman was asked to pray and we were treated to a lengthy oration thanking God for getting the Republicans back in control of Congress and “giving our land a second chance.” I was seriously revolted by this exhibition.

    1. There is a need for a change of political parties that control congress and the white House every so often. Can you imagine what would happen to our country if one party was always in con trol?? No I cannot either……
      Just thinkin.

      1. On the other hand, I can think of what is going to happen to our country with the Republicans in control.

        There will be an attempt to Gerald Ford Boehner into the White House. Of course they will impeach Obama, despite the fact that he has committed no high crimes, at least none that they didn’t give Bush free reign to do!

        They will try to privatize Social Security — meaning whatever you have there will be transferred to Wall Street to play with and steal your retirement. They will work to undo Obamacare, leaving millions without health insurance. They will privatize Medicare, and rob seniors of their right to health care. They will work to eliminate food stamps and unemployment insurance. They will give tax breaks to the wealthy and raise taxes on the poor and what remains of the middle class. They will continue to restrict voting rights, and work to repeal civil rights and undo protections against discrimination.

        How do I know? Because that is what they have tried to do before, and what they have been promising to do even in the last election. Wasn’t anyone listening to them?

        In exchange for all the social welfare of everyone, they somehow promise prosperity for all. But the only ones left will be the rich. We will be, in their vision, a third world country where the poor are punished and suffer and the rich flourish and rule. And of course, the fundamentalists believe that somehow, someway they will be among the rulers and the rich.

        Remember, fundamentalists do not believe in democracy. They believe in Theocracy. And since God isn’t actually directly giving orders, why it falls to His MoGs to do it for him!

        1. Rt it sounds like your getting a little overwrought. Even if they impeach Obama how do they bypass Biden and get to President Boehner? Privatize Social security? Are you talking about the Conservative proposals to give young people the choice to direct their own retirement funds? That would be my personal retirement wet dream. My goodness, choice, freedom. The very idea is heady.
          The welfare reform that came out of the Clinton years was some of the best legislation of his era. The Bush tax cuts, whether you agree with them or not, did at least extend to all taxpayers, not just the top rate. And requiring ID to vote seems to me to just be common sense, I know I support it not to deny people the right to vote, but to help protect voting from fraud and abuse.
          You seem like a very intelligent and certainly articulate person, and I don’t have any desire to get into a political argument with you, esp on SFL. But as Christians I think we need to watch ourselves lest we also fall into the same trap the fundies we mock fall into. Neither political party has a lock on following Christ. I can be cynical about the real desires and motives of either side of the aisle. To me, real governing comes out of the maelstrom of all the political rants, ideology, and argument of both sides, when men of good will get together and find common sense compromise in the midst of the noise. I think you are wrong if you believe Boehner and McConnell are not are not old fashioned politicians who might talk a hardline game, but in the end that is only the opening gambit of political negotiation. They are wise enough to look for compromise, indeed that is what the right wing of their party hates about them.
          To me the problem right now lies in our President’s inability to lead, to find compromise no matter who is in Congress. The buck stops with him, and history will judge him on his failure.
          Finally to me as a Christian I need to add my voice to the maelstrom, to hold my leaders feet to the fire. I certainly don’t presume to think that my Lord would be an ideologue of either party. Life is more complex than that. The Christian life we are called to live is harder than that. How do we find the answers? To fight for life and morality while protecting the rights of people who disagree with me. To find the middle ground between helping people in need and not encouraging indolence. To have a military that can protect us in an increasingly complex world without becoming international bullies or empire building. I can go on and on with the list of issues but my point is that I think that the solutions come out of honestly engaging in the process of respecting the other, and to keep trying to find middle ground. Christian politics comes out of recognizing the image of God even in those we disagree vehemently with, having the humility to serve by not riding roughshod over the voice of the minority, and having the grace to accept the ‘opposition’ is not by definition stupid or always motivated by greed.
          Heck that almost sounds like Christian marriage too!

