more about Bush & America

[Enosh]

Thanks Lex and Shell.

Funny though, there hasn't been any "Discussion" on the points I made. Is there not anything else to be said in defense of the liberal way of thinking?

Lex, I think I may have done something that even (Dare I say) Rush Limbaugh has never done?.... Silenced the liberal argument.

[Jonathan]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that article. Just wonder why it's here in the "Bush America Zionist Nazi" thread.

We really do have a habit of going off topic here.

[gman]

I thought that article made some good points. I think a lot of conservative Christians agree that changing individual lives and hearts is where it's at. They don't believe in pushing for the gov't to impose Christian standards or practice on people. There some that think that way. Certain brands of Baptists or Fundmentalists come to mind. But, you could argue that they are not a majority of American Christians. They just happen to get a lot of press because those on the other side are using them to villify Christians in general.

A liberal is some who believes in big gov't, more social programs, socialist ideas, using the courts to write law and impose their ideas, abortion rights, and tons of other stuff. Most Christians don't belive in the Gov't imposing Christian values on anyone. We have freedom to exercise whatever religion we choose, or we can not engage in any religious activity at all, and the Gov't should stay out. However, the United States has a Judeao Christian heritage and liberals seek to use the Gov't and the courts to erase that. When that heritage intersects with public and Gov't life, they want it gone. They want separation of church and state. But it's really not separation at all. It's the Gov't getting directly involved with religion and doing ehat the liberals want.

[brent]

They don't believe in pushing for the gov't to impose Christian standards or practice on people. There some that think that way. Certain brands of Baptists or Fundmentalists come to mind.

Now, now. You can't label people like that. Seeing how our history is what it is (and it IS undeniable that it is a Christian heritage-read the first school book written by Ben Franklin), we should be enforcing Christian standards and practices. What? Yep.

Christian means "follower of Christ", Christ ian. What does it mean to follow Christ? Follow his commandments. If we would just push the 11 commandments (the original Jewish 10 + Love in the NT) then only let the government do what it was supposed to do (handle trade, provide for the common defense, etc and stay out of our lives otherwise) then we would be ok.

Any country that has adopted socialism did it teaching that there is no God, that there is no creator or design by intelligence, and that your life and truth is relative has failed, or is in the process of it. Hitler, Stalin and many others all adopted this, and now here we are. I'd say that we are due for a civil if not world war.

[gman]

I'm right there with ya man! We (the church) should impose Christian standards on the body of Christ at large. That's one of the things we're supposed to do. Most of us don't want the gov't trying to impose the Christian religion or any other religion on society as a whole. We want them to stay out and leave our Christian heritage alone. There are some who would like to see the gov't impose Christian values on society. I was simply mentioning some groups I could think of off the top of my head where those people might come from.
Liberals claim we want the Gov't imposing the Christian religion, which we don't, and that we are wrong for wanting that. They claim there needs to be separation of Church and State, something never mentioned by name or idea in the constitution. However, they are all for the non-separation of Church and State when it comes to the Gov't erasing the church. That's what liberals really want. They want Christianity to go away, and they want the Christian heritage of the USA to go away.
Christians are not fighting for the Gov't to make Christianity the official religion. They are simply fighting to keep conservative politicians in office who will protect our right to practice any religion we want, however we want. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's the conservative, faith-based politicians who do that the best.

BTW- The Michael Morons and Cindy Sheehans of the world, the Hollywood elitists, the die-hard liberals, the leftist kooks; those are the people who equate George Bush with being a nazi. They're also the same people who fought hardest to get John Kerry elected; I mean defeated!
They say that what goes on at club Gitmo, Abu Grab, or in Iraq or Afghanistan is just like what went on during Hitler's regime. Therefore Bush is Hitler.

[brent]

gman
Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Location: Used to be Grand Rapids, MI after leaving the beautiful beaches of NJ. Now it's PA.

Beautiful beaches in NJ....I am busting up!

[LexingtonPethead]

BTW- You're Michael Morons and Cindy Sheehans of the world, the Hollywood elitists, the die-hard liberals, the leftist kooks; those are the people who equate George Bush with being a nazi. They're also the same people who fought hardest to get John Kerry elected; I mean defeated!
They say that what goes on at club Gitmo, Abu Grab, or in Iraq or Afghanistan is just like what went on during Hitler's regime. Therefore Bush is Hitler.

I agree. And I'll simply add that every die-hard, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberal I've ever seen aligns itself squarely with the democratic party. The democratic party is a cesspool and breeding ground for anti-life, anti-Christian, pro-gay, and moral relevant ideas. Not to mention socialistic programs, big-government and class-envy that it encourages. I could go on and on.

I'm not trying to say that every democrat is like that (even though many of them - maybe even the majority of them - are). As Enosh correctly pointed out, many are simply ignorant of the facts and don't realize what they are endorsing (unknowingly). This may be brash, but so be it: many democrats are... (there's no nice way to put it) too stupid to understand how vile the democratic party is these days and will continue to vote in lock step no matter what. That's why I say once a democrat becomes a Christian, they next thing that usually happens is that they become Republicans because only God can open these people's eyes.

