From one who is a Catholic Christian, it should always have been this way.

Posted by: O Koropecky | October 18, 2007 3:46 PM

Oh, but wait- Conservative Evangelicals don't harp on Abortion & Homosexuality? Why, just ask the ones who hang around here! *chuckle*

Unfortunately, my real-life day-to-day expereinces have proven very different. 0.o

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 18, 2007 4:08 PM

Kevin,

I can't speak for all of us, but I seem to recall that the last several months I have been posting here mainly on:

S-CHIP
Iraq
Illegal immigration

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been weeks, maybe months, since I've posted on homosexuality or abortion.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 18, 2007 4:28 PM

Yes, finally, many Christian voters are realizing that Jesus never called upon us to actually do anything for the least among us OURSELVES! Clearly, the message of Christ is, "There are poor people out there. Go out and find people who have more resources than you and demand that THEY use THEIR resources to help the poor. And if a man asks for your cloak, go quickly and find someone who has an extra one and demand they give it to him. That way, you can keep yours." We are to feed the hungry, not by giving them OUR food, but by demanding that other people give theirs. Clearly, Christ intended for us to vote for politicians who will use punitive taxes to "redistribute" wealth. That way, we, the Christians, can save OUR money for a down payment on that new hybrid. Yes, the message of Christ is finally being heard.

Posted by: Brad | October 18, 2007 4:41 PM

While I welcome all to the correct side of all the issues mentioned here I am cautious.
I really wonder how they came to this epiphany. I have never been confused about these issues and I do not have the benefit of an advanced degree or the contacts that these people have had.
I would guess their education and contacts were not in the proper direction or social circles.
In short, a day late and a dollar short. I simply don’t believe him. He will change again as needed. A wind or power shift.

Posted by: Terry E Hofslund | October 18, 2007 5:54 PM

I am a liberal progressive left-wing Christian revolutionary who never swilled the Dumya Flavor-Ade. Turdblossom Rove outrageously and embarrassingly used ill-informed naive Christian right, who willfully on heard what they wanted to hear of Rove's tripe about traditional family values and the liberal war on Christian culture. As far as many on the Christian right are concerned, the crusade to put a man of God into the Oval Office was all about the preservation of heterosexual marriage and the criminalization of abortion. AIDS was the wrath of God on all those who abused themselves with their own kind. Many of them were never and will never be in an economic position to benefit from the mantra of the political hegemony and oligarchy of the GOP and the military industrial corporate complex. Now, as fate would have it, America has come to discover that a goodly percentage of the God-fearing GOP have been perversely more than sexual predators. To the consternation of the church, many of its most publicly sanctimonious members turned out to be the greatest hypocrites and sinners. Neither the politicians nor the preacher pimps who presumed to whore Christ's Bride, the Church, to the beast of the state, have behaved in a Christ-like manner or exhibited Christian love and compassion. Now, having been savagely abused and dismissed by the beast, the Christian right who has played the whore wants to return to her Husband, as is reflective of the statical shift away from Dumya and the GOP. The Lord is not pleased, and the rest of us who knew Dumya was turnip all along are not amused.

Posted by: rage | October 18, 2007 6:37 PM

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been weeks, maybe months, since I've posted on homosexuality or abortion."
Wolverine

And Wolverine, don't think it hasn't been appreciated.

Just joking.

The subjects of homosexuality and abortion have come up recently though. The Ann Coulter post and the Tony Campolo vs. Stan Guthrie are the latest I think, and they ran into the last weekend.

Actually I am quite surprised by recent events in the evangelical movement along these lines. I hope every side does its best to talk and understand each other.

Posted by: wayne | October 18, 2007 7:28 PM

Nice job on the CBS news Jim. Katie, I'm sure got a grin out of your comments. However, your election as spokesman for evangelicals was overdone, not that CBS would note. The polls quoted are suspect and your paintbrush too narrow. You may not agree with Land, but my guess is that he is more mainstream with the Christian right than you and Katie give him credit for. We will have to wait and see. My oh my, there are some caustic comments posted here, I assume from Christians. Sunday morning only????