          Sorry for the long post. My wife is away this weekend and insomnia is a bitch 🙂

        2. ChooseCalvinism,

          Thank you for your response. You and I do approach things from different perspectives. You choose calvinism, and I do not. That theological difference alone will tell how we look at things.

          I do not believe that the current Republican congress has any measure of goodwill, any more than I think Jack Schapp had any sense of morality. To me, it is fairytale thinking to impute motivations to them without taking seriously their words of vitriol and intent. I hear the media arguments that “now the Republicans are in the majority they will be interested in governing.” But from their words, nothing of the sort can be true.

          Yes, I am concerned. God seems very content to let evil win. As a person with a pretty fair knowledge of history, the path seems fairly clear as to what direction things are going.

          Telling me that I need to have grace to credit the opposition with good motivations is to ignore the fact that they that never given us that grace. The cheek has been turned, multiple times. It is time to stop the wishful thinking and be aware. Your enemy, the devil, as a roaring lion goes about seeking whom he may devour.

          Despite fundamentalism’s claims, it does not get its energy or spirit from God. Nor does its politics. I left fundamentalism because of the abuse and the ungodly positions. When I did, I left their politics as well.

        3. Dear ChooseCalvinism:

          May I be forgiven for breaking into the narrative?

          You seek middle ground between international bullying/imperialism, and robust military defense. You deem bipartisan compromise wise. You like the middle. Don’t you, ChooseCalvinism.

          Mr. Obama tacitly supports a huge tax break for corporations with $2 trillion in profits stashed in overseas accounts to avoid income taxes. Also ready to reward tax evasion are McConnell and Boehner. Is a bipartisan gang-up to shift more tax burden from the super-wealthy to the working class ‘wise?’ Is it right? Is it good?

          That’s some ‘compromise.’

          But ground is not holy because it is midpoint between secular positions. This lets secular idolatries/ideologies define our stand by default. The ‘middle way’ mechanism is a copout from the arduous work of statesmanship.

          Long ago, someone wrote a Kingdom of God manifesto. It revealed God’s kingdom in Christ against the powers and authorities of this age. It defined who we are, where we are, what we are about and where we are going.

          A work of timeless value and import, this book calls Christians in every time and place to be situated in its pages, and to respond to political powers of this age out of the context it provides. That –not middle-ground between arbitrary, existential, humanistic, secular choices – is the font of all Christian political activity.

          Still available, that book is the sadly the preserve of specialists and eccentrics. Christian political activity awaits the recovery of this book in the sense intended. That book is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What it says about earthly systems of power/authority [Re 13] and commerce/economics [Re 17-18] is stingingly relevant to our system of power/authority/commerce. The same is true for believers who acquiesce to it.

          Re 18:1-4.

          Blessings!

          Christian Socialist

        4. CS I understand what you are saying, and you are right there is no inherent virtue to the middle ground. My point is more a reflection on having enough respect for those who disagree with what I think to work with them inside our democratic framework. It is not a simple homage to centrism.

          It seems you think Rev 18 is an indictment of capitalism and this prophecy of Revelation is normative. I disagree. Should I be subjected to your way of thinking just because you think your right? Do you think you have a corner on Biblical truth and methodology and it is a strength to eschew compromise? How then are you different from the fundamentalists you mock? Because your truth is more true?

          My problem with socialism, (besides the Thatcher quote), is it always seems to end up with those who espouse it thinking they know better. It is benevolent of course, but they seem to think I need to be saved from myself. Or society needs to be saved from me. I do not say this to insult you – I have read enough of your posts to see that you are intelligent and sincere. But what I want from this government is more freedom, more choice, not less – precisely because I know best how to run my own life. And so do you.

          On to your mention of a specific proposal. Yes indeed there are 2 trillion dollars or more in overseas corporate deposits. These deposits are profits from overseas operations, you are purposefully mischaracterizing them when you act like they are some sort of ill gotten cash stashed in a Swiss Bank account. That money is not coming back here unless US Corporate tax rates become more competitive with the rest of the world. We don’t have to be the cheapest, but it would be nice to be in the ballpark. I would love to see that money come back here and be invested in our industry. I am willing to compromise on the rate to be competitive as I know the corporation could just as easily invest in India or Brazil. I compromise on prices and terms nearly every day in my own business. Believe me, half a cake is better than no cake at all.

