The American Spectator

Jason| 1.9.09 @ 6:27AM

Very good point:
"One cannot read scripture without a profound appreciation of our duty to help our neighbors. But we are commanded to give, not to make others give."
More people need to understand this.

Steve| 1.9.09 @ 7:10AM

*There is no Christian politics per se, whether Left or Right.*

Okay, but if the Right suddenly began advocating the coercive theft of property from one group by another it would be (in my opinion) the duty of Christians NOT to play along.

Since the Left has as its modus operandi the forceful theft of property from one group by another group, I have always been mystified by the Catholic bishop's/Sojourner crowd's support of the Left.

Actually, I'm not mystified. It is simply a replacement of the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Man, a wearisome, age-old heresy.

Appleby| 1.9.09 @ 7:42AM

God does not aid us in robbing our neighbours.

There was a man who prayed every night OH GOD, WHEN WILL I WIN THE LOTTERY?

After five years of this fruitless prayer, one night a voice boomed from On High:

OH MAN, WHEN WILL YOU BUY A TICKET?

Ryan| 1.9.09 @ 8:21AM

One minor gripe, and I think that this is a matter of scale rather than principle.

As a Christian, my primary source for life is scripture. It is true that the Bible doesn't advocate many specific political points outside of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and Paul's admonitions to submit to governmental authority (which he did on everything other than preaching the Gospel, to the cost of his own life).

However, there are some essential principles which I HAVE to look through the light of scripture to determine. There are some of the libertarian-ish stances on things like homosexuality and adultery which, though sin, are the choice of the individual and are more of issues between the person and God, as that part of the law has essentially passed outside of its context, and the moral and eternal implications are all that remain.

However, on the issue of abortion, if I, as a Christian, am to follow scripture first and foremost, I have nothing that tells me that a child is anything but alive when it is unborn - and we must seek to preserve it if possible.

frost| 1.9.09 @ 9:05AM

Will probably regret typing this, but, after repeated references to "scripture" I admit a degree of confusion - - the Bible has been re-translated, revised, rewritten how many times? And there are so many inconsistencies in terms of chronological events, and things like the mention of reincarnation dropped (Constantinople in 500, if memory serves); plus different versions to suit the Hebrew, Roman Catholics and Protestant sensitivities -- with all those inconsistencies, how can one take a Biblical quotation seriously.
Sure, I recognize that these sentiments may upset a few folk, but, as a Deist (and Libertarian) can't help but wonder... so many quotations and positions (wars too!!) "in the Name of God"...

Todd| 1.9.09 @ 9:21AM

One of the best articles I have read about religion and politics in a long time. I particularly like this sentence, "In speaking to the sheep and goats, Christ commended those who cared for the sick and fed the hungry, not those who voted to create a social welfare agency."

The liberal mentality is that charity is the job of the government and not the individual, just take a look at Joe Biden and his embarrassingly paltry charitable donations in the past 10 years. I can see Joe at judgment day saying how many good things he did for people with his political activity and the Lord dismissing him saying depart from me for I know thee not. If you don't directly provide the charity yourself, it counts for nothing not to mention the ills of society bred by welfare dependence.

I think you are misunderstanding his point Ryan though I get where you are coming from. He is not saying we should not have any laws regarding morality (we have plenty of those for good reason) just that we should not outlaw all sinful behavior. Sure we believe homosexuality is a sin but criminalizing it is not what God intends. The state sanctifying gay marriage is entirety different issue, just as the state should not criminalize sodomy, it should not on the other hand legitimize sinful behavior through the sacred institution of marriage. Allowing civil unions is a fair compromise and we should continue to fight with everything power we have to oppose gay marriage.

Bilwick| 1.9.09 @ 9:35AM

I'm a non-believer, so as James Lileks once wrote in another context, "I don't havea god in this fight." But I often wonder how Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and other believers in the "Social Gospel" get around "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods," let alone "Thou Shalt not Steal."

Bob| 1.9.09 @ 10:02AM

Doug, I usually not a fan of articles written by Quin and others addressing religion and politics, but yours is one of the best I have seen and completely on target. I am not enamored of the power of social conservatives in the Republican party, and have the exact same objection to the lesser power of the "liberation" theologies on the left.

Perhaps the greatest threat of religion in politics is the lack of objectivity and intelligence in decision making -- again on both the left and right. Republicans continue to be much more ideological than pragmatic and that is a huge problem for those of us who want fiscal and governmental restraint. Much of this can be traced to the socons who value belief over reason in the public square.

Roy| 1.9.09 @ 11:11AM

As usual, Bob demonstrates the standard technique of claiming to be a conservative so as to bash other conservatives. I have seen plenty of evidence of the latter; damn little of the former. "Pragmatism" could be defined as choosing the best means to achieve a goal, but it tells you nothing about what the goal should be. So what goal are you trying to achieve, Bob? Aside from constantly declaring yourself superior to others, especially those who cling to guns and religion?