Posted by: John Pyle | October 18, 2007 7:41 PM

If we get a little more discernment, taking off the ideological blinders, we will be able to see that sometimes we end up assigning too much influence to the "agent provacateurs" among us, who stir things up and succeed in driving us apart by appeals to extremism and creating polarization by emphasizing negative emotions that drive out reason - as well as God's Spirit.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 18, 2007 9:05 PM

jim; when was evangelical activism not publicly visible? who, besides you, said that evangelical christians were not interested in global warming, poverty, human rights, social justice, human life and dignity?

Jerry -- Puh-leeze! I remember the time when people laughed you out of town if you brought these things up in evangelical churches, which I occasionally did. If you watched Christian TV or listened to Christian radio, especially in the 1980s, you never heard this stuff being addressed.

As Christians we need to come off it and start doing what Jesus Christ asked us to do. If we stop our sins and turn to God, He will heal our nation. Otherwise we go the way of ancient Rome and Sodom.

Sorry, but it already has -- and besides, saving society so that we can live in it is not the Christian's primary goal. God calls us Christians into a new way of thinking and living; it's that different mentality and lifestyle that brings people to the Savior.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 18, 2007 10:06 PM

I can't say I'm impressed with any of this, especially the greeny-come-lately evangelicals, repented from their nearly two decades of environmental holocaust denial. Try telling the truth about 9/11: It was an inside job. Now THAT might impress Jesus enough to consider saving us.

Posted by: David McIntosh | October 18, 2007 10:19 PM

I grew up in conservative christiondom. I'm sorry Sojo, but conservative Christians have been taking care of the earth long before it has become a popular buzz topic with liberals. Conservative christians are the ones that have farms, gardens, cows, and give their crops, milk, and meat to their neighbors. Conservative Christians are the ones that sew on a patch instead of buying a new pair of pants. Conservative Christians are the ones that car pool to church. Conservative Christians make homemade stuff. Could people stop acting like conservative christians waste away the earth? Just because they don't make big deals about or join the latest political bandwagon. They just value life over the earth and don't want to put the earth over God.

Posted by: jorge | October 18, 2007 10:31 PM

Are some things more wrong than others? Apart from sin (where the least sin separates from God as much as the greatest), are some things more wrong than others?
Is intolerance or homophobia as bad as allowing children to die from not receiving medicines or from bad water?
Is the murder of the innocent worse than the murder of criminals? I believe that both are bad and I agree wholeheartedly with a consistent ethic of life, but I wonder whether or not some social evils do actually deserve more priority from Christians than others.
Even if we accept a broad agenda (which I'm entirely in favour of) it doesn't mean that all items on the agenda merit equal weight.
Nor does it mean that a politician who can tick off more boxes on the agenda, but not the most important ones, is worthy of support.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 18, 2007 10:43 PM

Trent, Let me address a couple of issues:

Intolerance is something that is projected upon Conservatives by the left, not something that uphold. Opposing special rights is quite different than being intollerant.

Conservatives have NEVER wanted to allow children to die, whether from lack of medicine, bad water or anything else! Again, you're painting us to be boogie men.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is "ratsach" which means, "To murder, slay, kill." The word God uses when he requires the life of murderers to be taken is "muwth" which means, "To die (as penalty), be put to death." I am not parsing words here, simply pointing out that capital punishment is sanctioned by God and is in no way similar to the murder of the innocent.

Posted by: Brad | October 18, 2007 11:07 PM

Brad,
Glad to see you using the Hebrew. That makes my heart happy. Capital punishment is sanctioned by God and the state. Actually according to God no one is truly innocent or free from sin. All deserve death. But taking a life is wrong because it is seen as theft.

My point is that are as Christians followers of the Law or grace? The Law is very clear about how we should treat murderers and others. But we seem to pick and choose which laws we follow. None of us would sit back and stone a child for being disrespectful even though the old testament tells us to. How many of us eat pork? How many of us wear or have worn polyester even though the bible tells us not to wear multi blended clothes.