          You said in one post that we are worshipping an idol if we believe God agrees with everything we think. I believe my way of freedom, choice, compromise is the best way to put down the pride in my heart that insists if you don’t agree with what I believe you must be stupid, or evil, or both.

        5. Dear ChooseCalvinism:

          Thank you for your reply.

          My problem with the Thatcher quote is that it scapegoats socialism for Capitalism’s contradictions.

          I’ve debated whether to reply. I’m unsettled both ways, so I’m replying. To focus on more consequential matters, I set aside our differences on the tax ‘compromise.’

          My key concern is in your saying that ‘Christian politics comes out of recognizing the image of God …’ Your affirmation that all people are God’s image is Biblical and vital to Christian political action. At issue is your statement on the source – in the sense of ‘comes out of’ – from which ‘Christian politics’ proceeds.

          Maybe you did not intend to address the origins of ‘Christian politics’ in that way. But still, it raises that question of whether there can be another basis on which Christian political vision may rest.

          As displayed in the Revelation, YHWH’s judgments are universal. All power, rule, authority and dominion belong to Jesus alone. That is not confessed by all but will be recognized eschatologically. This surely includes Capitalism no less than socialism, and the US no less than stateless actors in Africa or the Middle East.

          Neither Capitalism nor socialism existed in John’s day. Systems of ideology/authority/power/wealth/ etc. did. John’s work led God’s people to see those relations from the perspective of God’s throne room [Re 4-5]. That sets political discourse on an entirely different footing – and THAT is what is missing/needed in our time.

          Roman law reserved the words of Re. 5:12 for Caesar. Included here, John committed readers to liturgy that was by definition insurrectional. We cannot set Christian political discourse on an alien/heretical/humanistic basis. If this is a misreading of the Revelation, you need to offer an alternative, Biblical basis for Christian political vision. Otherwise, we will acquiesce inevitably to the powers of this age, only mollifying its worst abuses for the sake of conscience and pretense. That, Jesus refused when Satan offered him the kingdoms of this age.

          Christian Socialist

        6. I’m glad you wrote back. I’m not here to score points or win arguments. I appreciate having my thinking challenged and my mind/heart/will pushed to follow Christ in a way that is always growing.

          I can’t be here regularly to respond to things, making fun of fundies only takes me so far, and real life does intrude. I’m up at odd hours and I like to read. Can you recommend some books that would help explain where you are coming from? I don’t mind reading about things I don’t necessarily agree with. 🙂

          I have to type this one letter at a time on a kindle, so you can understand if I can’t interact much on this forum. I also can’t cut and paste! Let’s just say I am very much in agreement with your last two sentences, and I am interested in your point of view because I do not want those sentences to be an indictment of my life.

          Ciao for now

        7. Dear ChooseCalvinism:

          Thank you for so gracious an answer. Your first, brief paragraph in the antecedent post defines who you are for me. That is a beautiful statement you gave us. Moreover, to type that on a kindle must have required the patience of Job. Again, thank you for that answer.

          It is difficult to reply to your request because I don’t know where to begin, how to proceed or when to close. While my thinking has leaned in that direction for many years, I feel very amateurish in articulating it. I wish I say that I could offer an extensive list outlining this perspective. But that perspective is still in its infancy. This one needs time for reflection. I’ll get back to you.

          Blessings my friend! Thanks again for that post.

          Christian Socialist

        8. Dear ChooseCalvinism:

          With undergrad work in military and strategic studies and specialization in what is now called 4GW before 4GW was called 4GW, I can generally reply to political discourse/events well enough if I choose. But your fine Wednesday 8:02 pm post’s great commandment concern, and your desire for knowledge over information deserves and demands much better. I’ve drafted three replies. None satisfied. So instead, you get this.