Starting from the premise that you're smarter than all Christians, well..umm..yeah. It is umm..not...err..umm..true, ya see, and it kinda gives the impression of somebody who is just happily blathering on on stage, unaware of just how ridiculous he looks.

Frost: reference or it didn't happen.

Ryan - I'm pretty sure Bandow didn't mean to include abortion in that category. "Abortion and homosexuality" to me is like saying "The Holocaust and unnecessary lawn-watering".

As far as the article's point, I pretty much agree. But there is a lot more to it than that. Let's say my son got sick. I would pray that he got well. I might even pray that I would win the lottery, or that some benefactor would give me enough to pay crazy sums of money for a cure to be researched. I might pray that the government would do something. That's me asking God for what I want, which I see nothing wrong with. It's when you're doing less of the asking God, and more of the political blackmail, that there is an issue. It is raw horse waste for a union representative to say they've done everything they can. So they are praying for a bailout? Are they praying even when the cameras aren't around? Do they really, in their hearts, mean it? Then why don't they accept a pay cut? Prayer is not something you do when you're still nuancing and hedging your bets. If my son was sick and I was praying for a cure, and a path opened up where I could get one but it involved heavy sacrifice on my part you better believe I'd take it.
So I'm not quite buying from these people.

I realize this isn't the main point of the article, but Bandow does say one thing which requires some elaboration. He says the "moral issues" don't necessarily have a position. This is not quite right. A Christian can have no truck with pornography. Bandow accurately says this doesn't mean we have to call for its criminalization. No, but there are a whole range of things between approval and criminalization. A Christian, in considering any of these things, must do so from the perspective that pornography is soul-killing.

This actually is true about the "religious left" as well. OK fine, so the Bible doesn't command us to establish a social welfare agency, but it does command us to help the poor. A Christian cannot argue against this duty in the course of arguing against government blather.

J David| 1.9.09 @ 12:01PM

Yeah, I can really see God's blessings being poured out on Detroit, MI, Californication, and New York, especially. God really seems to love socialism/ communism a lot 'cause it has always worked so well everywhere it has been tried(including the early Church where the Apostle Paul had to put a stop to it)usually by Godless nations, throughout history. Who needs God when the State is so much more effective?

Bigrich104| 1.9.09 @ 12:04PM

Frost, as a deist, you oughtta be embarrassed by your ignorance of the Bible. As for the "re-translated, revised, rewritten how many times? And there are so many inconsistencies in terms of chronological events, and things like the mention of reincarnation dropped (Constantinople in 500, if memory serves); " nonsense, the Bible has several legitimate translations whose differences are so trivial and tied up in Ancient Greek minutae as to be negligible...all are 100% in agreement concerning the Gospel message; there are thousands of manuscripts, copies and copies of copies, dating back to the first century and are all consistent showing that nothing has been added; as for the RC bible, they added the Apochrapha, after it was rejected at Nicene(?) as a kneejerk response to the Reformation. These books are largely ignored even by Catholics and have no real impact on the Gospel. As for the alleged inconsistencies there are scores upon scores of books debunking these charges readily available. And reincarnation? That's a new one on me...rediculous. What you have done is accept uncritically any hostile attack on the Bible you have heard because it validates your prejudices, not because they are true and produced the kind of ignorance that creates posts like your...

frost| 1.9.09 @ 12:19PM

First, seems as if Roy was chewing out Bob for little legitimate reason -- Bob wasn't knocking Christianity (in my reading of things), but was questioning some facits...
We'll cover some Bible stuff if there's time later, gotta vacuum the pool presently, if you'll excuse me - -