Any more questions about what constitutes a liberal?

Now... is someone going to roast me? MatthewRJ?

[gman]

gman
Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Location: Used to be Grand Rapids, MI after leaving the beautiful beaches of NJ. Now it's PA.

Beautiful beaches in NJ....I am busting up!

Absolutely! It doesn't get much better than the Jersey Shore in the summertime. Just like all other coastal states from there on down, it's full of morons who thought it would be a good idea to take up residence on a barrier island.
The Boardwalk, arcades, surfin, getting a tan, swimming in the ocean, cheese fries and lemonade, caramel corn, pizza! The beaches are quite nice. Even more so if you can eliminate some of the tourists.
It didn't me long in Michigan to think to myself, compared to the Jersey Shore, there's nothing to do here. Especially late at night on the weekends.
I will say that moving to PA and going back to NJ in the summer was like culture shock for the first few times. It's definitely part of the melting pot of America, and the accent is thick.

[charl]

I see there are two major schools of liberalism when it comes to politics here in North America (religious liberalism is another issue).

There is a more classical liberalism, which felt very strongly the christian ethic of charity and a moral responsibility to others. They especially felt a responsibility to be the voice of the common person, and that government should work for the good of all, not simply a wealthy elite (see Douglas' 'mouseland').

Then there is a newer form of liberalism, which is in some ways, morally libertarian-but also more authoritarian. their concern is less about the common man and more about special interest groups who they feel are not given a voice due to their size. This arose mostly out of the turmoil of the sixties--I think that as the more classical liberalism lost it's christian base, it began to degenerate into this later form. Personal autonomy is a big part of it.
As I said earlier, the fact that liberalism is now the 'old guard' has also changed it's face. Now, as always, those in power will attempt to silence dissentors. So the tables have turned in that regard.
However, there are still a number of people who think as classical liberals, and conservativism (as we call the right) fares little better as a choice, as often their goal is also personal autonomy and affluence (just as the liberals).

Maybe the humanist concept of personal autonomy being the greatest virtue is the real problem here...? This invades both parties, and every sector of our society.

BTW- You're Michael Morons and Cindy Sheehans of the world, the Hollywood elitists, the die-hard liberals, the leftist kooks; those are the people who equate George Bush with being a nazi. They're also the same people who fought hardest to get John Kerry elected; I mean defeated! They say that what goes on at club Gitmo, Abu Grab, or in Iraq or Afghanistan is just like what went on during Hitler's regime. Therefore Bush is Hitler.

And the conservatives are trying to compare him to Churchill. What's the difference? Both are incorrect and really political grandstanding. Sitting there discussing how awful and horrible the other side is does not foster debate, nor respectful disagreement. These people, no matter how wrong they may be, are humans made in the image of God. Think about this.

This I think is one of the true dangers of Christians in politics. Yes matthew RJ, I do see your point-though I find this is one of those things where one must walk a very fine line.
I do think we should be involved in politics-and in fact every facet of life-as Christians, but when does it turn into an 'us-and-them' 'get one up on the other side' mentality? This is not the mind of Christ. Nor is it correct to say that someone is okay just because they are on the same political side as you. I have heard that Mormons are making a great push in this direction.
I actually feel sorry for Bush and all the flack he has taken, but he hardly helps his case with me when he says Christians and Muslims worship the same God, or other such statements. This doesn't make me think 'wow what a great Christian leader'. It is wrong to associate American civil religion with Christianity, and though I don't think many christians want to do this, they are unwittingly travelling down this road-and doomed to fail, as the civil religion has increasingly become an eastern based spiritualism. If we aren't making disciples, who is?

If we would just push the 11 commandments (the original Jewish 10 + Love in the NT) then only let the government do what it was supposed to do (handle trade, provide for the common defense, etc and stay out of our lives otherwise) then we would be ok.

I see a number of problems with this statement. First of all, there are only ten commandments. If you really think 'love' is an amendment, please go back and read the original ten. Jesus said love for God and then one's neighbour is the SUM of the law. Remember when we learned math in school, we did addition, also called sums? Jesus was saying 'add all the laws up and they will equal love.' not, 'add love to them.' Torah is full of God's love, and the command for us to also love.

Secondly, this really is the heart of the personal autonomy argument I mentioned earlier. The only political party I find it odd to see Christians a part of is the libertarian party. Jesus did not command 'live and let live' he commanded us to preach the gospel, an offence. Personal peace and affluence is not a goal, and if it is an enemy to the gospel, it is our enemy.

lastly, if Adam had never disobeyed God, then we'd be okay. However he did disobey, and we now must deal with the aftermath-both in others and in our own flesh. We are desperately wicked. How will we who are evil make a system that runs along nicely? The reason we have government is because we'd have utter chaos and hell on earth if we didn't. Contrary to the humanism which has caused both the live and let live mentality and this current political polarization, we don't believe man is basically good or capable of doing as he pleases with a good end result.

whew!