          Without knowing it, you call me to bear my soul to the world. I don’t do this easily. Various sources inform my thoughts – the ideal interpretation of Revelation [Bauckham, Moltmann]; Counter-Imperial theology [Wright, Howard-Brook]; Missional Church [Guder, Brownson]; strong attention to the incarnation; among writers, Stringfellow, Yoder, Moltmann. These are unified in no book but by their ability to renew my own imagination concerning our participation in God’s mission in the world in Jesus Christ.

          Some of this is still gestational and is unheard of even among teaching scholars. Titles are not in abundance. But believing that the re-visioning of the world is imperative to our identity and the church, I offer what I think is one of the more accessible titles. Significantly, this work lends itself to several spiritual practices such as meditation, prayer, worship and more.

          ‘The task of … theologians is to demonstrate a gospel order in the chaos of evil, and arrange the elements of experience and reason so that they are perceived proportionately and coherently: sin, defeat, discouragement, prayer, suffering, persecution, praise and politics are placed in relation to the realities of God and Christ, holiness and healing, heaven and hell, victory and judgment, beginning and ending…’

          ‘…at the deepest levels of our lives we require a God whom we can worship with our whole mind and heart and strength. The taste for eternity can never be bread out of us by a secularizing genetics. Our existence is derived from God and destined for God. St. John stands in the front ranks of the great company of theologians who convince by their disciplined and vigorous thinking that theos and logos belong together, that we live in a creation and not a madhouse.’

          http://tinyurl.com/ogtt978

          If you wish and Darrell will allow it, ChooseCalvinism, you may post an email address. This could allow us to walk through this experience together. Alternatively, I could post mine. Or if you wish to explore this option, we could exchange e-addys through Darrell.

          Blessings!

          Christian Socialist

        9. CS thank you for the very kind and thoughtful post. I will indeed pick up the book you suggest. It seems the author is very prolific, after this book I may look into others he wrote. Thank you very much for thinking about this so deeply.

          I promised Frank Schaeffer himself that I would pick up his book as well, so it looks like I have a lot of challenging reading to do in the next few months. I don’t really know Mr Schaeffer, but I did email him this past summer to thank him for an address he made at Liberty Baptist Chapel in 1982. His “Christianity is the Truth, not Religion”, riled up the Campus and changed my life. I wanted to thank him, and he invited me to read his book and comment.

          I am also in the middle of many life changes – turning 50 has really affected me. I want to continue to think about who I am, and I invite Christ to rip my life and my thoughts to shreds if it will make me more like him. I have to say that I am a capitalist/entrepreneur/business guy at my heart and soul. By working hard and making careful choices all my life I have amassed a good amount of this world’s goods -maybe not by American standards but certainly in a global perspective. I could probably just coast from here, esp if I moved to a third world country and semi-retired.. But God is more than that. I owe Christ more than that. And I very much want to be more than just another American, Christian consumer.

          I’m trying to find my way, align it with The WAY. We walk in and out of other’s lives. I appreciate anyone who pushes me towards Christ. I think you do too.

          I can’t be here much esp as Black Friday and Christmas approach. I remain a dirty capitalist and my primary business sells toys – military related stuff actually. Wargaming figures. Yes I know, I may be beyond redemption. 🙂

          I will be reading the books tho.
          Neal

      2. Fortunately, the coming Republican Congress does not have a veto-proof majority in either house, so none of those horrors are likely to come to pass. In what I am depressed to think of as the best case scenario, nothing will get done in the next two years. If Obama is impeached, he hasn’t actually done anything to be impeached for, so there is likely to be much sound and fury and time and money wasted, but not the result the Republicans are hoping for. At least doing one big stupid thing would keep them from having the time or the energy to do many of the other things on their agenda.

        1. I have to admit I am a little angry at the 300 plus bills Harry Reid has been sitting on for the past 2 years. Such obstruction pretty much makes him a Senate of one. Poor Harry is going to be sad that many of the bills that he could have defeated in a Senate vote will now pass the Senate. It is immature perhaps, but that makes me giggle.