frost| 1.9.09 @ 12:49PM

Whew. Okay, rich... first, it was because I was brought up as an Episcopalian (acolyte, choirboy, et al.) and had read the Bible that I guess I abandoned the church to go "direct" to God -- no middle-man to tell me what/how to think...
Anyway, there are questions galore - a veritable multitude! Like, it’s been variously reported that there were more than 80 Gospels written? And only Matthew, Mark, Luke & John survived, or were allowed to be printed. The others were burned, or were supposed to have been burned, by church edict, maybe?
Not to be argumentative, but, written, retranslated, rewritten, revised and reinterpreted? In all due respect to hard core Christians, as I understand it (and, hey, I may be mistaken) the Old Testament of the Bible was written in 7th Century BC and took about 80 years to complete. Book of Daniel was supposedly written in 6th Century (12.8.9), but 3 Greek musical instruments were mentioned (3:5) which probably couldn't have happened, because Alexander-the-Great didn't conquer Babylon until 270-300 years later in 330 BC. Thus, the instruments hadn't been invented yet. Then, there was a rather large gap of 4,500 to 7,000 years between the original Hebrew and the King James (which was poetic, poorly translated, interpreted and rewritten by that committee of 47 human very fallible people 'way back in 1504, which took about 11 years to be “approved”). In addition to the Hebrew and Protestant versions, there’s also the Duoay/Roman Catholic version. Confusing. Back in 500 an earlier revision was said to have taken place (the refusal on the subject of reincarnation, 'cause the "holy-men" of that era wanted to control the unwashed masses "now" rather than have their souls continue into later...), and there may have been other occasions I don't recall... Anyway, I read that Deuteronomy, like most of the Bible, was not a real history of the Hebrew people, but, rather, a distillation of hundred of old traditions, folklore, memories and (sometimes) Old-Wives Tales.... like, pork banned because of Trichinosis if not cooked long enough. Most of the scholars I've read suggest 3-5 different writing "styles" were used in the first five books of the Old Testament, although some suggest that Moses himself was the author. But, would Moses have used different styles of writing? The speculation continues. Also, some writers back then suggested that the earth was flat, supported by pillars. Isaiah said it was round ("Circle of the earth" 40:20) - and, we'll all recall, Rome killed those who said the earth revolved around the sun.
The King James version is purely Protestant in its choice of dusty & archaic words; masks its message in a kind of poetry. I've read where Matthew and Luke were plagiarized -- rewrote history and added folk-stories like the "virgin birth" -- they traced the ancestral line of Jesus back to King David... but, Matthew says there were 28 generations between David and Jesus - - Luke says there were 43 generations. (that’s a discrepancy of 15, right ? Who’s right?) So, totally different genealogies, and lineage was traced to Joseph, not Mary! So, with these conflicting genealogies, how can both Matthew & Luke be the real Word of God? And, of course, earlier, the first two books of Genesis and the two versions of "the Creation." Unless I'm mistaken, the 1st Gospel was written by Mark, 40 years after the crucifixion. But he'd never been to Judea; spoke Greek............ thus, one might question the authenticity of his writings; Saul (aka St.Paul) was executed in Rome 10 years before Mark wrote his gospel, and never made any mention of Jesus; John was the only one to call Jesus the "Son of God" - but his gospel wasn't written until the second century, right? The possible errors in translation should not be forgotten either, like the "walking on water" from the Hebrew's dual meanings might have been "walking by water" perhaps; the discussions of a tranquil Judea, when it was anything but? And there's more, but who has sufficient time -- or space?
In other words, it appears to me that there's considerable room for doubt; more than just “a few discrepancies.” So, as a Deist, personally, I'll just bypass a lot of the written stuff, the pastors, priests, and just go "direct" to God. Seems to work fine.
There's some other interesting stuff I've read which causes even more speculation/questions, but, guess we'll save that for another time - if necessary.
Understand, I'm not saying that you're wrong; only that the Bible and every "organized" religion I've checked-out leaves me very unconvinced of anything, 'cept that I continue to get along great with God -- and God seems to put up with me...
Have a great day!

Michele San Pietro| 1.9.09 @ 12:52PM

No, God hates socialism. He's definitely conservative and in favor of bright men like Ronald Reagan.

Michigan-Matt| 1.9.09 @ 1:09PM

As a fatihful Catholic, I sometimes think that religion really needs to stay on message and off the public square's soap box; the Detroit bailout and TARP and a few others should not be fodder for "God's intervention" into man's designs.

The outgoing Cardinal Maida of Detroit --as well as the obscene image of GM, Ford and Chrysler products on a stage inside a black Detroit church -- are examples of where religion continues to stray far from what's appropriate and truthful to the Christian message. One of the church going faithful from that black church was heard to opine "Ooooh, I'd sure like one of those in my driveway" in reference to the big, white gas-guzzling monster SUVs. We don't even need to parody the Golden Calf moment 4,000+ yrs ago; she did it for us.

And frankly, Maida should take more time to focus on bailing out the financial ruin he and his pedo-protecting brethern have brought upon Michigan Catholic churches and parishes... let Ceasar deal with Detroit. When Maida and his cronies stop closing down parishes and schools while building up their luxury kingdom on Earth and his imperial household, then he can lecture the govt about being responsive. Honestly, this guy is as dense a religious leader as they get and his lecture for prayer is as fake as his Christian spirit. At least he isn't wearing $4000 red Parada slippers to Mass nor dragging SUVs onto a stage inside a church... at least not yet.

Ryan| 1.9.09 @ 1:19PM

I think the "Holocaust and unneccesary lawn-watering" line best sums up my semi-libertarian sentiments on the matter on abortion and other moral issues that don't affect others, but far too many people marginalize those of us who hold mostly similar views, but show concern about the moral foundations which are dwindling - particularly abortion, for which we have good cause if we see it as a life issue before a woman's rights' issue - while they look to their pocketbooks first.

Yeah, sinners sin, and we can't and shouldn't attempt to control the "bedroom" type of matters (and I am a bit willing to compromise on "civil unions" as long as marriage holds a greater emphasis). Huckabee's "Do the Right Thing," a decent book that is actually eye-opening (my choice in the primary, but I never really had a dog in the race) covers the "values voter" issues well and how the only way that Republicans have won since Nixon was through that avenue.

