Plus, here are some links to additional coverage in CNN, ABC, Time, The New York Times, Christianity Today, and the Associated Baptist Press.
That's a pretty big judgement call you are making right there.
Are you privy to every conversation Reverend Wallis has? You've been monitoring his relationships, lunch meetings, coffee breaks etc? You've somehow been endowed with divine ability to judge the human heart?
I'm so thankful it is God who judges us, not blog posters.
I lived among all the Cuban exiles in Miami for many years, so I understand their position.
Yet all was not perfect in Cuba and our own nation was not a positive force pre-Castro. In fact, the actions we took and allowed, as a government and by our interventionist foreign policy and militarism, contributed mightily to the eventual instability and a massive blowback against America.
Organized crime directed from the United States, and unfortunately in collusion with the US government, had a puppet dictator leader for Cuba named Fulgencio Batista, who served foreign and criminal interests primarily, along with a wealthy elite, rather than the people of Cuba.
This was the penultimate sorrow for Cuba - the United States had often interfered militarily and politically in all Latin American and Caribbean countries, in defiance of its own purported democratic ideals. A war for possession of Cuba was even manufactured by wealthy media baron William Randolph Hearst.
As Gen. Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in US history said,
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902
"But the state should not be involved in taking from the rich and giving to the poor." Fundamentalist
This is exactly the kind of language I responded to you about before.
This is code for something. I don't know what. But it is part of the "demonizing government" campaign that obfuscates making legitimate cases for a reformed or scaled down government.
Government has no "take from the rich and give to the poor" program. It is used as code to delegitimize benefits to the poor and taxation on the rich.
Appropriate governmental roles in delivering benefits to the poor is a debatable issue. Taxation on the rich is a debatable issue. The code phrase illegitimately deals with both with no apologetic. It feeds anger. It feeds the demonization of government.
And it articulates nothing.
Repost to clarify response (Disqus seriously needs to reformat this blog):
"The dividing line between too much government and too little is pretty easy to draw. The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. Laws that prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc.
... No should it be involved in protecting any industry from competitors, domestic or foreign. When the state does that, it is no longer exercising the rule of law, but implementing the arbitrary rule of men. It should not benefit one industry at the expense of another. And it should not reduce competition by passing laws that favor the existing large corporations." Fundamentalist
With all due respect, I think you are far more informed than I about this, and I think your argument totally inadequate.
What legitimate role do you believe the US government ought fulfill to regulate the production, sale, handling, safe guarding, processing, application, and/or sale of enriched uranium in the United States and internationally (to name one of a 1,000,000 issues)?
Or do we need no more regulation of this industry than the moon rocks industry?
I agree with everything you say there, but not that we can "keep" Uncle Sam small, for he is NOT now small nor is that actually going to happen, outside some general catastrophe that none of us could humanely wish for. I do believe that one day the military budget may get reduced - but not until we have the same general economic inability to fund it that collapsed the Soviets.
All those are good things to work for that you mention.
We're kind of in a hard place in this country. We don't have a whole lot of influence on the public policy, when thinking of those interests you just outline, which are not the ones Glenn et. al. are feeding us from their masters. In some ways, despite the pain of having to say it, we're in a situation not unlike that confronting citizens - how much more so as Christians - of the Roman Empire as it morphed from republic to empire. Doing good is a practical example to others of what can really work - and hopefully we will seek to model Christ, not ourselves, no matter how clever we might be at political discourse.
findamentalist wrote: "...When England followed Smith's advice and copied the Dutch system, socialists labeled it "capitalism.""
Exactly. And today "The Free Market" (that Socialists dubbed "Capitalism") gets a bad rap when in actual fact, we haven't been operating under the free market system in America for quite a while now. In the place of Capitalism, we have had "Interventionism" - an inordinate amount of government interference in the market place.
"Intervention" in the Free Market is what deserves the bad rap, since it is the source of most of the economic problems we see today.
"Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature."
Excerpted from:
In Defense of Capitalism
Capitalism is not economic anarchy. When properly defined, it recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it supports.
One of these is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange peacefully what one owns for something else.
Capitalism also presupposes a system of morality. Under capitalism, there are definite limits, moral and otherwise, to the ways in which people can exchange.