          Of course most will be vetoed but that will just show more than one party can be guilty of being the ‘Party of No’.

          Hopefully then we will see some real leadership that works out compromise solutions. However you feel about TARP and the ACA I just don’t see lasting good governance comes from one party legislation. And I hope whoever doesn’t find the strength to lead and compromise gets clobbered in 2016.
          Hope is good.

          Can I also hope Landrieu gets booted by the good citizens of the State of Louisiana? Or am I pushing it? 🙂

        2. One other comment – the paranoia about Obama impeachment seems to be misplaced. If anything this Election has pushed the Tea Party further to the margins in the House. Boehner and McConnell have both said they are ‘Not Interested’ in impeachment. I can’t see it happening unless Obama goes crazy with his Executive Orders.

        3. I sincerely hope you are right. I would like to discover I am wrong in this. The trouble is that this Republican party is more extreme than at any other time, even with the last election. There are many more people on the extreme edge, flapping their gums with Michele Bachmann-like loonies-isms, and making political promises to throw the lives of millions of people into chaos.

          I admit, the future looks rough for several years to come. But I do hope it will be better than I expect.

  10. As I recall, Guy Beaumont’s church is meeting in a borrowed facility, and he works bussing tables at a local diner. Nothing wrong with good, honest work, mind you, but read his Twitter feed and he’s beyond arrogant. #YouCanBeAnyoneYouWantonLine

    1. Last I heard he was running his own moving company on the side and it was his wife who worked in a restaurant. I do not know whether he still depends on the kindness of that Nazarene church to provide space for his services.

  11. Last week I met a guy who thought it wasn’t appropriate to incorporate said fiscal biospheres even though it wasn’t the cause of the problem in the first place even if it really was the issue according to the powers that be in the proverbial ivory tower where all us common folks know nothing about.

    B.R.O.

    1. Oh, and one more thing: It was left on the table the last I saw, so don’t get persnickety with me about whether or not the details were regarded as the best thing possible considering the circumstances. PERIOD>

  12. I hope fairly conservative people are welcome here? Because I am one. Sorry, just can’t support the Party of Baby Butchery. Planned Parenthood is their church, and abortion is their sacrament.

    But I really just stopped by tonight to give a message to BamaMan. Roll D*mn Tide, bro! I nearly had a freaking heart attack, but hey, a win is a win. Jesus was good to me this week. Kay Hagan lost, and the Tide won. Thank You, Lord!!

    1. Hey, you don’t have to agree with other people to be welcome here. You can speak your mind, and if you try to be polite, people will accept you.

      So even if I am a liberal – and voted FOR Kay Hagan, BTW, I am glad you are around even if you are glad she lost. We disagree on that topic, but in the long run, who cares? We can learn from each other and grow in grace. My regards.

      1. That is a good slogan! “More weed less war.”

        And we should stop the war on drugs. It hasn’t worked, it breaks up families, criminalizes the curiosity of young people, militarizes the police and has done untold destruction on our economy. What we spend on making war on our own people could be better spent repairing infrastructure, providing jobs, and educating our citizens.

        1. Don’t drugs break up families? And kill children? I’m sure my two would have been better off left with their drug-addicted moms. One would be dead by now. The other would be a feral child.
          I’m not sure about prosecuting for small amounts of marijuana though. That seems like a waste of resources.

        2. OK, since my reply came after Tiecey’s, not rtg’s, let me elaborate a bit: If drugs cause criminal acts, prosecute the acts. Treat drug use and drug addiction as a medical problem, but not as an excuse for wrongdoing.

        3. Drugs are addicting and addicts do terrible things to themselves and others.

          However, alcohol does too and we don’t treat drinkers the same as drug users.

        4. Okay, that makes sense. So we can let people destroy their own lives, as long as they are not causing harm to other people’s lives or properties. Just as we allow people to drink, overeat, and smoke as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. Except that argument breaks down at some point too.