Scripturally speaking, frost, please do some serious studying on how the Bible came about from those who are non-critics and accept it wholeheartedly. Many of your objections are addressed (such as Christ's lineage) in some form by people who have studied and written and collected the scholarship on it for hundreds of years.

frost| 1.9.09 @ 1:32PM

Thanks, Ryan. But I've read and read sooo many views of the Bible (right over my head on the bookcase, in addition to hundreds of other books, is Werner Keller's "The Bible As History") and have learned enough to be soured on the subject.
Just too many views that simply don't ring true, to me, at least. I've read lotsa stuff, and a whole lot conflicts with other sources, like the Bible. Now, I don't know! I don't have any concrete answers. For example, some of us have read that His name was YESHO BEN PANTERA to His contemporaries - born in Galilee/Nazareth, the illegitimate son of a Roman legionary and Mary, a Temple Virgin who was engaged to a prosperous widower, Joseph who, to his credit, raised the boy as his own; the legionnaire having been transferred from the district when the pregnancy became known (the acclaimed biography "Jesus" by A. N. Wilson 1992 Sinclair-Stevenson via "The Light Of Other Days"/Clarke-Baxter). There was no census, no trek to Bethlehem, no manger/cattle/wise-men/shepherds and no Star. That all was an invention of the evangelists to show how this boy-child was the fulfillment of a prophecy - no more than another invention. As a youth, apprenticed to his uncle, a builder, (not a carpenter, He became a craftsman) spent most of His days in Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee - married and was alleged to have fathered a daughter. It's also said that there were 14, not 12 Apostles, and when, some years later at the Passover feast. He did not do that Eucharist bit ("this is my body/blood" - another invention of the evangelicals) but certainly did try to bring groups/people together. Mary Magdaline his wife? Who knows?
Other inconsistencies?
"Behold, a Virgin shall conceive" - "Young Woman" proper translation - from the original Hebrew (Isahia 7:14). In the original Hebrew, the word "virgin" isn't mentioned once (although, as cited elsewhere, there are those who believe that Mary was a "Temple Virgin" - an available woman whose virginity had probably been compromised long before…
Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin seems to contain several 'misreadings' of Greek and Aramaic terms such as "fallen" regarding Mary Magdalen from the Greek word for "scarred" or "damaged," hinting perhaps at smallpox scars. Thus, she becomes interpreted as a prostitute, instead of the upper-middle class woman she probably was.
"The Good Shepherd" was really the SKILLFUL shepherd, translated from the Greek word "Kalos"
Also - Jesus walked "On the water"??? ALSO, 'BY' the water - a dual meaning of the Hebrew word.
Jesus of Nazareth?
Nazareth hadn't even been FOUNDED at the time of Pilate (re:"Decline & Fall of Roman Empire" Ed Gibbons & many top theologians/biblical scholars of various faiths) -
The crucifixion of Jesus - thru the hands??? Crucifixions were done thru the forearms, at the wrist - NOT the hands. Skin isn't strong enough to support a body's weight; would rip - body would fall.
More? Mark sez that 'Judia was tranquil' -- it wasn't at all. Many fights. And - -
The Hebrew title "Messiah" didn't mean "savior" - means "anointed in oil".... and many people were.
Now ---- could these things be considered "Christian"??? Lot & his virgin daughters in Genesis 19:8. Incest ordered by God? According to the Bible, Lot's daughters seduced their drunken father. This guy, Lot, was an interesting guy - kinda - Saint Peter described Lot as a "just, Godly and righteous" man. For some reason, when Yahweh smote Sodom & Gommorrah, he spared Lot; his wife became that "Pillar of Salt". That same Saint Peter (unto whom was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?) suggested that Lot was a paragon of virtue.... although he'd done some weird things - housed two V-I-P's from out-of-town; neighbors wanted to see/talk with these VIP's, but Lot (rather than introduce them or argue) OFFERED HIS TWO VIRGIN DAUGHTERS TO THIS MOB - (THEY COULD USE THE GIRLS ANY WAY THEY CHOSE) - if they'd just stop bothering him/beating on his door - - - -
And, from Second Kings Two (22:23-24), consider Elisha, the bald-headed guy. Kids made fun of Elisha, so God sent bears to maul/kill 42 children. Yeah, crimes which turn-your-stomach are asserted to be divinely ordered or divinely condoned - - - - according to the Bible. Sorry, but I can't buy it. More? Keeping women and young girls as sex slaves (Numbers 25:16-17), ostracizing the disabled (Leviticus 21:18-23), subjugating women (Ephesians 5:22-24), and brutally sacrificing animals (Leviticus 9)…
Women were considered chattel -- slavery was sanctioned in the Bible…… yet some still consider it “law.”
So - two totally different (and mutually contradictory) versions of the Creation in just the first two chapters of Genesis alone... like, how could there be light and days before the Sun was even made by God?
And, so it goes. Hence the confusion....
I don't pretend to have ANY answers. But I do kinda resent those who profess to have 'em..... seems to be the very heights of pretentiousness and sanctimony, 'ay? That's more than sufficient, I'm done for today. Your witness....