Capitalism should be viewed as a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws that protect people's rights against force, fraud, theft, and violations of contracts. "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not lie" are part of the underlying moral constraints of the system. After all, economic exchanges can hardly be voluntary if one participant is coerced, deceived, defrauded, or robbed.
Deviations from the market ideal usually occur because of defects in human nature. Human beings naturally crave security and guaranteed success, values not found readily in a free market. Genuine competition always carries with it the possibility of failure and loss. Consequently, the human desire for security leads people to avoid competition whenever possible, encourages them to operate outside the market, and induces them to subvert the market process through behavior that is often questionable and dishonest.
This quest for guaranteed success often leads people to seek special favors from powerful members of government through such means as regulations and restrictions on free exchange.
One of the more effective ways of mitigating the effects of human sin in society is dispersing and decentralizing power. The combination of a free market economy and limited constitutional government is the most effective means yet devised to impede the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small number of people.
The Religious Left should be aware that their opposition to amassing wealth and power is far more likely to bear fruit with a conservative understanding of economics and government than with the big-government approach of political liberalism.
Every person's ultimate protection against coercion requires control over some private spheres of life where he or she can be free.
Private ownership of property is an important buffer against the exorbitant consolidation of power by government.
Liberal critics also contend that capitalism encourages the development of monopolies. The real source of monopolies, however, is not the free market but governmental intervention with the market.
The only monopolies that have ever attained lasting immunity from competition did so by governmental fiat, regulation, or support of some other kind.
Governments create monopolies by granting one organization the exclusive privilege of doing business or by establishing de facto monopolies through regulatory agencies whose alleged purpose is the enforcement of competition but whose real effect is the limitation of competition.
Economic interventionism and socialism are the real sources of monopolies.
This is illustrated, for example, in the success of the American robber barons of the nineteenth century. Without government aid such as subsidies, the robber barons would never have succeeded.
Liberals blame capitalism for every evil in contemporary society, including its greed, materialism, selfishness, the prevalence of fraudulent behavior, the debasement of society's tastes, the pollution of the environment, the alienation and despair within society, and vast disparities of wealth. Even racism and sexism are treated as effects of capitalism.
Many of the objections to a market system result from a simple but fallacious two-step operation.
First, some undesirable feature is noted in a society that is allegedly capitalistic; then it is simply asserted that capitalism is the cause of this problem.
Logic texts call this the Fallacy of False Cause.
Mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Moreover, this belief ignores the fact that these same features exist in interventionist and socialist societies.
The Issue of Greed
Liberal critics of capitalism often attack it for encouraging greed. The truth, however, is that the mechanism of the market actually neutralizes greed as it forces people to find ways of serving the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.
As long as our rights are protected (a basic precondition of market exchanges), the greed of others cannot harm us.
As long as greedy people are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process and as long as these persons cannot secure special privileges from the state under interventionist or socialist arrangements, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to trade.
Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed. The market is one area of life where concern for the other person is required.
The market, therefore, does not pander to greed. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in nonviolent ways.
Does Capitalism Exploit People?
Capitalism is also attacked on the ground that it leads to situations in which some people (the "exploiters") win at the expense of other people (the "losers").
A fancier way to put this is to say that market exchanges are examples of what is called a zero-sum game, namely, an exchange where only one participant can win. If one person (or group) wins, then the other must lose. Baseball and basketball are two examples of zero-sum games. If A wins, then B must lose.
The error here consists in thinking that market exchanges are a zero-sum game. On the contrary, market exchanges illustrate what is called a positive-sum game, that is, one in which both players may win.
We must reject the myth that economic exchanges necessarily benefit only one party at the expense of the other. In voluntary economic exchanges, both parties may leave the exchange in better economic shape than would otherwise have been the case.
To repeat the message of the peaceful means of exchange, "If you do something good for me, then I will do something good for you." If both parties did not believe they gained through the trade, if each did not see the exchange as beneficial, they would not continue to take part in it.
Most religious critics of capitalism focus their attacks on what they take to be its moral shortcomings.
In truth, the moral objections to capitalism turn out to be a sorry collection of claims that reflect, more than anything else, serious confusions about the real nature of a market system.
When capitalism is put to the moral test, it beats its competition easily.
Among all of our economic options, Arthur Shenfield writes:
"Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature."
The alternative to free exchange is coercion and violence. Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way.