        5. TieceyKaye, a lot of things break up families — lack of jobs, poor education, lack of support or opportunity to make things better. A lot of things kill children. Guns do, every day. Where is the call to make them illegal? No, according to the NRA, the carnage of our children is the price of freedom. If guns kill our children the solution is more guns. Imagine Jesus with an AK-47! That is the kind of savior a lot of people long for.

          And yes, I have probably made a whole batch of other people angry with me.

          There is proof that alcohol is more damaging to individuals and society at all levels than is marijuana. The prohibition on it has been so strict that even investigations into potential medical uses have been forbidden. People have been told that it is better for them to live in agony than have the relief that marijuana can afford them.

          By banning certain substances, we have created incentives to discover and create worse and more potent ones. We rob our children of the opportunity to get help — having criminalized the behavior they might want to escape from! Hard-hearted prosecutors see the convictions as a numbers game and points to rack up. Lives? Who cares about redeeming lives? Throw them away!

          No wonder there is a backlash.

          Look at the drugs themselves. Then look at the war on drugs. The “cure” has been worse than the disease. And the war on drugs has failed utterly.

          People in the long run make their own decisions. Sometimes you have to let people make mistakes, find it out, then help them go forward from there. Lives do not have to be ruined in jail because the drugs they were taking *could* have ruined their lives otherwise! As Christians we should be more for redemption than we are for punishment.

          There are better ways to address the problems of addiction. We don’t have to feed the system that creates and finances the gangs. We don’t have to send people to jail for nonviolent crimes of this sort. Helping people makes more sense, socially, economically, and spiritually than this punitive war we have been waging on our own people.

          Funny, that. We like Grace — for ourselves. But for people who commit the crimes or sins we have decided are the worst, we refuse grace for them. And ultimately, according to Jesus, we will be judged with the same kind of judgment we put on others. Refusing mercy and grace to others robs our future of mercy and grace.

        6. Would it be good to get rid of alcohol abuse and drug abuse? Yes, of course.
          Has banning drugs and punishing users as criminals helped stop drug abuse? Did it stop alcohol abuse during Prohibition?
          No, and no.
          The War on Drugs, has caused the kind of devastation seen in other wars (just ask anyone in Mexico or Colombia), and I’m not convinced there are any fewer people using illegal drugs now than before the War started. It’s definitely time we tried something different.

        7. My mother is a drug addict. I have always hated seeing her in jail and treated like a sub-human for being addicted. I think that so much more (time, funds, energy) should go into rehabilitating people than just arresting them, especially for mere possession without any other crime committed.

        8. I speak from frustration. Both my kids’mom’s have been in and out of rehab, and have been given many, many opportunities to make a better life for themselves and their latest set of children. But they don’t or can’t. (I hesitate to say won’t.) It frustrates me that they have a revolving door of abusive men in their lives, that their kids have a constant stream of step siblings, and that the kids still at home will never know anything better. It frustrates me that these two women think so little of themselves that they put up with the crap their boyfriends pull. It frustrates me that there are no easy answers. I don’t think a war on drugs or legalizing drugs will solve the problem. The only thing that can rescue these young women is someone willing to step up and be a mentor and friend to them for years. No government program will do that.

        9. TieceyKaye, I am sorry for your kids (and you) suffering this. And you are right, no govt peogram will fix the problem. The difference between legalization and the war is under one, the moms are put in jail for years, criminal records for life, while under the other they aren’t. They might get dry and sober in prison but they won’t get rehabilitation and their future prospects are permanently damaged.

          I don’t see legalization as a cure. I see it as reducing the damage.

          You are right to be frustrated. I pray something will happen to make the situation better.

        10. California just passed Proposition 47 (58% to 41%), which made personal use of most illegal drugs (among other things) misdemeanors instead of felonies. People are now being released from jails because of the reclassification of these non-violent crimes.