Bob| 1.9.09 @ 2:04PM

Roy, if all of your goals are defined by religion, you must lead a very limited life, indeed. When I was in college over 40 years ago, I wrote a paper on using set theory to describe "goodness". There are some things that, in fact, benefit society. As with evolution, by the force of surrounding objects, certain objects will endure and certain ones will die. We all know that having traffic lights prevents us from being hurt and getting us to our locations faster in most cases. I don't need to know anything else to support the use of traffic lights. We all have some sort of belief system -- some are based on dogma like you, and some are based on experience, knowledge and reason. I am not in a position to say which is better because your behavior as a religious individual may be beneficial to me in a number of ways. In the reverse, my belief in using analysis and data may make the economy better for you. I do believe that we all need a common base for argumentation, and that base should be analytical and factual. That way, believers and "non-believers" can at least have common ground. What I find interesting, is that many here eschew reason if it disagrees with their belief system. In my opinion, that weakens our society. An intelligent society that understands facts and history makes a better democracy. The ability to analyze information, something that had been declining in our society since the early days of the space program, is something that hurts all of us.

As to being a conservative, as I've said many times, I was against the bailouts, against comprehensive immigration reform, for a strong military, and cuts in medicare and social security. Furthermore, I believe in a flat tax based on total taxation principles to better let the market determine the outcome than intervention by our government.

If you don't want to call me a conservative because I have libertarian views on abortion and gay marriage, then that's just fine with me if it makes you feel better. But the way I see it, I am truly more conservative than you.

Todd| 1.9.09 @ 3:11PM

What is libertarian Bob about having the State legitimize gay marriage? Maybe you feel like because it doesn't hurt you any than it is fine by you but that requires government being involvement so that doesn't quite fit the definition. And to frame your support of the killing of unborn children as a libertarian view is a distortion for what it means to be a libertarian. Your positions on these issues are liberal and not libertarian Bob so lets get that straight.

Now you say you are against bailouts but you have nothing but praise for Timothy Geinther who was Paulson's right hand man. I know you say you like Larry Summers but I have not heard anything from him being against the bailouts. You have stated many times that you voted for Obama because he is intelligent though his views have nothing in common with fiscal conservatives. What exactly is it about Obama's views you support other than the unmitigated right of terminated unborn children?

Todd| 1.9.09 @ 3:14PM

Involvement should be involved sorry, I hate not correcting grammatical errors

Hank Archer| 1.9.09 @ 3:56PM

Bigrich104 you need to check your history. "[T]he RC bible, they added the Apochrapha, after it was rejected at Nicene(?) as a kneejerk response to the Reformation."

This is nonsense. The Septuagint which was the "Old Testament" used by the Jews of Jesus' time, includes the books Luther dropped out because he wanted to "reform" the church to follow his beliefs. Those books, which were not in the "Old Testament the Jews used later (which Rabbis modified to keep Jews from becoming Christians) supported Jesus' teachings which Luther and the Rabbis (for different reasons) didn't like so they took them out.

No "Canon" of Scripture was decided at Nicea, as there was no controversy about it, no one was asking for clarification -- so no decision needed to be made. At Trent, in response to the "Reformers," the Church had to set the canon and used the books which Jesus used to establish the Old Testament and even "Reformers" agreed on the NT.

BTW, Luther also wanted to take out several books from the NT, James, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, there may be others. His allies convinced him that that was going too far.

Look at Luke 10:16, Matt 16:19, John 20:21, Matt 10:40, Matt 18:17

Bob| 1.9.09 @ 3:56PM

Todd, Libertarians are about keeping government out of our lives whether it is abortion, gay marriage, or drugs. Leaving things alone is not government involvement. You legislate to restrict activity unless you are trying to correct a law that was not clear or went too far. That argument is specious and intellectually weak. As for the "unborn", that requires balance as the concept of ensoulment is different for various groups. If you really want to protect innocent life, then you would be against pre-emptive warefare and against our military actions with terrorists as was the Vatican.

I don't have praise for Geithner, but do have praise for Summers. Geithner, as Treasury Secretary is going to execute, it will be Summers that creates policy.

Our views on personal choice are clearly different. Being libertarian on that issue, I don't want you telling me what to do.

Todd| 1.9.09 @ 4:11PM

Like I said Bob, Gay marriage is about the State legitimizing their partnership. The libertarian view is that they can live together and do what they want but not for the State to recognize their marriage. That argument is on solid ground whatever you might say.

Nice try with your sophistry Bob saying if I was for protecting innocent life, I would be against the war in Iraq and against the terrorists. Are you saying you think terrorists are innocent lives comparable to unborn children? You are sick if that is what you think. Those are completely different arguments so that is specious and intellectually weak on your part.