Little can be done to prevent people from wanting to be rich, Shenfield says. That's the way things often are in a fallen world. But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation in life.
"The alternative to serving other men's wants," Shenfield concludes, "is seizing power of them, as it always has been. Hence it is not surprising that wherever the enemies of capitalism have prevailed, the result has been not only the debasement of consumption standards for the masses but also their reduction to serfdom by the new privileged class of Socialist rulers."
Once people realize that few things in life are free, that most things carry a price tag, and that therefore we have to work for most of the things we want, we are in a position to learn a vital truth about life. Capitalism helps teach this truth.
But under socialism, Arthur Shefield warns, "Everything still has a cost, but everyone is tempted, even urged to behave as if there is no cost or as if the cost will be borne by somebody else. This is one of the most corrosive effects of collectivism upon the moral character of people."
And so, we see, capitalism is not merely the more effective economic system; it is also morally superior. When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, it comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic than does either socialism or interventionism.
These are the real reasons why Ron Sider and his friends in the Religious Left should have abandoned the statist economic policies they promoted in the past.
These are also the reasons why they should now end their advocacy of economic interventionism, which only encourages the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
Christians who are sincere about wanting to help the poor should support the market system described in this chapter."
This article is an excerpt from a chapter of Dr. Nash's book, Why the Left Is Not Right.
~ Ronald H. Nash, PhD http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0...
wrong again.
I was young, but able to understand what happened with Cuba.
and no, I don't like the military-industrial-corporate axis of power either.
any way you slice it, anything or anyone with lots of power is going to abuse it.
and that's the struggle, isn't it? to stay informed, to vote intelligently, to create wealth and use it fairly.
I hate oppression, but it's a human problem that becomes institutional because of the lack of dealing with the root problem.
and that is sin. and that is why, in my opinion, Christianity is the only system that addresses it.
Again, what you say makes a lot of sense. A good breakdown to specifics
is needed.
But you end by saying "Real change is not what the govt. is giving us."
Let's also note that the market is also not giving us that. And without
the government mandating change, I just really don't believe that the
market will be motivated to give us the change -- the insurance industry
is, after all, the faction most fighting any substantive change that
Obama is pushing.
So you repeatedly focus on the government not working, and I repeatedly
focus on the market not serving the common good. We're both right.
Both are sinful human institutions. Both are corrupt and subject to
greed, power-accumulation, mindless self-preservation, and oppression of
the weak.
Thus I suggest that both have a role to play, in check and balance
against each other. Every time you point the finger at government, look
back and see whether you really think the market is any better.
Jesus came for one reason only. To live righteously and die for the sins of man. We are supposed to follow the example He set while He was here, but that wasn't His purpose. His only reason for becoming man was Redemption. We already had a guide to tell us HOW to live. We just weren't able to do it because of our sin. His life, death and resurrection made us righteous and it's only through His strength that we're even able to live a Christian life.
Nice response! It's sad that few Christians know the Christian origins of capitalism. It begins with the Church scholars of the middle ages and early modern period trying to determine how to achieve a just price so that merchants could know if they were sinning or not. By the late 16th century, they had determined that the just price could only be known by God. As for humans, the closes approximation was in a free market. People can find more about these scholars in the wikipedia article on the School of Salamanca, Spain.
Of course, the Church has always upheld the right to property based on the Bible's prohibitions of theft and covetousness, as you point out. A great deal of the Mosaic law has to do with justice when property has been violated.
The first nation to take Church scholars seriously was the Protestant Dutch Republic, founded in the late 16th century. They created institutions to protect everyone's property equally, which required free markets and honest police, courts, the rule of law, etc. Adam Smith studied the Dutch system and used it as his example in his Wealth of Nations. He called it the system of natural liberty. When England followed Smith's advice and copied the Dutch system, socialists labeled it "capitalism."
letjusticerolldown: "What legitimate role do you believe the US government ought fulfill to regulate the production, sale, handling, safe guarding, processing, application, and/or sale of enriched uranium in the United States and internationally (to name one of a 1,000,000 issues)?"
None.
Pastor Jeff asks: "What if Jesus was a leftist?"
But he wasn't.
Scripture plainly teaches that the individual Christian's responsibilities toward God fall in this order:
[1] God and the life of the spirit first,
[2] direct charitable care of others second,
[3] and only then draws consequences for a just social order."
