Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Lincoln was a Republican.




It was, perhaps, the last half of the past century that brought the Democratic party to join the forefront on equality issues..

---

Quote:

---

If I recall correctly that actually was the Republicans again.

Grand Old Partisan: Republican governor first enacts women's suffrage

---

It bears noting that the two parties (Senator Byrd, being the anachronism that he is, aside) are the Polar opposites of what they were and represented in the late 1800's

Just my two pence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

It bears noting that the two parties (Senator Byrd, being the anachronism that he is, aside) are the Polar opposites of what they were and represented in the late 1800's

Just my two pence.

---

Hi Growler-

Good hearing from you. I agree. Concerning our country's history, Lincoln was well ahead of the curve representing equality of manhood. Byrd... well... uh-mm... he was more concerned with keeping that pillowcase hood clean for the next rally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

You can't really be that ignorant of American History, DC -- And I'm even cutting you slack based on the presumption that you attended Public Schools.

---

As much as we all appreciate good dialogue, I have to admit being taken back by DC's reply as well. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that took notice. :)




Bobby

Quote:

---

Just what exactly is liberalism?

---

DC a label is an approximation.

Quote:

---

Recently, there has been an increase in books and Web sites by religious liberals, national and regional conferences, church-based discussion groups and new faith-oriented political organizations. "Organizationally speaking, strategically speaking, the religious left is now in the strongest position it's been in since the Vietnam era," said Clemson University political scientist Laura Olson.

Is there any semblance of a religious left in the United States today that could counterbalance the religious right; look out, I think their coming.

---

Here's my dirty little secret. I once thought myself as a member of what you refer to as the religious left. I thought myself a liberation theologist .I still am in a way except that the left abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas. When it came to freeing people from the yoke of communism, then freedom was just another word.

Today I suppose they are pacifist in their beliefs and would never lift a finger to oppose jack-booted dictators either left or right. Witness the silence about the persecutions in Yangon this week .

The religious left is very high on ideas like social justice ,and believe that non-Stalinist socialism is the means to egalitatarianism .But,when it means picking pockets then there is no virtue in it. The early Christians may have been communal societies but they never would have mandated charitable contributions at the point of a gun.

As far as the so called separation of church and state canard; the left has never made the distinction. The church has always been part of the political movement . When the church is in support of left winged causes it is celebrated and made an integral part of the revolution.As an example; Candidates have always utilized the pulpit in their campaigns and in mobilizing support .Another example would be the role the church played in ending segregation. The left still champions their Reverends who are on the front line of the social debate .It is only when conservatism enlisted the support of religion that the issue became conveniently revived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

DC a label is an approximation.



Here's my dirty little secret. I once thought myself as a member of what you refer to as the religious left. I thought myself a liberation theologist .I still am in a way except that the left abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas. When it came to freeing people from the yoke of communism, then freedom was just another word.

Today I suppose they are pacifist in their beliefs and would never lift a finger to oppose jack-booted dictators either left or right. Witness the silence about the persecutions in Yangon this week .

The religious left is very high on ideas like social justice ,and believe that non-Stalinist socialism is the means to egalitatarianism .But,when it means picking pockets then there is no virtue in it. The early Christians may have been communal societies but they never would have mandated charitable contributions at the point of a gun.

As far as the so called separation of church and state canard; the left has never made the distinction. The church has always been part of the political movement . When the church is in support of left winged causes it is celebrated and made an integral part of the revolution.As an example; Candidates have always utilized the pulpit in their campaigns and in mobilizing support .Another example would be the role the church played in ending segregation. The left still champions their Reverends who are on the front line of the social debate .It is only when conservatism enlisted the support of religion that the issue became conveniently revived.

---

I agree Tom, Liberalism is a sort of approximation, or an idea having a general application, as is the terms, Republican, Democrats, Rightist, Leftist, Christian, jack-booted dictators or right winged juntas.
So for instance, let me ask you a question: You assert that, “the left abandoned the idea of true liberation,” if I could give you an example of a Christian Leftist, the name of someone in particular who did not, by your defination, “abandon the idea of true liberation,” would that prove that you were wrong in what you said?

Clarification : I meant that liberation theologist abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas.This sounds like a set up so I will not concede anything until you name that Christian Leftist . My bet is you will try to lay the line that Jesus was a leftist . I have never read in the scriptures where the government is commanded to play Robin Hood .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clarification : I meant that liberation theologist abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas.This sounds like a set up so I will not concede anything until you name that Christian Leftist . My bet is you will try to lay the line that Jesus was a leftist . I have never read in the scriptures where the government is commanded to play Robin Hood .

---

Not a set-up at all Tom, one exception to an approximation, or an idea having a general application, does not negate the approximation. So that even if I gave 5 exceptions that alone would not negate your assertion. However, what negates your assertion is that it falsely assumes the Christian Left in America once held the belief that America’s role was to give freedom to the world, not just it’s citizens. And the proof of that is written in pre-world war 1 history.