Todd| 1.9.09 @ 4:26PM

Todd, I'm not a big proponent for gay marriage, but I see nothing against it. Any relationship is legitimate until someone legislates against it. This is directly from the platform of the Libertarian Party:

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

Officially, Libertarians say that marriage should not be a function of government.

Regarding the life argument, I was not talking about terrorists, but any activity that would cause significant collateral damage. Direct war does not do that. Going after terrorists does. So you don't mind killing one innocent person for every terrorist you kill. If you really wanted to protect life, you'd be against that. Of course, with my position on choice, I am consistent in saying that collateral damage is fine in a war as long as you are as careful as you can be.

frost| 1.9.09 @ 5:16PM

Yeah, Bob -- there are times when it gets so frustrating - - if you're not totally against "Choice" you're absolutely against the "unborn." If you don't much care about stem-cells or gay-crap, you're evil -- at least in the view of those insufferable and sanctimonious pontificators. Libertarians and Deists are apparently not to be tolerated (in their view), while we gaze upon them with benign tolerance, happily wishing them whatever happiness they seek, so long as it doesn't infringe on ours. Demagogues are not fun, nor are fascists. Have a great weekend!

Alan Brooks| 1.9.09 @ 7:51PM

oh how intellectuals dissect the bible!
if you want to commit adultery or be gay or have an abortion, then do so-- but dont try to justify it; just take whatever wages (death on the installment plan) you must.
if you get in trouble with your wife bcause you cheat on her, that is YOUR problem, not someone else's. Don't transfer your anger.
if you want to do something that might very well mess up your life (sin) and harm others then you are very likely to pay a very high price (the wages of sin).

Alan Brooks| 1.9.09 @ 7:55PM

'do as thou wilt' is acceptabe.

just as long as YOU suffer the consequences, not someone else.
Guarantee it.

Mary| 1.9.09 @ 8:46PM

Mr. Bandow-

From the greatest Theologian of the 20th Century, Karl Barth, who points out in his Church Dogmatics that Jesus “did not range Himself and His disciples with any of the existing parties.” That “He was equally disliked by the representatives of all such programmes, though He did not particularly attack any of them,” that “His existence was so unsettling on every side” because “He set all programmes and principles in question. And He did this simply because He enjoyed and displayed, in relation to all the orders positively or negatively contested around Him, a remarkable freedom which again we can only describe as royal.”

A fuller range of the great and pastoral Barth:

**Inevitably, then, He clashed with these orders in the interpretation commonly placed on them in the world in which He lived. Inevitably their provisional and relative character, the ways in which they were humanly conditioned, their secret fallibility, were all occasionally disclosed -not in principle, only occasionally, but on these occasions quite unmistakably- in His attitude toward them and His assessment of their significance. But it was not these incidental disclosures of the freedom of God which made Him a revolutionary far more radical than any that came either before or after Him. It was the freedom itself, which could not even be classified from the standpoint of these orders. For where are these orders when He expresses both in word and deed that abasement of all that is high and exaltation of all that is low?

Do they not all presuppose that the high is high and the low is low? Was not the axe really laid at the root of all these trees in and by His existence? In the last resort, it was again conformity with God Himself which constituted the secret of the character of Jesus on this side too.

This is the relationship of God Himself to all orders of life and value which, as long as there is history at all, enjoy a transitory validity in the history of every human place. This is how God gives them their time and spheres, but without being bound to any of them, without giving any of them His own divine authority, without allotting to any of them a binding validity for all men even beyond their own time and sphere, without granting that they are vitally necessary and absolutely authoritative even for their own time and sphere.

In this way God Himself is their limit and frontier. An alien light is thus shed on them by God Himself as on that which He has limited. This is how He Himself deals with them, not in principle, not in the execution of a programme, but for this reason in a way which is all the more revolutionary, as the One who breaks all bonds asunder, in new historical developments and situations each of which is for those who can see and hear -only a sign, but an unmistakable sign, of His freedom and kingdom and overruling of history. [CD, IV pp 161-63]**

Life is short, Karl Barth is long -Henry Cocks

Interloper| 1.10.09 @ 12:15AM

Doug Barlow said:

"In speaking to the sheep and goats, Christ commended those who cared for the sick and fed the hungry, not those who voted to create a social welfare agency."

Actually, the development of large populations living in close proximity makes necessary larger entities to provide an economic safety net. We pool our resources, both as taxpayers and contributors to private sector charities, to achieve economies of scale in providing food, health care and other methods of mitigating want. Individual charity is not only often insufficient, it is subject to prejudice and manipulation in ways that providing assistance through social welfare agencies is not.

Matthew Eckel| 1.10.09 @ 2:31AM

Mr. Bandow, I suspect that this article cannot be fully understood without reading your book, which I will do. I believe you are absolutely right that Jesus's best statement of his attitude toward worldly authority ("Render unto Caesar....") evidences the view that salvation does not depend on one's political leaning and that, therefore, political activities are superfluous. I will read your book to see if you advise expression of Christian love through charity, prayer, exhortation, and other means besides resorting to governmental coercion. That, I believe, is what both the left and right (libertarians excepted perhaps) have lost sight of -- the limitations of coercion as an effective way to interact with our fellow human beings. Thank you for your post.

Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 11:30AM

"libertarians excepted perhaps"?
Christian love and libertarians? that's almost tantamount to anarcho-versions of liberation theology.

what is so wrong with solid conservative christianity? there are not that many tinhats running soup kitchens anymore.

POPE PRINCE of DARKNESS| 1.10.09 @ 4:03PM

When since the catholic church became CHRISTIAN, there is nothing christian about catholics. Child molesters are not christians, homosexual POPES are not christians. The Spanish INQUISITION had nothing to do with christianity, selling passport to heaven is extortion of money from vonerable people.
POPES posing as god on earth has nothing to do with christianity.

The Catholic Church is nothing more than a glorious fiasco, going back centuries, with kings and queens, most of these heathens only believe in occultism money mass murder crimes against humanity for profit.

Jeremiah| 1.10.09 @ 4:12PM

Jesus was not a source of capitalist thinking or family values.

He bid his disciples leave their families, work and worldly goods to follow him.

He rebuffs his own blood relations and never married, which was outrageously strange behavior for a Palestinian Jew.

He befriend tax collectors and people in the skin trade -- not exactly the behavior of a Reagan Republican.

In the end, he as a marginal Palestinian who tortured and killed by an occupying imperial army.

Again, it doesn't sound like your average everyday Republican.

Maybe -- and I'm just guessing here -- maybe the wisdom and death and resurrection of Jesus means more than how we can appropriate it for our temporary, shallow political considerations....

Jeremiah| 1.10.09 @ 4:16PM

Pope Prince of Darkness --

Anti-Catholic bigotry was one of the central teachings of the KKK. Ever think of joining up? You too can where funny robes at your weekly meetings.

Jeremiah| 1.10.09 @ 4:21PM

Hank --

Excellent post. It's interesting to be reminded of Luther's disdain for Revelations given how important that book is for so many Protestants.

The history of the Bible is fabulously complicated and rich.

POPE PRINCE of DARKNESS| 1.10.09 @ 5:49PM

Jememiah.
If that was one of the KKK philosophy it may be the only one that was of any value, and one I would agree with 100%. I may add when did truth became bigotry?.

Jeremiah| 1.10.09 @ 6:40PM

Pope Prince of Darkness --

I'll let your second post speak for itself. I think anyone reading will know what's going on here.

But since you're so eager to consider your baffled and paranoid ramblings as "truth," let me not hesitate to offer a brief criticism: you sir are a jackass and can avoid embarrassing yourself only if you remain silent. I'd say that's the policy you should adopt.

Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 9:32PM

pope prince of darkness (how unwittingly appropriate) is Daphne Kenward.

Terry| 1.11.09 @ 7:13AM

"PICO proposes using the $700 billion bail-out to require banks to cut loan principles and limit mortgage payments."

It strikes me that liberals are a needed offset to conservative ideas from time to time as in a "devil's advocate," allowing for compassion to enter a conversation. Having said that, it remains true that liberal thought has little, if any, common sense. As in the above quote from early in the article, liberals seem to desire legislating 'good' results lacking a common sense approach. If banks are required to enact policies for the 'good' of their 'parishioners,' they are not businesses (which we think they are) and become instead an apparatus of a benevolent government that must create money from thin air or tax the non-complaining portion of the population to accomplish this screwball idea.

Liberal thought seems to me to be along the lines of a child that has yet to grasp the concepts of reality and focuses on how Utopia should look. This may be a component of the larger conversation, and indeed may be needed, but as a policy is idiotic.

Rich D| 1.11.09 @ 8:21AM

The apochryphal books weren't part of the Jewish canon.

Jeremiah| 1.11.09 @ 8:40AM

Terry --

You may be right, for all I know. However, you seem to have a pretty monolithic understanding of what "liberalism" is.

So-called "conservatism" can be similarly adolescent: the black and white thinking; the whining and sullenness; the belief that everything would be perfect if the grown-ups just stopped ruining everything with all their talk about "rules" and "responsibility" to others.

America's a young country: our politics is young, our history young. I suppose there's a bright side to everything.

Alan Brooks| 1.11.09 @ 1:07PM

yes, young country.
a looonngg way to go. very long.

evolution is awfully awfully slow aint it?
you might even have noticed.

dish em out.

Alan Brooks| 1.11.09 @ 2:36PM

'a bright side to everything'? cmon, Jer, even i can be less chirpily platitudinous than that.

keep it coming.

Michele San Pietro| 1.11.09 @ 5:30PM

A true catholic cannot be a left-winger. Left-wingers have always slandered catholicism.

Alan Brooks| 1.11.09 @ 8:28PM

now there was liberation theology but it didnt last long-- no SOLID foundation to build on.

because you liberate yourself to WHAT? to be whom? i know i'm bad with details but the devil is in the details-- what or whom could a 'liberated' catholic be?

and for how long?