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power?' "
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias' and Saphira's power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, "Property is theft."
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
Leftists "confuse the poor of Scripture with the proletariat of Karl Marx. ... In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. ...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom "God made Lord and Christ" is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed. An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ... ...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man. ...For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity. The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind. ...." ~ Pope Benedict XVI
The current system is broken. It is not OK as it is. We need a change.
You ask "Why aren't more people demanding a change...?". Well, they
are. The more pertinent question is "why does the govt have to take
control...?" Or, as I rephrase, why have people lost faith in the
ability of the market system to give them a fair shake? Even during the
demands for a change, the market system is raising insurance rates by up
to 50 or 60% in the most egregious cases. Why do you wonder that people
have lost faith in the market system and turn to the government for
relief?
"Why aren't more people demanding a change in insurance practices?"
Actually, many people are demanding exactly this. Ending the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies, prohibing insurance companies from refusing to cover people because of pre-existing conditions. I never supported a "public option," much less a single-payer system.
However, too many people are opposing all health care reform without presenting alternatives. Something has to be done; it cannot remain as is.
acceptance of what, exactly?
oh, great 'pastor', it is precisely your comment, 'it is under our control......get to acceptance already' that sets my freedom alert ringing.
I am a free person, under no man's 'control'. 'It' is me, and I am free.
I don't take kindly to patronization. btw, a good shepherd lays his life down for his sheep, he doesn't fatten himself up with power.
NC77 wrote: "Jim. Please contact Glen Beck to go on his show."
Whether he goes on Beck's show or not, I think Beck will soon be setting up a dedicated hot line just for Wallis so that, if he wishes, he may call in and deny the things that will probably soon be brought up -- many of which are documented here:
I just get sick and tired of my industry being scapegoated, almost always unfairly. Worse from my perspective, what that does is allow people to substitute their own version of "truth" that is, under scrutiny, illegitimate (because they just don't get their facts right). That's why we're even talking about this.
I'm sure president Obama appreciates your prayers, as do I. Again I would hope you would consider the possibility that the president is doing exactly what people elected him to do. I think that this is so unusual that people are reacting more to his integrity than to his positions.
Your comment is an insult to every person who has actually lived under a Communist or Fascist regime. I am infuriated by the segment of Americans who are crying "Commie" or "Nazi" or "Fascist" in the face of health reform or "big government". The fact you get to say what you want, publish it on a web site and not be punished by your government for doing so is just the beginning of the very obvious evidence that you are NOT, in fact, living under a Communist or Fascist regime. These are terms far too loosely thrown around by citizens of republics and democracies.
I just saw this response from a few day's ago, and now since my comments have once again been erased by the censors at Sojourners, I can't even remember what I wrote in the first place. I'm sure it was highly intelligent and true though. If you'd care to remind me what it was I wrote, I'd be happy to reply and "try to" defend.
________________________________
Sadly Daytime77, I surely blame what many call the main stream media for the tear in our country. They have slowly been tearing away at our Christian beliefs one by one. Sadly today there appears to be only a few brave souls to stand up and say "It's wrong what your doing". The day that MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes and the big three aren't continuously chipping away will be a blessing for us all.
But, mere existence of such laws prevents nothing. Even having a divine engraving right from Mount Sinai hasn't done any good except to point out that we're violating them.
Anyhow, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of actually reducing the size of government to any serious extent, outside of reducing the military, which one day will happen due to simple economic collapse, just like the Soviets. There was a time I believed otherwise, when the Republicans promised it to a younger me, but that was before they revealed themselves the biggest spenders of all - but for their own cossetiing.
So ideological jousting does nothing practical - but for the genuine conservatives who haven't yet woken up and stilll serve as Lenin's "useful idiots" for the financial aristocracy, it does for the elites at least serve their status quo by making change almost impossible by their ideological intractibility.
The dividing line between too much government and too little is pretty easy to draw. The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. Laws that prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. for everyone are absolutely necessary for a free society. Freedom consists of the rule of principles under which everyone is treated equally and everyone can know what the rules are.