My point is that the Law leads to death and we should run from it. We are not jews.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 18, 2007 11:26 PM

Terry,

Amen.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 18, 2007 11:30 PM

payshun, I agree that we live under grace and not under the law. However, capital punishment is sanctioned by God in the New Testament as well. (Romans 13) My use of the Hebrew was not say that we live under the law, but to show that the Bible clearly differentiates between murder and capital punishment. Furthermore, the Old Testament is not thrown out as a result of the New Testament.

Posted by: Brad | October 18, 2007 11:41 PM

Brad,
I also find your attempt to use Romans 13 to support God's supprt of capital punishment a weak argument at best.
Romans 13 suggests we should live under the governing authorities and that these authorities have no authority apart from God. That doesn't mean that all governing authorities are good, or that their actions are always right (I'm sure you could think of many nations todays whose governing authorities take actions and have laws that are not in line with God's will).
And the relationship of the Christian to the government is peculiar in democracies. In a very real sense the governing authorities of a democracy are the people themselves. So then we don't just submit to the governing authorities but we are the governing authorities and politicians are not our leaders, they are our representatives. We share in responsibility for what they do and don't do. We cannot sidestep that responsibility by appealing to their 'governing authority.'

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 19, 2007 12:05 AM

"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
Bernard Baruch.

I agree with you Brad that both liberals and conservatives can be intolerant. Both have been intolerant even in these posts.

But it's not intolerance to point out that the vast majority of the global warming deniers have been wrong in their facts.

Be Blessed and 'avagooweegen'

Posted by: Trent | October 19, 2007 1:12 AM

Brad,

I never said the old testament is thrown out because of the new just that Christians should not be using the law of Moses to create social policy.

Ezekiel is one of the most important books of the bible. In my life only the gospels (particularly John) have had a bigger influence on relationship w/ Jesus. I love the prophets but I find that those that cling to the law die by it. That's my point.

Ezekiel and many of the other prophets ie Hosea, Jonah, Habbakkuk were uncovential in their relationships w/ God and they serve as a much more comprehensive template for real relationship w/ God then many parts of the new testament. That's why they are so important. They show flawed humanity interacting w/ God in God's way. They were not especially bound by the law even though many of them loved it. They saw the Law in it's proper context.

They are the foundation of Jesus' ministry. W/o them there would be no new testament. So by no means do I throw out the old but instead focus on the parts that bring life, discipline and healing.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 19, 2007 1:59 AM

I am so pleased and grateful to learn that many more evangelical Christians are recognizing that there is much more to supporting morality than abortion and homosexuality. I have been concerned for quite awhile that the public or popular image of Christianity is one of hate and exclusion and I don't believe that is true or accurate. Above all, Christ Jesus gave us the most perfect example of deeply loving all of God's creation, including man. The way to encourage change is through love and principle. I am grateful to learn that more people are more broadly defining moral issues.

Posted by: Jennifer | October 19, 2007 9:06 AM

A few others have made points which would require follow-up (inerrancy, etc...) but you have left my original premise intact.

I don't see how. As I mentioned, most modern supporters of capital punishment aren't at all interested in justice, only in retribution. There's a difference in saying that "the Bible supports capital punishment [full stop]" and "the Bible supports capital punishment under certain circumstances." The latter is correct.

Just click on any of the threads on this very blog about global warming and read the vitriol that is spewed against those who point out the gaping holes in the hypothesis, or who point out that the leaders of the green movement are making MILLIONS while refusing to alter their personal lifestyles.

As I mentioned, the anti-global-warming folks often have a stake, primarily financial, in trying to disprove it; their criticisms are funded by a small group of wealthy right-wing financiers, one of which lives in my city. I would say that most people on the other side understand that, which is why there's so much "vitriol."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 19, 2007 10:30 AM

rick; i enjoy reading your stuff. but you do use a lot of - "most people", "most modern supporters of capital punishment are not at all interested in justice",..."when most people talk it usually denotes...", and there is a lot more. but what i see here is your major bias against conservative thinking based on what you think other people think. hhmmmmmmmm. let me think. now if i thought that what you think i think i thought, then maybe you would be right.
thanks trent; for the baruch statement. unfortunately if we all waited to get all the facts and verified them, before we acted, i'm not sure anything would get done. sooooooo....the man in charge gets to make the final decision based on what facts he thinks he has. and something gets done. running on hypotheses does not cut it.
ie; g w and evolution.