The Lost People| 1.11.09 @ 9:54PM

The Spanish Inquisition was an ecclesiastical tribunal established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the medieval inquisition .

Bill| 1.11.09 @ 10:58PM

God is not a socialist, but Catholic Bishops are.

Appleby| 1.12.09 @ 7:30AM

*We pool our resources, both as taxpayers and contributors to private sector charities, to achieve economies of scale in providing food, health care and other methods of mitigating want. Individual charity is not only often insufficient, it is subject to prejudice and manipulation in ways that providing assistance through social welfare agencies is not. *

I had a friend once who asked me if I would support welfare voluntarily, and when I said absolutely not, she said triumphantly, *Well you see, then, THATS WHY YOU HAVE TO BE FORCED TO.*

I think when you call it Pooling OUR Resources when your meaning is really something like Vinnie and Guido showing up at my store with a baseball bat, asking for Protection Money, is specious. And your opinion that if your own pet Victims dont get a handout, its due to *prejudice and manipulation* instead of plain old fashioned FREE CHOICE, is Exhibit A to the thesis that charity should be a matter decided by individuals.

Albert Frevele| 1.12.09 @ 1:28PM

In the last few elections, there was a Media flap about “HWJV?” “How Would Jesus Vote?” The conclusion drawn by the Media was easy enough: “Jesus was a Democrat.” Of course this is nonsense but it is a very real movement among leftist so-called “Christians” to fancy Jesus as a Socialist. A teacher in my daughter’s Catholic School actually taught that Jesus was a communist! The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, contain numerous references to charity, or “giving of alms.” These are being corrupted by the leftists to mean socialism. But socialism is not charity. Charity is giving of oneself. Socialism is the giving away of other people’s wealth through the coercive power of government. This would be like Jesus preaching Caesarism. It is absurd. While the Bible does not really describe prototypical socialism, it does describe the prototypical Democrat: “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one about to hand him over), protested: ‘Why was not this perfume sold? It could have brought three hundred silver pieces, and the money have been given to the poor.’ (He did not say this out of concern for the poor, but because he was a thief. He held the purse, and used to help himself to what was deposited there.)” (John 12: 5-6) Was there ever a better description of a Democrat? Socialism is not really about helping others. It is about politicians helping themselves to other people’s money, as Judas did, under a pretense of concern for the poor. The Bible certainly does not teach this.

Michele San Pietro| 1.12.09 @ 1:54PM

I totally agree with you, Albert. Socialists all over the world want anything but helping the poor, they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

Bilwick| 1.13.09 @ 10:23AM

Jeremiah writes:

"So-called "conservatism"can be similarly adolescent . . . the belief that everything would be perfect if the grown-ups just stopped ruining everything with all their talk about 'rules' and 'responsibility' to others. . . . "

Not "rules" but irrational beliefs, including made-up, unproveable "responsibilities." And not "grown-ups" but schoolyard bullies in adult bodies, only without the average schoolyard bully's lack of hypocrisy. He doesn't try to convince you he's beating you up and taking your lunch money for your own good, the Common Good, or any similar buncombe. Nor (unlike the Religious Left), does he try to convince you he's beating you up and stealing your lunch money because it's the Will of God.

Ed Hardy Wallets| 8.6.09 @ 6:21AM

Funs blog
collect bag
Ho jewelry Blog
Our simply
UGG Classic Cardy Boots
UGG Classic Short Boots
UGG Classic Tall Boots
UGG Nightfall Boots
UGG Ultra Tall Boots
UGG Classic Mini Boots
UGG Classic Tall Metallic
UGG Sundance Boots
UGG Ultra Short Boots
tiffany world
ckloo blog
ugg boots

nusret| 8.22.09 @ 5:24PM

very thanks for article

dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 9:37AM

Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches

Tiffany Jewelry| 8.30.09 @ 11:45PM

abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos
abercrombie fitch and

fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie

womens polos Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and accessories

edhardylife a famous Ed Hardy store which sell directly

Ed Hardy Clothing shoes, boots, swim suit and other

cheap ed hardy Ed Hardy cheap Ed Hardy ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy

UGG Amelie Suede| 9.5.09 @ 2:07AM

An Iranian Tupolev UGG Amelie Suede passenger plane bound from Tehran to Yerevan, Armenia,Ugg Matala Sandal according to state media reports.

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 12:43AM

Read this article, I see Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
lot of things

david thompson| 9.20.09 @ 10:18AM

Romans chapter 13 discusses government, saying all government is ordained by God to be a terror against evil works of the devil. God carries out his vengence through governments. Since Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil, it would follow that Jesus works through governments to destroy the devil' s works. I see greedy capitalism and dictatorial socialism/communism all as works of the devil. But a socialism and capitalism carried on in love, sharing and mutual respect for all humanity is no doubt of God.

David Thompson