The state gets too big and oversteps its bounds when it begins to pass laws that benefit one group at the expense of another, or tries to implement social engineering ideology by micromanaging specific industries. Everyone should be subject to the laws prohibiting prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. But the state should not be involved in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. No should it be involved in protecting any industry from competitors, domestic or foreign. When the state does that, it is no longer exercising the rule of law, but implementing the arbitrary rule of men. It should not benefit one industry at the expense of another. And it should not reduce competition by passing laws that favor the existing large corporations. It should never set prices as it does in agriculture and healthcare.
Most of the massive regulation of industry in the US today falls into the category of illegitimate activities outlined above.
With all due respect, I think you are far more informed than I about this, and I think your argument totally inadequate.
What legitimate role do you believe the US government ought fulfill to regulate the production, sale, handling, safe guarding, processing, application, and/or sale of enriched uranium in the United States and internationally (to name one of a 1,000,000 issues)?
Or do we need no more regulation of this industry than the moon rocks industry?
You have no idea what a communist dictatorship is, if you really believe this.
Of course "homeland security" and the "endless war" advocates do bear a startling similarity to those paranoid militarists who started to seize power in nations where dictatorships eventually occurred.
But most of those people making these "commie" and "nazi" analogies have "no problemo" with lots of militarism, police state authoritarianism and surveillance.
They just don't like the idea that the poor might get more of their piece of the shrinking economic pie - and who never did under the dictatorships they now compare an elected government to.
You ignore the practical historical example of wealth unrestrained always tending to concentrate. Human history teaches there will always be a government of some sort. Only lately has it been at all those that did not completely serve wealth.
It's a pernicious argument that's been made over and over in the wake of greed-driven financial debacle - it was not the fault of the wealthy at all - it was someone else's - namely, their nemesis, government. How convenient to place your own considerable sins - that can no longer be hidden - to assign them to the only hope for redress.
Laissez-faire - anything goes. Capital will police itself. The market is self-correcting.
So where are these perfect people that will not overthrow such a simplistic ideal the moment they get their chance - for as soon as they accumulate, they will seek to remove any limits to their own ambition.
Really, this is a "faith statement" if I've ever seen one, for such a utopia has never yet existed, and is contrary to human nature, so it is not based upon either experience or logic.
And taking on faith the idea that private greed (sinful behavior) will lead to public good is too big a leap into the darkness of superstition for me.
jim,
your gospel works only if you're on the 'poor' side of the tracks.
once your not poor anymore, I guess you don't need the gospel. I really don't need a Savior named Wallis. My Savior's work is still perfect, still working just fine. Whether I have resources or not, He doesn't change, nor am I loved more or less.
It sucks when you're wrong, but, even Saul repented.
yes it is a commie dictatorship, sorry to say.
it's not the Calvary, it's the enemy dressed up to look like the Calvary.
really, Rod, look a little closer. those riders are known 'commies' they call themselves 'socialists', they come from known communist enclaves.
Look, you are the hero you want the govt. to be.
It's you. and me. and yes, we are a govt. of the people by the people and that's why we have to get it under our control. not the other way around.
Letjusticerolldown: "The issue isn't more or less regulation--but rather the regulation that allows for just and productive activity."
The dividing line between too much government and too little is pretty easy to draw. The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. Laws that prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. for everyone are absolutely necessary for a free society. Freedom consists of the rule of principles under which everyone is treated equally and everyone can know what the rules are.
The state gets too big and oversteps its bounds when it begins to pass laws that benefit one group at the expense of another, or tries to implement social engineering ideology by micromanaging specific industries. Everyone should be subject to the laws prohibiting prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. But the state should not be involved in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. No should it be involved in protecting any industry from competitors, domestic or foreign. When the state does that, it is no longer exercising the rule of law, but implementing the arbitrary rule of men. It should not benefit one industry at the expense of another. And it should not reduce competition by passing laws that favor the existing large corporations. It should never set prices as it does in agriculture and healthcare.
Most of the massive regulation of industry in the US today falls into the category of illegitimate activities outlined above.
Letjusticerolldown : "A productive agricultural sector that is sustainable and expandable over centuries must be intertwined with technology, transportation, education, environment, energy, human capital, advanced research, bio-diversity--all of which is operating in a complex international system. We need large private firms (e.g. Cargill moving food and Koch moving energy) and we need government regulation and international bodies to govern such.There is no way to leave government out of the equation."