          So now watch and see how this impacts our state. We are used to being the nation’s guinea pig.

          http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_%282014%29

          http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_26894964/prop-47-bay-area-counties-begin-releasing-inmates

    2. “Party of the Baby Butchers?”

      I guess veal scallopini is the featured dish on their menu.

      Seriously, CGC–if you want to make friends and influence people, insults are not the way to go.

      1. I firmly believe that babies should not be butchers. No one should be allowed to work with butcher knives and slicing machines until he or she is at least four or five years old.

        1. You really are a liberal! Or children aren’t allowed knives until they are 6 and have passed the licensing exam.

        2. But guns, of course, should never have any restrictions whatever. To even suggest such a thing enrages people.

          I live in a state where legally blind people qualify for free hunting licenses. True fact.

      2. “….if you want to make friends and influence people, insults are not the way to go.”

        So, characterizing the Democratic Party negatively is a personal insult? WTH?

        Gee whiz. You must be very new to political discourse on the Interwebs. 😮

        This thread is chock-full of negative characterizations of the GOP, including some nasty cracks about Sara Palin and other conservative luminaries. But only my comment gets singled out for a preachy finger-wag?

        Gosh, once again, I am overwhelmed by that liberal tolerance.

        My point stands. The Democratic Party has hitched its wagon to Abortion on Demand. And that, my friend, is baby butchery.

        Like all human beings, I am a complex individual, not a cardboard stereotype, and I hold complicated views. I am soft on immigration; I am not a warmonger by any stretch; but otherwise I am a social conservative. So, sue me. We are all entitled to our opinions.

        1. I wrote a long reply to your post, thought better of it and did not post it. It still burns.

          People can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. In calling them supporters of “baby butchery” you demonstrate a one-dimensional, unreasoning and unreasonable position. I am personally insulted.

          Still, I am your friend. So I will not unload on you what was in my heart. You can have your opinion. I can also have mine. That does not make me any more or any less a sinner than you are.

          May your wounds heal and your outrage calm. Good night.

        2. In calling them supporters of “baby butchery” you demonstrate a one-dimensional, unreasoning and unreasonable position. I am personally insulted.

          Goodness! With all due respect, RTG, your indignation, like the Reverend Croft’s, seems to be rather selectively applied.

          Did you read the comments about the GOP and conservatives further up in the thread? ISTM the Republicans hereabouts have far more reason to feel “personally insulted.” But this discussion involves an exchange of opinions, and opinions differ. You say you respect that, but then you engage in personal attack and rather uncalled for speculation re my “wounds.” Yikes.

          I tend to agree with the person up above who noted that there is a certain “my way or the highway” attitude hereabouts. Conservatives are welcome here just as long as they don’t speak their minds. Again: some tolerance.

          As for the “baby butchery” comment: Again, did I call you a baby butcher? No. I characterized the Democratic Party as “the party of baby butchery.” You may disagree with this characterization (as you clearly do), but I am well within my rights to make it. And IMHO it is quite on a par with the negative characterizations of the GOP that abound in this thread.

          BTW, I am a registered Independent. I have some issues with GOP hardliners, notably re immigration, but I am a social conservative. So, in the immortal words of Nathan Detroit, sue me. I am just as entitled to my opinions as anyone else.

          You claim one can be pro-choice without being pro-abortion. I respectfully disagree.

          Does the unborn baby have a choice? Just wondering.

      3. I guess veal scallopini is the featured dish on their menu.

        Perish the thought! Baby cows elicit far more sympathy and concern from many Democrats I know than unborn baby humans do. 😉

    3. Oh thank you catholic gate crasher. I thought that I was the only conservative here. Nice to know that there are others. I was overwhelmed buy all of the Liberals on here. Guess I don’t need to be here to get my opinion heard. I am gonna try a politeral board in the future. Bye all you my way or the highway libruls.

      1. Hmmph. Dave, I think you have a reading problem. “My way or the highway” has not ever been an issue here, and certainly not among us “liberals.” We never have insisted that someone leave for expressing conservative viewpoints. There are plenty of conservatives here, and people who fall into a wide range of political ideals.