Posted by: jerry | October 19, 2007 12:04 PM

Interesting post, Pearl.
We need to be honest about the fact that ever since day one Christianity has "baptized" elements of the surrounding culture and included them in their religion. Christmas, for example. The fact that we celebrate Christmas how and when we do is a "baptizing" of pagan practice. Scholars tell us that Jesus was most likely not born in the winter, but Christianity took December 25 as Jesus' birthday in order to reframe the pagan and Roman solstice/Saturnalia holiday. The greenery, candles, gift giving and parties that most Christians and many churches use are straight out of that pagan and Roman celebration. The fact is that Jesus is not the "reason for the season", at least not the season as we know and celebrate it. Re. Christmas trees, another pagan solstice practice, tradition says that Martin Luther was the first to use a Christmas tree in church, and that goes back about 450 years. Do I think there's anything wrong with all of that? Absolutely not. During the Christmas season, there are many who hear the story of the Incarnation who never hear about Jesus any other time. Besides, I like the cookies!

When it comes to some other practices that have become much more popular the last 10 years, I agree with you--sorta. Your language is, to my taste, far too judgmental and dramatic, but I think you're onto something. There is a movement afoot in current conservative evangelical Christianity, referred to often as "seeker-friendly", with Willow Creek as a model. My concern is that it takes the "offense" out the Gospel--the apostle Paul talks about how the Gospel is an "offense"--and that it dumbs down Christianity. To me the "chanting" you refer to, which I suppose is about the "praise and worship" music that's so popular now (some of which I rather like), isn't "pagan chanting" as you judge it, but rather it's dumbed-down and often theologically vapid, a far cry from "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" and "Just As I Am", IMHO. My dad calls them "7-11" choruses--the same 7 words, repeated 11 times. That's not true of all of them, but it is of some.

My biggest concern is the way conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity has "baptized", and some would say hijacked, the Republican party, and has made being "Republican/conservative" synonymous with "Christian", to the point where some folks sincerely believe that a person can't be both politically liberal and a Chrstian, and have said so on various b-net blog posts. That, I believe, seriously, is the devil's triumph. There are countless people who refuse to listen to the Gospel for that very reason. Not good!

Posted by: Andy | October 19, 2007 12:34 PM

It's no service to Christianity to try to make it out to be synonymous with denying global warming.

We could end up with a far greater "Galileo Effect" where Christianity gets completely identified with stupidity and ignorance, discrediting
Christian influence.

I do not believe any of those averring that global warming is a false myth actually can prove that is so. Nor is being against a global warming hypothesis have any scriptural basis whatsover. In fact there is even less basis for that position than was marshalled against Galileo, which ought to give Christians pause. That mistake still causes people to reject consideration of the truth of Christianity, centuries later.

Therefore, those who aren't personally convinced ought to be very careful of identifying their opinion on this issue as peculiarly or essentially Christian.

In any case, acting as good stewards of life on this Earth ought to be a central Christian concern - and that is the case regardless of opinions about global warming.

What has happened is that as a majority of those identified as Christian aligned themselves with the politics of the Republican Party, which is not a Christian organization but a purely political one, they have aligned themselves with the political agendas of others in the Republican tent - notably corporate donors, military contractors, country club dynasties and others who do not share Christian concerns.

This is a real danger, as large as the one for those who now argue similarly from the "left" rather than the "right."

