-
Meghan McCain Doesn't Get It
May 29, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Stacy McCain's Kimberlin Story a Must Read
May 29, 2012 | 3 comments
-
WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference
May 25, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Will WaPo's Erik Wemple Apologize to Hannity?
May 21, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Hannity Tonight: Vetting Obama
May 18, 2012 | 42 comments
The Spectacle Blog
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you?
Well, there he goes again. The United Church of Christ's Reverend Chuck Currie has zipped out a blog post -- he is the Blogger-in-Chief for the UCC, my denomination -- in which he calls me a, well, "lying liar." Ahhh, the subtlety. This is, of course, in response to the series of columns done on the So We Might See effort to censor free speech under the guise of labeling speech not liked as "hate speech."
As usual, confusing his personal politics with his church, the Reverend Chuck perfectly illustrates yet again the problem when a church official views the church as a private club for political ward heeling or a subsidiary of the Daily Kos as opposed to a, well, United Church of Christ. It is a sad thing to see, actually, the "Reverend" in his title indicating that he would know better. As I noted in my response to him, I would never question his -- or anyone's -- religious faith. That's between Chuck and his God. So too would I never question his right to say what he wants -- in this corner we are strong believers in free speech.
But his politics? When he uses the church to do politics, that should never get a free pass. The Reverend Chuck --let's remove the "Reverend" here since he's doing the political thing -- worships in the political temple of progressivism. Which is to say he has signed on hook, line and sinker to the political faith that supported slavery, segregation, lynching and racial quotas and the idea that people are "minorities" and not people living Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society. He supports a philosophy that signed on for torture (or "partial birth-abortion," as sticking a needle in the head of baby is called) and the economics of envy. All topped off by a totalitarian passion for suppressing the free speech of those -- like Lou Dobbs -- with whom Chuck disagrees.
All in all, progressive politics -- as evidenced by every one from the federal government -- segregating Woodrow Wilson to the pro-lynching supporters of Social Security to the greed and envy economics of the Obama era has constructed quite the politics to proudly oppose. For those of us who believe in human freedom, a colorblind society in which people are judged by the content of their character instead of by their race, gender or sexual preference, the right of a free press, the right to free speech, to not have the government ration your health care etc. etc. -- this places us well on the other side of the extremist/race-based/totalitarian style politics favored by the quaintly named "progressive" philosophy.
But so be it. The debate will continue. But in terms of the United Church of Christ, confusing Christ with progressive politics is something that doesn't happen in this corner -- and for that matter in lots of corners of the UCC. With good reason. There are conservatives aplenty in the UCC - and as much as we love, say, Ronald Reagan, we have no intention of substituting our politics where our faith resides.
Be that as it may: Happy Thanksgiving to the Reverend Chuck. We have linked to his posting so that others may see precisely the way some in the UCC hierarchy treat members whose differences are political -- not theological.
"Lying liars." Makes you want to run out and join the UCC, right? Not to worry. We don't do this kind of thing in my local church -- and its safe to say the individual churches of the UCC -- who manage to run themselves without this kind of "guidance" from the top -- don't do it either.
We are what is known as a "Welcoming" church -- where people of all political beliefs are welcome -- because their political beliefs are not relevant to the reason they come to church.
For some in the UCC leadership, this is a difficult message. But we wish them a Happy Thanksgiving anyway. After all, that story next door about William Bradford? He was one of ours!
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/ucc-calls-me-a-lying-liar
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Handicap the Handicapper
- Heaven Can't Wait
- A Case of Intracoastal Blues
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Scott Pandich| 11.24.09 @ 11:54AM
It could be worse: he could call you a lying liar that lies.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 2:50PM
You are better off becoming a Catholic. There are numerous sex scandals affecting a fraction of the Church, but aside from that Catholics are not jerks for the most part as so many protestants are.
Martin Luther was the very worst, a total you-know-what (this is a family site). Luther was the 16th century Goebbels.
Wainwright| 11.24.09 @ 12:06PM
A well thought out and reviewed posting by the good Reverend Chuck...he can't even use proper grammar in presenting his 'argument' against TAS or Mr. Lord.
"But what is The American Spectator, the publication that Lord writes for? It's a conservative publication know for attacking civil rights for minorities, promoting the war in Iraq, defending torture, and promoting the Religious Right"
Pete2| 11.24.09 @ 12:20PM
Mr Wainwright, would you please amplify your "accusations", so that we all can make a decision about what you have stated? The left likes to throw out stuff like that without saying exactly what it they really mean. Which"minority" has it attacked? The War in Iraq was won before Obama The great ( procrastinator) took office, which torture are you speaking of the Al Queda booklet methods,or something else? Religious Right? As opposed to the Religious Left?
Wainwright| 11.24.09 @ 12:29PM
Pete, we're on the same team. The quote I put in my post is directly from the good Reverend Chuck's post that is linked above.
I put it in to illustrate that this amazing academic of the cloth can't even manage to post a rebuttal using proper English.
SoCon| 11.24.09 @ 10:35PM
LOL! I understood your first post, Wainwright; Pete2 is just ready to fight. Love it.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.09 @ 12:34PM
Mr. Lord,
Thank you for your perseverance. My denom. always looked askance at any church that looked to water for salvation rather than the Grace of God and Jesus' promises.