[brent]

gman
Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Location: Used to be Grand Rapids, MI after leaving the beautiful beaches of NJ. Now it's PA.

Beautiful beaches in NJ....I am busting up!

Absolutely! It doesn't get much better than the Jersey Shore in the summertime. Just like all other coastal states from there on down, it's full of morons who thought it would be a good idea to take up residence on a barrier island.
The Boardwalk, arcades, surfin, getting a tan, swimming in the ocean, cheese fries and lemonade, caramel corn, pizza! The beaches are quite nice. Even more so if you can eliminate some of the tourists.
It didn't me long in Michigan to think to myself, compared to the Jersey Shore, there's nothing to do here. Especially late at night on the weekends.
I will say that moving to PA and going back to NJ in the summer was like culture shock for the first few times. It's definitely part of the melting pot of America, and the accent is thick.

The last time I was there, I was touring with a band that played at all of the Six Flags outdoor theaters. (Which was cool because after soundcheck, we got an armed escort to the very front of any line that we wanted to be in.) We did some walking around, and found some great record shops, which were selling then legal bootlegs of Springstein like crazy. Good music scene there.

[gman]

Excellent music scene there. Some of America's best in the modern era has come from that neck of the woods.
I love to listen to Bruce and Billy. Burlap to Cashmere was awesome too, while they lasted. I'm a big sucker for Bon Jovi as well. Honestly, I think they have tremendous talent and are head and shoulders above many others. They have to be to be able to come out of the 80's and still do it at the level they're at.
Although, to take the discussion back towards where it was, I was a little disappointed to hear that they came out in support of John Kerry. Their music kicks tail, and they seem like some guys who could get fired up and kick a little tail. You would think, being from that area, and playing in NYC so much, they would be one group to understand the fight we need to put up, and they would support the president. I'd like to think they are not among the Bush haters, but among those who honestly think we shouldn't have messed with Iraq and were honestly led to believe that John Kerry would have kept us focused on the real war on terror and managed it better. Even though he's a cut and run, anti-war liberal, and has always voted that way.

Oh, as for old school liberals being in line with the Christian principles of helping others, I think they got the Gov't involved in society in ways that were never intended. I could be wrong, but I don't think the bible really teaches that it is the Gov'ts role to do those things. It's our role. I think at some point the church at large in America failed to set itself up as the entity to take care of those things. I don't believe that the Gov'ts involvement has been beneficial in the long run. It's sort of like the billions we throw at third world countries. It makes us feel good, but doesn't solve the problems.

[charl]

Oh, as for old school liberals being in line with the Christian principles of helping others, I think they got the Gov't involved in society in ways that were never intended. I could be wrong, but I don't think the bible really teaches that it is the Gov'ts role to do those things. It's our role.

Torah does teach this.

We make up 'the people' do we not? "As a man thinks, so is he"-we will govern according to our moral principles. If they are Christian, this means we will build a society dedicated to human rights, helping the weak, caring for the sick. All of these concepts come out of countries founded on a strong Christian world view-for all people possess the imago dei according to this view.
Suppose William Wilberforce and other abolitionists had said "well I won't have slaves, and I hope other Christians don't have slaves" but did nothing to change the law? We would still be living with the institution of slavery.
Social action is much older than liberalism. And the conservatives seem to have no problem with it when it comes to legislating laws against things such as abortion (and might I add they are correct in trying to do this-though some methods leave something to be desired).

I do not think redeeming the times is wrong, even if those methods used were misguided. If anything, they are cautionary-we can learn from their mistakes. The problem is not with governing non-christians with laws based on a christian world view (because this gives them more freedom anyway), but rather expecting that they will BE christians because of it, or because they share some of those views. As I said, this is a fine line, and something I think every Christian must think about, especially in these days of polarization.


As for the article, yes one must be wary of both regalism and of idolatry in the form of nationalism. Please see WWI for the unhappy results of nationalistic furvor taken to extreme. Though all governments are ultimately appointed by God, and therefore 'under' him, this does not mean we can begin to equate the two. We must not become fatalistic either, believing that everything the state does is God's will and so do nothing against it.
It is interesting to note that the concept of seperation of church and state is uniquely western christian. That is the tradition from which we come. And the longest word in the English language is related to it: antidisestablishmentarianism.

[executioner]

Whats wrong with having the American Flag and Also your state flag(which in my case is Texas) in your church?

[LexingtonPethead]

If you read the article closely, it says there is nothing wrong with having a national flag in a church (c/o very first sentence) ... but ... there is a danger involved. The danger is called idolatry because the human heart is depraved and prone to wickedness. It's not just an American thing, it applies to any nation.

Oh come on. Almost sounds like you're looking for a demon under every rock. Like someone is really going to start worshipping the American flag just because it might be displayed in a church.