This is the very fulfillment of being co-opted and losing the prophetic voice of conscience and ability to act on it that is the radical one that Jesus envisioned.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 19, 2007 1:25 PM

Sorry, Mick, but Jorge is a bit off-base. If you grow up in rural America what he said might be the case; however, more "evangelical Christians" today live in the 'burbs and thus maintain a sense of entitlement and don't want their basic beliefs challenged. They're the ones that fund Christian TV and radio, for example, keeping the likes of James Dobson afloat.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 19, 2007 1:55 PM

Jorge, I have to say that what you're saying is true, but irrelevant. Yes, conservative Christians do the things you listed, but so do many different kinds of people, many of whom would freak if you called them "conservative Christians". When my parents were kids, they did those things not because of their religious beliefs, but because, like everyone else, they had to! Some may do those things because they're Christians, yes, but most folks, Christian or not, do those things just because they believe it's the right thing to do and they enjoy doing it!

On the other hand, I've been around some, in the conservative/evangelical world, and I'm am sad to say that as devout as most of those folks are, the vast majority of those I've met were just as materialistic, wasteful and "non-green" as everyone else, perhaps a little more so.

I also think of our good friend Ann Coulter, who claims to be a Christian and is looked up to by numerous conservative Christians, who is recorded to have said things encouraging people to use and even rape the earth.

Posted by: Andy | October 19, 2007 2:12 PM

Consider this, Brad: there are three classical purposes of punishment (1) deterrence (2) rehabilitation and (3) retribution. Regarding capital punishment (CP) many are the debates about whether it is a deterrent, and it clearly is no means of rehabilitation. The point I want to make concerns retribution. The same OT that you cite for your position on CP also says, in various tones, "revenge belongs to God". While for God it is legitimate, revenge, for the human being, is the lower road of retribution. The idea behind retribution is the appeasement of the wronged party. And appeasement can be accomplished by means other than revenge. Indeed, for the Christian, and for those wanting a "Christian society" whatever that is, appeasement is accomplished, not by the Lex Talionis, (which itself was a mitigation of something worse) but by the means of grace, ultimately, which says, "I do not need to hurt you back in order for me to be happy". It is precisely one of the reasons Jesus allowed the woman caught red-handed to go free without a stoning, and why you and I are alive today to write and read all these great arguments!

Posted by: Michael Friday | October 19, 2007 2:33 PM

Brad:

Show me where in Romans 13 that it calls upon Christians to participate in the so-called ahtority of the state in retribution.

Show me anywhere in the NT, where Yahweh started as war that he expects his people to support.

And read Romans 13 in the context of the end of Romans 12- which talks about non-retribution, and consider how the tetual and historical context affects how it's read.

I'd add more- MUCH more- but Sojo seems to be blocking stuff again, so I'll leave you with those for now. My main contention is that you misunderstand Roamns 13 in context.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 19, 2007 2:40 PM

Well since my rushed, poorly typed response to Brad actually got through, I have some other stuff to add:

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' 8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Titus 3:1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. 18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

And here's Romans 13 in context:

Romans 12:12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 13: 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

All of the above have the following in common:

-They are talking about a secular, pagan authority.

-They require Christians imitate Christ in loving non-retribution (and to NOT be like those in authority!)

-They do not call for political action on the part of Christians to b involved in supporting retribution.

Therefore, I would have to call use of Romans 13 as a political pro-war, pro Capital punishment platform to be out of context.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 19, 2007 3:03 PM

...the basis for your argument is, "most people think..." I would ask, "What people? Where do you get your information?"

From various sources -- newspapers, magazines, TV news, personal interviews and the like. (I'm a media person, so I have a good idea of what sources I can trust.)

The "environmental movement" is not so much about "saving the planet" as it is about controlling other people's lives. If you doubt that the environmental extremists are intolerant, just read what they say about this post.

With all due respect, you come across as extreme as (and perhaps even more so than) the people you criticize -- and that's what people react to. When "Christian environmentalism" got started in the 1990s or thereabouts conservatives generally ignored it; the ones that didn't denounced it. (I used to receive a magazine called "Green Cross" through Evangelicals for Social Action.)

It is precisely one of the reasons Jesus allowed the woman caught red-handed to go free without a stoning, and why you and I are alive today to write and read all these great arguments!