Was there a left -right divide in the 18th century ? Yes ,when the nation could not do so we tended to be isolationists to a degree. But then again... abolition was also a religious movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Was there a left -right divide in the 18th century ? Yes ,when the nation could not do so we tended to be isolationists to a degree. But then again.....abolition was also a religious movement.

---

I believe in what some would consider a contradiction, and what Hegel would call a dialectic. On the one hand, the rugged individualism that is at the heart of the Christian Right, and the notion that no American should be with-out health-care, a shelter or food, which is at the heart of the Christian Left; those two notions is in my opinion what should drive American politics. Not extending liberty to the world
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Will the Religious Right have far less influence in the 2008 cycle than in recent history.


It appears so...

The religious right’s candidate - The Carpetbagger Report

---

Agree.

James Dobson does not represent all or most christians though he does have influence.

I think most christians realize that we are not to be of this world, thus left or right political involvement is not a true calling.
I think most will do their own assessment and vote for the candidate of their preference.

I do not think morality can be legislated, but when the "left" pushes for its own morality regarding such issues as gay marriage, abortion, the 10 commandments, etc... then the religious "right" will make their votes known.




Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Agree.


I think most christians realize that we are not to be of this world, thus left or right political involvement is not a true calling.



Grace and Peace

---

Oh! I pray that it were true.

Laura Bush did her part to extend liberty this week. In a VOA radio address to Burma she said :

Quote:

---

"I want to say to the armed guards and to the soldiers: Don't fire on your people, don't fire on your neighbors. Join this movement."

---

VOA News - US First Lady Appeals to Burmese Junta: 'Don't Fire on Your People'

Extending liberty to the world does not always mean taking up arms but it does mean supporting legitimate democratic movements .I say that Christians in the U.S. of any political persuasion should unite under that banner.

“Support” is a word I would use for the poor and homeless, encourage seems more fitting to me. And then when I think about the democracy of the Palestinian government I am reluctant to even use that. I think the Religious Right has their priories reversed.

Jesus said to extend love and compassion, not liberty and freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I believe in what some would consider a contradiction, and what Hegel would call a dialectic. On the one hand, the rugged individualism that is at the heart of the Christian Right, and the notion that no American should be with-out health-care, a shelter or food, which is at the heart of the Christian Left; those two notions is in my opinion what should drive American politics. Not extending liberty to the world
:)

---

DC, that's what the left would have us believe. The heart of the Christian right is more than rugged individualism, it is giving. We don't expect or wait for government to make sure people have healthcare, shelter or food, we give out of our resources - time, money, labor, prayer, etc. - to meet the immediate needs of others and to help them succeed later on. What the left sees is a group of people hell bent on running their lives, imposing our morality, ending abortion (the right to choose as they say), denying rights to gays and some alleged nefarious campaign to establish a theocracy.

That is where the left has succeeded in eroding support for the religious right, with a heated campaign to strike fear into the hearts of people by warning the world of our alleged intolerance, bigotry and selfishness. We've been called neo-Nazis, Christo-Nazis, Christo-fascists, compared with Hitler and labeled as no different than Islamic radicals. Just look at the first answer to this post, the same woman that called us fascists said "decent people are tired of the hate" coming from the religious right. That kind of nonsense is not only dishonest, it's often delusional.

One difference between the left - including the religious left - and the religious right is we just take care of things without the need for recognition. The left seems to like the attention they get for doing something, while the right goes quietly on. Bill Gates makes a huge donation it's all over the news, Oprah opens a school in Africa and she's a saint, Bono makes a declaration and it's around the world in 60 seconds. What happens when World Vision opens another school in a third world country, or a Baptist church sends a disaster team to a hurricane ravaged town? Usually nothing, and that's fine - just stop telling everyone how little we care for and do for those less fortunate.

And by the way, last night Bono basically said when others aren't free "then none of us are truly free." Perhaps extending freedom to others should be more of what drives American politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

You can't really be that ignorant of American History, DC -- And I'm even cutting you slack based on the presumption that you attended Public Schools.

---

I am uneducated so I find it easier to express what I wish to say with as much force as possible and let others chip away if they can.
An ad hominem does not chip even dust, they only affect those who use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

DC, that's what the left would have us believe. The heart of the Christian right is more than rugged individualism, it is giving. We don't expect or wait for government to make sure people have healthcare, shelter or food, we give out of our resources - time, money, labor, prayer, etc. - to meet the immediate needs of others and to help them succeed later on. What the left sees is a group of people hell bent on running their lives, imposing our morality, ending abortion (the right to choose as they say), denying rights to gays and some alleged nefarious campaign to establish a theocracy.

That is where the left has succeeded in eroding support for the religious right, with a heated campaign to strike fear into the hearts of people by warning the world of our alleged intolerance, bigotry and selfishness. We've been called neo-Nazis, Christo-Nazis, Christo-fascists, compared with Hitler and labeled as no different than Islamic radicals. Just look at the first answer to this post, the same woman that called us fascists said "decent people are tired of the hate" coming from the religious right. That kind of nonsense is not only dishonest, it's often delusional.