No one is asking to leave government out of the equation. But the state does far more than prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. It tries to pick winners and losers. If favors workers over owners, and large, established corporations over smaller competitors. It protects the politically powerful from competition and gives huge amounts of subsidies to large corporate farmers. It fixes prices at ridiculously high levels and then keeps cheaper foreign imports out.
A small example: did you know that it is illegal for an allergy specialist to check for allergic reactions to corn in a patient? That's a federal law! Why do you suppose that might be a law? My guess is that Cargill and ADM don't want people to find out about their allergies to corn and quit eating it. My wife just happened to stumble upon her own corn allergy and the federal law prohibiting testing for it.
All that is needed are the laws that prevent murder, violence, fraud, theft, etc. Getting rid of the other laws and regulations would eliminate about 90%.
there are many ways to create systems without govt.
Co-ops, profit sharing companies, etc. just to name a few.
why not take our angst-filled energies and be proactive instead?
let's find organizations that Christians can be united over and support them?
I can be a good steward over the environment, I can pledge to do business with clean, morally upright companies. etc.,
I think we agree on most issues. I would like to propose a peace tribunal between the liberal and the conservative Christian camps.
I love the idea of renewable energy. Wouldn't it be great to have a small power source system on your property that keeps you independent of the grid? Freedom, yeah!
What about developing homes that are built to keep out the heat in the summer and keep it in when it's cold?
what's wrong with hanging your clothes on the clothesline? just towels? so what if they're a little rough? the better to exfoliate dead skin cells with!
what can we offer up with a servants heart, that will glorify God and our fellow pilgrims?
That's what I'm talking about, keep uncle sam small, so I can have the freedom to the right thing.
Except, it's not a "commie" or "nazi" dictatorship that's trying to provide health care to all, but an elected government that is the one that was supposed to have been "established by the people, for the people" rather than being the vehicle for advancing the exclusive interests of the wealthy. Of course we realize, historically, that there was a certain hyperbole in the statement of founding principles not consistent with the ensuing reality. But, yours for a "more perfect union."
There's no doubt the billion-bonusing, bankster-bailout insurance execs and their investors have created this monstrosity that serves themselves first of all, and have grown ever more greedy so that it serves fewer and fewer of us. They are the ones who hijacked our healthcare which was supposed to be between us and our physicians, but which was stolen away by their greed. This is just a case of the US Cavalry riding to the rescue, when all else fails, just like the Good Guys in the movies always did.
You hit the nail on the head. FEAR. It has very clearly been used for political purposes - behind which hide financial ones not in the majority's interests - in order to get people to agree to what they would not were their judgment and consciences not clouded by FEAR.
Please don't forget Glenn Beck is not a free moral agent. He is the employee of Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire owner of Fox and a satellite porno network. Murdoch is not going to be allowing anyone to bellow out accusations against any other than those whose interests do not coincide with Murdoch and his allies. Notice that Beck's demons are precisely those people and interests that Murdoch finds inimical to his own and Murdoch certainly wants Beck to hyperventilate that FEAR to all of us too, bypassing our reasoning ability with raw emotion and appeals to the various bogeymen out of America's past and collective subconscious.
Didn't you know? It's just like the MSM was to blame for creating more terrorists because they reported on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The problem wasn't that our government authorized mercenaries and CIA operatives to torture. The problem was that the media made it public.
The real problem with the MSM is that they now seem to think that reporting what two sides of an issue say about it is the same as critically reporting the truth and fallacies of their arguments. Is this just laziness or fear of attack by those who distort and spin the truth until it is no longer recognizable?
NMrod: "If you do not have a government policing the wealthy, and it simply withers away, the power vacuum is simply filled by the most powerful forces remaining - which are the rich. An example of this is in government outsourcing or in corporations supplying services formerly provided by government. Often they find a way to charge more, while giving the minimum service, if they can get away with it, because that is the profit motive."
You don't get it. The government serves the rich. The government never polices the rich; it serves them. It's called "regulatory capture." But it's also evident in the bribing of politicians by the rich. The rich uses the government to steal from the masses, just as they always have. It's ridiculous to think that the state will police the rich when the rich own the state.
Without the state intervening in the economy, the rich can't control the economy. Then competition develops that forces the rich to serve the consumer. With real free markets and competition, the rich cannot "find a way to charge more, while giving the minimum service." If they tried, they would find all of their free consumers switching to a better provider who gave them value for their money.
and I said that when?
don't put words in my comment box.
it seems logical, that if you reduce govt.'s scope, you reduce the cost of govt. thereby allowing discretionary funds to flow according to the ebb and flow of the marketplace.
what is the cost of your beneficent big brother? why not eliminate the middle man and do the good thing on your own?
