dagblog - Comments for "Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration"

Two opposing views on the

seashell — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:07:07 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration

Two opposing views on the Manhattan Declaration from WaPo's On Faith section. The first is by Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School and a senior editor of Christianity Today. George embraces the "fundamental truths" found in the Declaration and invites believers and non-believers alike to "to join us in the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom."

The second and more interesting column is by Robert Parham, executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of its parent organization, the Baptist Center for Ethics, who is right on topic:

The document centered on abortion, gay marriage and anxiety about Christians being persecuted, having their consciences coerced.

Noting its "chest-thumping boldness and abundant fear-mongering", Parham also calls out the Declaration for its historical un-truthiness in the realms of slavery, women's rights, civil rights and AIDS. Finally, Parham takes on what the Declaration neglected:

Such signatories can hardly reinvent themselves as drum majors for justice if they ignore climate change, wars in two nations, health care reform, deepening unemployment at home and spreading hunger around the world.

How the hell one handles a

DF — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:08:30 +0000

In reply to If I can just sidestep

How the hell one handles a population that soaks in it indeed. On the one hand, I do wonder what the success of PR means about democracy. If you can truly manufacture consent, then what does that imply about the consent of the governed? On the other hand, Fox News only has the ear of about 1% of the population, assuming that their ratings figures are accurate.

This is clearly a

DF — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:59:56 +0000

In reply to Commie Blaster? Seriously?

This is clearly a high-quality web site, as evidenced by the awesome banner with Ronald Reagan cartoon and this irrefutable equation:

PROGRESSIVES = SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = LEFT-WING RADICALS = ANTI-CAPITALISTS = UNAMERICAN

I just watched the South Park

quinn esq — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:09:38 +0000

In reply to Yeah, it's not exactly my cup

I just watched the South Park episode last night where they discovered that if shove food up your butt, turds come out your mouth. Which instantly explained things like my celery-stuffing friend over at TPM, but which also perhaps explains the Cucumber-Commieblaster linkage you've just identified, N.

If I can just sidestep

quinn esq — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:07:21 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration

If I can just sidestep Commieblaster's searing argument for one moment, I found reading the Declaration an interesting process, in 3 ways: (1) They've adopted a style and approach which they feel sets them inside MLK shoes, and the anti-slavers, and seem to believe this approach is the right one. (2) It's an amazing look inside their heads, where they clearly feel they're a minority, and this comes up repeatedly across these churches -- whereas we often see them as representing the majority culture. (3) They are claiming women's suffrage, civil rights and even slavery as historic victories - for them. Now, segments and slices of conservative churches actually played quite powerful roles in some of these movements, but certainly in recent decades, these folks have been opposed.

So, you have to wonder what goes through the heads - not just what comes out of the mouths - of people who: A) Support civil rights and women's suffrage; B) Know that Obama & Hillary have won, and were beneficiaries of these movements; and yet, C) Are the immoral monsters bringing you these new challenges.

I've seen the same thing repeatedly come up in churches in relation to the environment, where the churches all became increasingly explicit about supporting wealth creation and pro-capitalist means of doing that, and then... saw their own people, esp. the younger members, begin to challenge the environmental impacts. e.g. That whole "What would Jesus drive?" thing sounded funny, but was part of 000's of churches getting solar panels and so on. At a deep level, there's a big question here, of -- who's really winning? There's also the question of, if your "opponents" are actually having to take many of your attitudes and approaches on-board, how can you use this to peel members off, and split their ranks? And last but never least, there's room for some more thinking about Ressentiment, and the greatness of FN, and how the hell one handles a population that soaks in it.

Yeah, it's not exactly my cup

Nebton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:49 +0000

In reply to Geek out. (Does anyone really

Yeah, it's not exactly my cup o' tea, either.

Geek out. (Does anyone really

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:24:35 +0000

In reply to Why are cucumbers

Geek out. (Does anyone really use Cucumber? It looks like another quixotic attempt to write software in business logic aka "English.")

Commie Blaster? Seriously?

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:16:37 +0000

In reply to Why is Obama's Administration

Commie Blaster? Seriously? Were you cryofrozen in 1980?

Why are cucumbers

Nebton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:15:50 +0000

In reply to Why is Obama's Administration

Why are cucumbers anti-tomato? It's because they are Nazis and nazis are anti-red. Overwhelming proof to back this claim here:
Cukes!

Why is Obama's Administration

CommieBlaster — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:09:41 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration

Why is Obama's Administration is Anti-Religion? It's because they are Communists and Communists do not believe in God. Overwhelming proof to back this claim here: http://www.commieblaster.com/index.html