One difference between the left - including the religious left - and the religious right is we just take care of things without the need for recognition. The left seems to like the attention they get for doing something, while the right goes quietly on. Bill Gates makes a huge donation it's all over the news, Oprah opens a school in Africa and she's a saint, Bono makes a declaration and it's around the world in 60 seconds. What happens when World Vision opens another school in a third world country, or a Baptist church sends a disaster team to a hurricane ravaged town? Usually nothing, and that's fine - just stop telling everyone how little we care for and do for those less fortunate.

And by the way, last night Bono basically said when others aren't free "then none of us are truly free." Perhaps extending freedom to others should be more of what drives American politics.

---

I agree with you whole heartily that Christian, both the Christian Left and the Right give a great deal in not only money, but time as well; I really don’t think anyone would deny they hold this fine attribute in common.
However, what they don’t hold in common is evangelism and the belief in absolute infallible word of God in Scripture.
Much of what you attribute to the Christian Left is in fact posited by an entire spectrum of organizations and groups which consider themselves to be leftist or have origins in leftist movements...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

“Support” is a word I would use for the poor and homeless, encourage seems more fitting to me. And then when I think about the democracy of the Palestinian government I am reluctant to even use that. I think the Religious Right has their priories reversed.

Jesus said to extend love and compassion, not liberty and freedom.

---

DC, this goes also to your comment above concerning evangelism. Jesus said, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." That is the gist of evangelism, setting people free, free from fear, guilt, sin, loneliness and other things that oppress them so they can live life to the fullest. That's what the secular left doesn't get, it's not about oppression but true freedom.

What gets under my skin about all of this is what inthebox touched on. If you listen to the rhetoric from the left concerning the religious right, they expound breathlessly on the dangers of imposing our morality on others - while pretending they aren't doing the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

DC, this goes also to your comment above concerning evangelism. Jesus said, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." That is the gist of evangelism, setting people free, free from fear, guilt, sin, loneliness and other things that oppress them so they can live life to the fullest. That's what the secular left doesn't get, it's not about oppression but true freedom.

What gets under my skin about all of this is what inthebox touched on. If you listen to the rhetoric from the left concerning the religious right, they expound breathlessly on the dangers of imposing our morality on others - while pretending they aren't doing the same.

---

Again, I believe you are not talking about the Religious Left, but rather others on the left in general. Can you give me an equivalent from the Christian Left’s, of the Right’s Jerry Falwell
Evangelism... a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith; the Crusades was not waged to give peace of mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Again, I believe you are not talking about the Religious Left, but rather others on the left in general. Can you give me an equivalent from the Christian Left’s, of the Right’s Jerry Falwell

---

DC, I included both the secular and religious left earlier. The reason you don't perceive any liberal Falwell's is because they are held up as heroes in the MSM, while every perceived injustice or hypocrisy by a Falwell or Dobson is scorned. Why should the media attack the religious left, they think the same - but they're out there.

Jimmy Carter
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
John Edwards
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Frank Forrester Church
Tony Campolo
Ron Sider
Katharine Jefferts Schori
BOTH CLINTONS

Quote:

---

evangelism... a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith; the Crusades was not waged to give peace of mind.

---

Don't fall into that trap, name one Christian leader, group - one Christian engaged in anything even remotely similar to the Crusades. 'Evangelism' from the right is not about conversion to the faith, it's about changing lives, empowering people, freedom, relationships, personal strength. 'Evangelism' from the left is about submission to an ideology and acceptance and tolerance for our differences - unless you're a conservative.

“As televangelism expanded, it also became increasingly associated with conservative perspectives in both religion and politics, and it generated considerable controversy during the 1970s and 1980s after a number of its major proponents lent their support to conservative political causes.
“The shift in focus of mass evangelism during the twentieth century, from a broad connection to the Protestant mainstream to a narrower association primarily with religious conservatives, has had significant implications for its relationship to American cultural generally. The leading televangelist especially have become less exclusively concerned with the individual conversion experience, and increasingly concerned with general trends within American popular culture. In this sense, evangelism has evolved from a primarily religious phenomenon to one that has had significant impacts on politics and public policy in the United States.




http://130.94.23.9/images/sjpc/sjpc_02_img0394.jpg






I don't think blaming it on the media is a very good argument at all, the fact is there are none for the media to publicize or there would be, news in the making, if the Christian Left was as vociferous as the Right.


Evangelism History | sjpc_02_package.xml

DC- That newest picture of a stoned philosopher guy is rather fitting. Anyway this topic managed to get even weirder. When it comes to casting votes, personally IMO there doesn't appear any difference between the liberal secular left and a proclaimed Christian left. The Christians that I know that are observant vote for conservative candidates. The ones that don't want to follow there own religion, but rather still be labeled as "Christian" seem vote otherwise.

Oh! And I can't stand those televangelists suckering the old and poor of out what money they do have. Unfortunately they have large followings, joined mostly to the Republican platform, but I don't think they represent traditional Christianity no more than any proclaimed Christian left.

Steve- I know you and Tom are Christians, and probably a lot closer to the pulse of the Christian communities than I am. How much difference is there between a secular liberal left and a proclaimed Christian left when it comes to politics?


Bobby