"Show me one single place in the Bible where Jesus took from one person to give to another." Matthew 14: 13-21
In addition, although this person was disobedient, Jesus asked him to give everything he had and give to the poor. Mark 10:17-34 Might He still be asking this of us today? I think probably yes.
Again, you seem to want to reduce government's scope - but not its actual cost - only to those functions that the financial elite deems necessary for their own endeavors, essentially making it a creature of big business and the financiers who interests most of its taxes already support.
"1. Lower taxes and regulation. Both make the cost of doing business in the US very high and force business overseas. The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. As I mentioned, high taxes and regulation destroy job creation and reduce wages. According to some research, if we could reduce all taxes, state and federal, to about 25% of gdp, we could cut poverty in half in this country. BTW, poverty today is about the same rate as it was in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and began his massive redistribution of wealth programs. He has failed miserably.
2. End the Federal Reserve's policy of inflation to promote growth. Price inflation destroys the wages of working people, enriches the wealthy who get the new money before prices rise, and destroys investment in new jobs.
letjusticerolldown: "And leave out the language about coercive redistribution--unless you wish to engage in conversation about whether you ought to have police protection and a hundred other services benefitting you."
Capitalists have always insisted that the state has the main job of police protection, defense and courts. Those have nothing to do with coercive redistribution. They are the legitimate duties of the state. Redistribution is not a legit duty of the state." Fundamentalist
Thank you. I actually have read many of your posts.
The two positions you articulate I find defensible--and arguable.
And I don't think taking a different position casts a person in position as backing coercive government redistribution.
Taxation and regulation do not stand as isolated issues. e.g. Energy production and distribution is enabled by law and regulation. The issue isn't more or less regulation--but rather the regulation that allows for just and productive activity. When people take a stance of "more or less tax/regulation" as delivering a benefit--I usually take it as dodging issues or codewords.
Taxation is to raise revenue--not to limit or expand economic activity. The effect on economic activity needs be factored--but it is not the reason. Regulation is to provide for an activity to occur--not primarily restrict it.
A productive agricultural sector that is sustainable and expandable over centuries must be intertwined with technology, transportation, education, environment, energy, human capital, advanced research, bio-diversity--all of which is operating in a complex international system. We need large private firms (e.g. Cargill moving food and Koch moving energy) and we need government regulation and international bodies to govern such.There is no way to leave government out of the equation.
It is language that demonizes government to which I am responding. Advancing "smaller government" makes no more sense than someone getting on here advocating "bigger government" for the sake of "bigger government."
I think we need seriously downscaled government able to act with much greater effectiveness and much more nimbly.
Persons like Beck are advancing a language and spirit that will drive bad policy and bad decision-making because there is too much demonizing, falsehood, and fear. I am not putting that on you. But when you advance the "government redistributing with guns pointed at our heads" type language you shift off the rational, defendable kinds of positions you often articulate, into something else. And that something else will eventually mute the ability of conservatives and libertarians to articulate a rational defense.
A
The bible is full of examples where God looked everywhere for a man, any man, who would stand in the gap, and plead for justice. If you look at why Jesus was sent, it was because God's shepherds were not doing what they were required to do, feed the sheep, seek those who were lost, bind up the broken hearted, take care of widows, orphans, strangers in their midst. He became the Good Shepherd who showed us how it should be done.
Maybe a complete study on Old Testament prophesy on why Christ came would give you some incite as to the why of how we follow in Christ's footsteps.
In the meantime I'm thrilled that the "transforming gospel working through you" has allowed you to raise people from the dead, heal the sick and divide your lunch with the hungry so that you are able to love your neigbor as yourself without spending a penny.
Personally, I'm grateful for a voice like Jim's calling me to public repentance, and for the ability to offer my paltry taxes to help those I'm unable to otherwise.
are you asking me about my Christian walk with a sincere heart, or are you being sarcastic?
