Quotes of the Day: Republicans and God
"However, it must be remembered that Bush was, in effect, the author not only of his own words but all the words uttered by the major speakers. They all were written or edited by campaign central command. So while Bush's rhetoric was subtle and inspiring, he signed off on speech after speech that heavy-handedly implied he was put in office at this moment by God Almighty."
"I'm all for churches encouraging their members to vote and to weigh what values are most important to them. But wouldn't it be exciting if houses of worship pledged that they would not allow material in their sacred spaces that dehumanized their opponents, grotesquely mischaracterized their views, or questioned their motives?"
"It was the consensus of the Republicans I spoke to at this particular bash that Democrats were mean and intolerant. Of course they were wearing buttons like "Terrorists for Kerry" featuring a picture of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."
--Steve Waldman Beliefnet 2004 Convention Blog
"I'm all for churches encouraging their members to vote and to weigh what values are most important to them. But wouldn't it be exciting if houses of worship pledged that they would not allow material in their sacred spaces that dehumanized their opponents, grotesquely mischaracterized their views, or questioned their motives?"
"It was the consensus of the Republicans I spoke to at this particular bash that Democrats were mean and intolerant. Of course they were wearing buttons like "Terrorists for Kerry" featuring a picture of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."
--Steve Waldman Beliefnet 2004 Convention Blog
posted by Joseph Marshall | 7:19 PM
3 Comments:
TO: Joesph Marshall
RE: Steve Waldman's Thoughts
"...wouldn't it be exciting if houses of worship pledged that they would not allow material in their sacred spaces that dehumanized their opponents, grotesquely mischaracterized their views, or questioned their motives?"" -- Steve Waldman, as cited by Joesph Marshall
First off, I wonder what is said at Riverside in NYC.
I remember sitting in on a seminar for one of those main-stream, i.e., 'liberal' churches. A rather articulate gentlman was addressing the members of the assembled congregations. I believe he was the author of some book. I was along because my intended went to one of the churches. [Note: At her church the feminist minister disavowed Christ. That church has since collapsed.]
At any rate, the discussion turned to politics. And one of the attendees commented on the forthcoming election and how they had to do something about the Religious Right. Things could have become rather interesting, except that one droll voice from the cheap seats commented, "Yeah. What can we do about those godless Bible-thumpers."
That pretty much put the kabosh on that vein of discussion and the speaker changed the subject.
A second point is that any minister or anyone who calls himself a "christian" and dehumanizes someone should go back and re-read their reference manual. They seem to have a problem understanding what they are supposed to do.
If you want to see what I'm referring to, here it is....
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
I think that "Raca" translates from ancient Aramaic to English as "Bozo". Or something similar.
I slip up on that myself, occassionlly.
""It was the consensus of the Republicans I spoke to at this particular bash that Democrats were mean and intolerant. Of course they were wearing buttons like "Terrorists for Kerry" featuring a picture of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."" -- Steve Waldman
Now, there is something of a difference between calling someone a "Bozo" and saying that they are "mean and intolerant". The former is dehumanizing. The latter is a description of behavior.
Again, here's a choice bit of guidance from the reference manual....
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:15-17
The point here is that even Christ was not above telling someone they've got serioius problems with their understanding. And He provided advice on what to do about it.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[First God made idiots (for practice) then he made school boards. -- Mark Twain]
Well, thanks, Chuck! It's always good to blog with someone who can quote effectively and pertinently. One of the things I find fascinating is the cleavage in both parties between the secular humanists and the Christians. It's a kind of creative tension that keeps me focused on the humanity of all of us by constantly probing my own awareness of it.
The parties frankly try to mask the clevage by the deliberate vagueness in their talk about "values". For the weakness of ANY secular position is the incoherance of an ethics that comes from the rejection of metaphysics. And the weakness of any religious position too closely identified with politics is the temptation to sacrifice or bend some component of their moral views in the interest of political advantage.
An endlessly fascinating dance.
TO: Joseph Marshall
RE: Decotage, Anyone?
"The parties frankly try to mask the clevage by the deliberate vagueness in their talk about "values"." -- Joseph Marshall
Values? We don need no stenking values.
Well, maybe we do. The question becomes, what is the source of our values? As Pilate asked that Guy, "We all have truthes. Are mine the same as yours." [via Andrew Lloyd Weber's JC Superstar]
It boils down to where do we find the Truth.
"For the weakness of ANY secular position is the incoherance of an ethics that comes from the rejection of metaphysics." -- Joseph Marshall
I suspect it has to do with 'pride'. For the secularist there is only one god; ME. And it is a very jealous god. It's first and only commandment is, I am the lord MY god. Thou shalt have no other god besides ME.
Any admission that there is more to this world than what they can personally perceive is an admission of error and pride will not allow that. As some wag put it, "Pride ruined the angels." It does pretty good work with people too.
"And the weakness of any religious position too closely identified with politics is the temptation to sacrifice or bend some component of their moral views in the interest of political advantage." -- Joseph Marshall
I'm not sure you can separate politics and religion as easily as some might suggest. All laws are "discriminatory". We discriminate between what we will accept and what we will not accept.
What we accept or do not, is based on or sense of morals.
Our morals are based on our beliefs.
Our beliefs are based on our spiritual/religious understanding of this world. Some people understand that there is a God and, if they adhere to His Word, they follow His guidance. They may be Hindi or they may be Muslims or they may be Christians or they may be Jews.
Other people think they are god. And they act accordingly, within the confines of the law, if they are concerned that they'll be caught misbehaving and punished.
The people who believe in a god, other than themselves, know that their god is fully aware of everything they do. Always the watchful eye is upon them.
Those who think they are god know for themselves that they can get away with things and will act accordingly. There is no ultimate judge, unless they get caught and can't get a good lawyer.
Whom do you think is the better contributor to their respective society? Three guess. First two don't count.
So it boils down to which religious belief is the best? But that's a whole nuther thread. [Clue: Which book provides the more humane guidance? Which one holds the Truth?]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The most simple-minded way of proving a systems effectiveness is the ability to win bets based on it.]
Post a Comment
<< Home