Actually, Michael, Mosaic Law would have been broken had he allowed her to be stoned. Remember, her alleged "partner" was never produced; to watch people even having sex, even inappropriately, was itself verboten; and she was brought into the temple while ceremonially unclean.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 19, 2007 3:11 PM

By the time I slog my way through all this blog blather, I have to scroll back up to the top to remember what the original essay was about.
Bleeach!
Conrad Steinhoff

Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | October 19, 2007 3:40 PM

And, by the way, to those for whom it matters, I am very happy that at long last, somebody will remind ALL Christians that sanctity of life issues include a wide swath of matters not limited to abortion.

It has long mattered to me.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 19, 2007 4:07 PM

Doug, Rick Nowlin and others have been giving you documented examples of lying so-called "conservatives" right here on this board for the past several months, so don't bother telling us that you would welcome a dialogue. You have dismissed each and every example presented to you in the past.

I have a challenge for you, Doug. You claim that the mainstream media has been discredited "long ago". By whom? Don't say Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Anyone can make a claim without citing sources. Give me some documented evidence from recognized sources that include citations and bibliographies that we can check up on. Give us irrefutable evidence--not hearsay--that we shouldn't trust the media, that the media has lied or distorted facts.

I think if you take a deep look, it's the conservative so-called media that distort facts. They are the ones who have honed the ad hominem to an art form.

And by the way, I don't think moveon.org even tries to pretend that they're "media," unlike "conservative" advocacy groups.
Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 19, 2007 7:24 PM

Doug,

How about the smear campaign surrounding Graeme Frost? You know the kid that the right slammed as rich when he was not. Rush (the fool) Limbaugh lied and kept lying even though many other sources including Mitch Mc Connel's office cleared the Frost family and said they were legit.

You are blind and I mean really blind. I have to ask what did we liberals lie about? You got me curious. Oh and I have another question can you confess lies conservatives spewed (like any of the lies this President said?)

Go ahead I am waiting.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 19, 2007 8:22 PM

I received a message today from someone I respect alleging that there is a group that has been granted a hearing by the FCC on a petition that would stop the reading of the Gospel on the airwaves of America. I did not sign the petition, but I went back to it and answered the person as follows:
"Sorry, but I don't beleve this can happen. Someone is trying to raise everyone's fear and distract us from the real issues. They cannot repeal freedom of religion or speech. . . .
I think with the elections coming up, someone is afraid that some people are starting to look at issues other than abortion and homosexuality. There is a split among these people and this may be an attempt to bring them together again."
Does anyone knowwhere this comes from? Am I right? They had nearly 1000 signatures.

Posted by: kayfromks | October 19, 2007 9:26 PM

Posted by: kayfromks | October 19, 2007 9:26 PM

I believe that you are correct - this e-mail apeal for signatures is false. But lets not forget that Nancy, Harry and all are talking about the fairness doc. again.

They are pissed off that Air America did not make it. Well - it's commerical radio, if no one is listening - you can't sell advertizing. No ads mean no income - no income means no payroll. Does not get any simpler than that my friend.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 19, 2007 10:38 PM

Richard Land....a christian? Ho Ho, that's rich. The whole lying & distorting machine that was evident at every turn in the takeover of the SBC was not just immoral, but amoral. It was politics with a very small 'p' that was doing a misdeed of vice proportions. And James Draper a SBC President when his intent with education was to dignify his preconceived literalism & stupidity. My reference point? How he tried to intimidate teachers in classes which I had with him 50 years ago. And the trife of 'intelligent design' discredited by Judge Jones in his Dover decision now takes up so much space at Southern Seminary in Louisville & Baylor U. at Waco, TX. What a travesty & needless PR work when I'd rather do something else.

Now, Eric Printz & his Blackwater empire of mercenaries which began with James Dobson support is worse than just unchristian: too much to enumerate here, but Bill Moyer's Journal of Friday Oct. 19 '07 on PBS forces one to think of this country differently than he'd like. And Blackwater has already morphed into other names in Caribbean, etc. This is happening from the privatizing of everything, including the military, that began with Reagan & is rife upon the land, but in OUR names? No, thank you! We must do something if there is anything left to claim, and this was with the dollar dropping to its lowest worth point in 60 years this week. This is crazy, and don't think the world doesn't know it. Pooh-bah christianity doesn't speak for us per se, but it does require that isolate this garbage from ourselves.