        And to be honest, aren’t your political views shaped by your religious viewpoints? Who God is, and what He has done, and what is important and how we should treat others? All sorts of things you can talk about from Scripture, if you will.

        In my experience — and I admit, my experience — liberalism better reflects the gospel of Christ, grace, mercy, and compassion. Conservatism better reflects legalism, harshness, protection of privilege and the dehumanization of others.

        Again, my opinions, my experience — which I try to adjust to what I see in the Scriptures. If I am wrong, then surely you can argue your position with Scripture. I can learn something. Or you can say something without supporting it. Or you can say nothing. Or you can mouth off. You don’t have to leave, however. Stay! Enjoy the fellowship.

        Even if I am a liberal, I am your brother in Christ, aren’t I?

        1. Just trying to lighten up the mood—kinda like the shirt one of my kids got me for Christmas:

          “Let’s eat kids.”
          “Let’s eat, kids.”

          Punctuation saves lives!

      2. I disagree. “My way or the highway” is very much in operation here, at least among some posters. There seems to be zero tolerance for opposing opinions, which are met with vitriol and insult. Conservatives are tolerated only as long as they refrain from actually expressing their opinions. I guess, like children, we should be seen and not heard.

        I have always loved this site, but I must say this thread has left a rather bad taste in my mouth.

        1. And BTW, “I think you have a reading problem” definitely qualifies as personal insult. Just sayin’.

        2. “….but I must say this thread has left a rather bad taste in my mouth.”

          Don’t eat the thread. 🙂

  13. Actually I live in NY, I was just poking a little fun at the North Carolina election. $111 million in campaign ads! The “Priceist State in the Union”! That many political ads would make me think of drastic measures.
    Is alcohol consumption up in your State?

      1. Yep. And now that North Carolina believed those ads, the Republicans have tax cuts for the rich to sell you. They have their big political donors to pay back, and they intend to make you do it through the nose.

        Those big political donors don’t come cheap. They expect to get their money’s worth. From your pockets, ultimately.

      2. Well, Kay spent twice as much as Tillis did — a matter of public record — in her attempt to smear him as an implacable opponent of kindergarten teachers, puppies, and bunnies. So, yes, wonderful use of campaign funds. 😉

        She lied, over and over again, about the State Legislature’s education budget — which actually substantially increased education spending, just not by as much as originally proposed. (She claimed Tillis had dramatically decreased education spending — patently false. I guess she never heard of that Reconciliation Thing. Civics 101, IOW.)

        Hagan also pushed Planned Parenthood down our throats at every opportunity. Her campaign’s pursuit of my vote was apparently predicated on the assumption that, as a woman, I must perforce vote with my “lady parts,” not my brain, and of course I must enthusiastically support killing babies in the womb. What an idiot. “War on Women.” Yeah, right. How about that war on unborn women? Not to mention the war on unborn minorities, who are targeted by Planned Parenthood. (How many abortuaries are located in upscale lily-white suburbs? Check blackgenocide.org for some insight into this.)

        Ah yes, last week was sweet. Hagan lost. Auburn lost. And LSU lost. Thank You, Jesus. 😀

  14. Mostly (but not entirely) off-topic:

    Today is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I had seen The Wall while it was still alive and well.
    By coincidence, today I did some bird-watching within sight of the the new Berlin Wall, the one George W. Bush’s crew gouged across my home county in far south Texas, between my town and the river that gives us life here. Robert Frost’s immortal lines kept repeating themselves to me:
    “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
    What I was walling in or walling out,
    And to whom I was like to give offense.
    Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
    That wants it down.”

    Full poem here:
    http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/mending-wall

  15. I am beginning to think that we all should collectively run for Congress. We already know how to disagree civilly. We have all kinds of insights and ideas. And most of us grew up poor, which gives us a huge advantage when it comes to governing poor people. We are also all rather cynical, another huge advantage in dealing with government.
    What do you think?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.