Anhh! Nuance. (smile)
Nevertheless, every one of us Christians KNOW that we are saved by Grace via The Holy Spirit.
The Wainwrights of the world can never touch that reality without knowing they are truly lost in a wilderness.
You know, I just read a news story this morning about a young man in a "coma" for 23 years but who was actually conscious.
I thought immediately about these poor people who must spend eternity in darkness...and perhaps to dream? Aye, there's the rub.
Best regards
Tish| 11.24.09 @ 12:51PM
The Right Reverend Currie isn't right, and he isn't very reverent, is he?
Tim| 11.24.09 @ 2:16PM
Jeffrey Lord: Out of the lying pan and into the liar...
Liberal Reader| 11.24.09 @ 2:30PM
Mr. Lord,
Surely you're not saying slavery was a "liberal" idea.
True, the Democratic party has a terrible history in the south.
But to see the "Democratic party" as the same thing as "liberalism" would be like saying the Republican party is the same thing as conservatism.
In truth, liberals in the Democratic AND Republican parties fought segregation and bigotry. That's why they were called "liberals."
To be "liberal," among other things, means to believe in expanding the political and economic autonomy of people. In modern American history, that has translated into the civil rights movement, which was undertaken by some Republicans in the northeast as well as Democrats. But every one who was for expanding civil rights is by definition liberal.
You can't just change the meaning of these words just because you're embarrassed that the few remaining white supremacist types have a lot more in common with your reactionary fringes than they do with the (admittedly zany) fringes on the left.
Tim| 11.24.09 @ 3:40PM
During the antebellum period apologists for slavery used the Bible's many references to slaves as rationale that God condoned slavery. Simultaneously Abolitionists were also basing their arguments on scripture.
Consider how easy it is to use passages that, without any context, can be made to appear to bolster certain agendas, for example:
"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. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. "
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans 13:1-7&version=NIV
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 4:59PM
Stalin was a billion times worse than Jefferson Davis, that's for sure. And Davis was an a-hole-- unlike Lee.
The North was oppressive, but the South was punished for its dishonesty in saying it was only defending its interests. Everyone knows they wanted the Western lands not just to spread slavery to, but as property itself.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 5:03PM
the North was based on wage savery;
the South on slavery.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 5:04PM
slavery-- not savery!
savery is at a bank!
SoCon| 11.24.09 @ 10:42PM
Too bad you don't give a damn about the civil rights of the 50 million innocent babies you've murdered, creep; just like you liberals didn't give a damn about the slaves in the South. Liar.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 2:50PM
You are better off becoming a Catholic. There are numerous sex scandals affecting a fraction of the Church, but aside from that Catholics are not jerks for the most part as so many protestants are.
Martin Luther was the very worst, a total you-know-what (this is a family site). Luther was the 16th century Goebbels.
Liberal Reader| 11.24.09 @ 3:48PM
"Conservative" vs. "Liberal" as it turns out is a scheme that has limited heuristic value.
In the largest sense, liberal political thought is probably best opposed to Marxist thought. Liberal thought is "rights" based; Marxist systems are not.
But "liberal" as a cultural force or tendency is best related to the word "progressive." In this sense, it means a breaking with the past in favor of new ways of doing things.
These terms are liberal. A "conservative" is present day Russia is someone who is nostalgic for communism.
There seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the relational nature of these terms.
SoCon| 11.24.09 @ 10:40PM
You're not a liberal, LibReader--you're a Marxist, you stupid little turd.
Hey, I notice you didn't comment on the Census worker threads--he committed suicide, did you hear? Chickensh!t, you should apologize to us for your vicious, FALSE accusations that he was murdered because of the Right. Coward.
Liberal Reader| 11.25.09 @ 12:55AM
What the hell are you babbling about, So-Con. I don't know anything about any accusations. Did I ever mention that issue?
And what makes you think that I'm a Marxist? Do you even know what a Marxist IS?
More to the point: do you always drink heavily before posting? I hope so. I hate to think that this is all you can manage sober. Because it would mean you're an idiot.
SoCon| 11.25.09 @ 4:32PM
Sure. You accuse me of intemperate behavior after you told Quin to go f&%$ himself. Not only are you a Marxist turd, LR/Jeremiah, you are a hypocrite, as well.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 5:02PM
No, marxism is finished, liberalism is finished, progressivism is finished. There is no longer any social progress-- only empty material progress.
Brian (another UCC guy)| 11.25.09 @ 9:58PM
Religion can be political - and politics can be religious. We all need to trod the path between politics and religion carefully. It's easy to begin thinking that our political agenda is "God's will." Liberals and conservatives do that. Thankfully the UCC is a "big tent" denomination and includes many different political and theological perspectives. The diversity itself keeps us in check. God bless multivocality!
Loren| 11.26.09 @ 3:31PM
Yeah, but God DOESN'T bless lies. Lying is wrong and should never be tolerated.
Neil| 8.13.11 @ 12:15PM
Oh, the irony of Chuck writing about liars! I caught him in multiple lies. I was exposing his bad logic on his blog, so he deleted my comment then claimed that I said all sorts of bad things that I never said. I called on him to provide the evidence of what he claimed, but he has ignored the question. He is a serial, unrepentant liar. It is only in a fallen world that news outlets would look to a false teacher like him for a "Christian" perspective.