Posted by: Arden C. Hander | October 20, 2007 10:52 AM

Moderatelad wrote:

They are pissed off that Air America did not make it. Well - it's commerical radio, if no one is listening - you can't sell advertizing. No ads mean no income - no income means no payroll. Does not get any simpler than that my friend.

Do you really think that's how the radio industry works?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 20, 2007 2:28 PM

Brad wrote:

Kevin, I must say that it is refreshing to see someone on this blog at least reference scripture,

Thank-you. But most of the time when Conservatives reference scripture on this blog, it's to gross misuse and abuse.

even if I believe that your are taking it out of context

I don't beleive that is the case. Perhaps you misundestand what I'm saying, but I believe Iactually have provided the context and exegeted correctly.

(as I am sure you believe that I am doing.)Let me just say, I never mentioned "war" so I'm not sure where you thought I was using Rom 13 to promote war.

I assumed you were talking about a Nation's right to exact punsihment, yes?

I maintain that God clearly differentiates between murder and capital punishment

In OT Israeli Protocol, yes. In Post-Sermon On The Mount ethics for the Christian, no.

(see my above post regarding the Hebrew words used.)

I saw that. Actually you should re-check your information, and go over how the word is used in Numbers 35. You'll find ratsach is used both ways:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=nu&number=07523&count=14&version=kjv

You are correct that vengeance belongs to God and as you pointed out, Romans 13 says of the authority of Government, "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." The operative phrase being "God's servant, an agent of wrath."

But there's no argument here. except to point out that it doesn't necessarily prescribe the method by which punishment is done. Not all force is leathal. And in any case, it doesn't answer what a Christian's political position should be.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 20, 2007 2:59 PM

That's precisely how it works

You are SO naive. Think "corporate backing."

Pagan authority is not called out here. It does not say government are be instruments of justice, but only if they are rebelling against God.

Which is not what I said, but oh well...

That doesn't make any sense. There are no other specific verses which provide directives only for the Godless, so why would you assume that is what Paul is doing here?

Because he's not "providing a directive" for the governemnt, but merely stating a fact.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 20, 2007 3:05 PM

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 20, 2007 2:28 PM

Do you really think that's how the radio industry works?

If I am in error - please let me know. But I believe that is how commercial radio works. When I work with a group to purchase ad time - we weighed the cost of the ad and their listenership to get the best bang for the buck.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 20, 2007 11:12 PM

It is precisely why you are a media person that you believe the way you do. Exactly what sources can you trust? I sure hope it is not any of the mainstream media, media matters or moveon.org.

I do trust the mainstream media precisely because I'm in it -- I know from personal experience that we check, double-check and triple-check our facts and interpretations with editors on top of editors before publishing anything. I trust Media Matters because it does the same thing; everything it posts on its site is well-documented.

Any liberal out there if I am wrong in my beliefs please document an actual case where a conservative has distorted the facts or lied in any way. Then we can have a dialouge. I look forward to the responses.

I don't have the time to go through all of them, but to give just one example: Back in the early 1990s I heard, first on a Christian radio station, about a California custody case; a judge had awarded custody of a 16-year-old boy to his late father's homosexual lover as opposed to his "fundamentalist Christian mother." What was left out of the story (but I learned elsewhere) was that the judge in the case asked the boy for his opinion.

It is certain that the "conservative" media is assuredly not the corrective counterweight to the "liberal" media that they claim to be.

That's putting it mildly. In fact, they are part of what I call the "conservative apparatus" that was started in the 1950s and that is basically on welfare from a few wealthy conservatives. Did you notice that virtually none of them actually make money? Only the Fox News Channel turns a profit and that only recently.

To give an example, do you remember the "Vince-Foster-may-have-been-murdered" non-story that was debunked on "60 Minutes" back in 1995? Well, it was originally published in the right-wing paper in my city and spread through other right-wing journalistic outlets and talk radio, even though it was false. (BTW, it was the editorial page editor of that same paper whom Teresa Heinz Kerry told to "shove it" -- because he outright lies for it.)

It is for the purpose of restricting conservative broadcasting by forcing stations to give equal time to opposing viewpoints related to controversial issues.

Reagan actually repealed it in 1987. You don't have right-wing talk radio in the first place with it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 21, 2007 5:46 PM

Correct, which is why liberals in Congress tried to reinstate it.

And I wouldn't mind if they did. The right wing has been lying and distorting all that time and I want to see it stopped. For once, Rush, Neil, Bill and others of that ilk will be directly taken to task for the falsehoods they promote on the air -- and they won't be able to take it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 21, 2007 7:12 PM

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 21, 2007 7:52 PM

any number of ways -

Lower overhead
Nich market
Your 90% automated

But cost of advertizing is based on the number of listerners to you station and the area you broadcast to. If you are only 3% - you might be a one man show. I might have several people that are on air talent that I have to pay for - you might just be purchasing programming and not have on air talent.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 21, 2007 8:13 PM

You believe the conservatism is inherenty dishonest, and you want the federal government to step in to silence conservative voices by force.

You are right in saying that I believe that conservatism is inherently dishonest, and conservatives want to silence non-conservative voices, mostly using sheer volume, wherever possible precisely because their views often do not hold up to scrutiny. After all, that's why Rush, Bill O and others hate Media Matters for America, which records everything they say and throws it back at them. That's why they don't like the "Fairness Doctrine" -- they would thus be required to hear views they can't accept.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 21, 2007 11:18 PM

You are blind and I mean really blind. I have to ask what did we liberals lie about?

1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.

2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.

3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.

4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.

5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.

6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.

7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?

8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don't protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.

9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt's mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it's lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt's mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn't have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.

10. Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Honorable Mention

11. This is a Bush recession- Liberals blame George Bush for the weak economy and say his tax cut has only made the economy worse. They point to jobs lost, the level of unemployment, the level of the financial markets and slow growth since he took office. The economy was beginning to turn around leading up to September 11, 2001. After the attack on September 11, everything changed. People did stop flying, hurting the airline industry, which in turn hurt hotels, restaurants, theme parks and tourism. There were some businesses that closed for an entire week and some in New York that never reopened. The financial markets were closed for more than a week and the financial services industry was devastated. September 11th hurt all sectors of the economy, which resulted in tens of thousands of layoffs. So how is George Bush is responsible for the poor economy? Liberals would have you forget that the attack on September 11th took place and we must never forget. George Bush is trying to revive the economy by lowering taxes. The irony here, the liberals who accuse him of hurting the economy oppose his tax cuts.

12. The banning of partial birth abortions is an assault on a woman's privacy and right to choose. A partial birth abortion is the termination of a life as a child is being born; hence the term partial birth abortion. The great divide on this issue rests with the circumstance that this procedure should be allowed. Liberals believe it should be allowed when the mother's health is in danger. Conservatives believe the procedure should only be allowed when the mother's life is in danger. Well established law states that deadly force can only be used to meet deadly force. This means that you can only use deadly force when you believe your life is in danger. If someone with the flu coughs on you, your health is danger. If someone berates you, your mental health may be in danger. If your neighbor doesn't take care of their property, it will cause you great aggravation and stress. However, there is no legal cause to use deadly force in any of these circumstances. However, liberals will allow children as they are being born to have their lives ended for the broad definition of health. Republicans tried to pass a bans on partial birth abortions with the exception of when the mother's life was in danger. However, Bill Clinton vetoed their efforts keeping in place the standard that if the health of the mother was in danger the procedure could take place. Another liberal lie with children's life as the casualty.

13. I am against the death penalty, because an innocent person may be executed. However, I am for paroling convicted felons in order to give them a second chance. Liberals say they are against the death penalty, because they fear that an innocent person may be executed. However, they argue for paroling convicted violent criminals in order to give them a second chance. There has yet to be a case where a person was given the death penalty and later found to be innocent. However- argue with a liberal and they will come up with one case. OK- so give them that one. Please be advised that there are thousands