Shall I tell you about my family and how the Lord has indeed, brought someone back from the dead? Dead in spirit and hopeless in life? Yet, today he has hope and plans for a future. And yes, I told him, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." He left his bed of despair and he is still walking.
and yes, I am a liberal giver of all that i have. But it has been my choice. uncle sam is not my moral compass.
who(m) does your taxes help that you can't help by donations through a private organization?
"Listen to what I'm saying. Your freedom is at stake.
Would you rather be free or have a smug feeling that you made someone give up their freedom in order to make someone else have parity?
See the choice? Its freedom or ..... fill in the blank.
If it's anything or freedom, friend, choose freedom. We can work out the other things, as long as we're free." lizzylu
I appreciate your heart for freedom. Why do you find it so threatened? I do not know you. Your language--however sounds like you think you either lost it--or are close. You have no power.
I understand the sentiment. The few hundred elected officials in Washington often talk like they are powerless.
I agree the bureaucracy is out of control
But what I react to, and others here will react to, is the fear-driven message behind that.
In the financial bail-outs you could see the systemic fear in our culture and government. People feel they have lost control.
The enemy I see to freedom is this fear. It is not governing.
Too big government is the result of not governing.
I frankly like some things Beck says--but I virtually never listen (this is a digression--but in my gut there is a spirit of fear and twistedness that I think is very corrosive)
When I bring up a specific thing the government did--intervene in Haiti--you will not render a judgment.
But this is where our power and responsibility to govern actually rests. To look issues in front of us square in the face, put them out on the table and address.
This is why I ask persons here to address exactly what they don't like about what Wallis has said or done. Or in this case about the government. You want to stand on the rooftop and scream that our freedoms are at risk for not addressing government bureaucracy--but then when it comes to a specific--you bow out.
This is living in the clouds that persons like Beck creates. It is nothing different than arguing we will reach heaven if we pass health reform.
We are not powerless. Christ has not given a spirit of fear--but of power, of love and of a sound mind.
If you listen to Wallis on the above clip you will not hear someone speaking out of fear (and if you read my first comment on this blog you will see I am not in love with the Wallis response to Beck).
You obviously care. I appreciate your posts. I would like it if you would back down a degree and examine the pieces of what you are thinking and saying.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Sadly Daytime77, I surely blame what many call the main stream media for the tear in our country. They have slowly been tearing away at our Christian beliefs one by one. Sadly today there appears to be only a few brave souls to stand up and say "It's wrong what your doing". The day that MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes and the big three aren't continuously chipping away will be a blessing for us all.
Sadly Daytime77, I surely blame what many call the main stream media for the tear in our country. They have slowly been tearing away at our Christian beliefs one by one. Sadly today there appears to be only a few brave souls to stand up and say "It's wrong what your doing". The day that MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes and the big three aren't continuously chipping away will be a blessing for us all.
I listened to only this video. I have not followed the full back and forth.
I side with the view of Wallis in regards to theology and politics and justice.
But I don't like the Wallis response. Why?
Because Beck is a popular media pundit--and responding to him in this way turns Wallis into the same.
I don't have a problem with what Wallis says about scripture, Christianity, justice, etc.
The problem is he twists Beck's lay critique and then pounces on it.
So what is the motivation for the twist?????????
I just do not agree with advancing arguments for the Gospel for justice on the back of twisting popular person's statements or lives. This comes in many forms. This is just one form.
And what is the twist?????? Beck did not take to the Christian church's teachings on justice or actions to advance justice. He took on the use of "social justice" as code for a political agenda with which he disagrees.
I don't agree with his stance. But we can't argue that we are for talking, for justice, for love---and then not listen to people.
Further, just to clarify the Sojo headline: Mr Wallis appeared on the show "Olberman". Now why not say that in the headline versus saying he appeared on MSNBC?????? Might it be because most of us know there is ongoing vitriol between Beck and Olberman and it might appear Wallis is being triangled into this feud?
My bottom line feeling: I am wholeheartedly for social justice--but think there is a segment of the church that does not want to be called on their use of the term as code for a political agenda. I think Beck is wrong--but I think we have more to gain from reflecting on his critique than exploiting his comments to advance our own voice.
I listened to only this video. I have not followed the full back and forth.
I side with the view of Wallis in regards to theology and politics and justice.
But I don't like the Wallis response. Why?
Because Beck is a popular media pundit--and responding to him in this way turns Wallis into the same.
I don't have a problem with what Wallis says about scripture, Christianity, justice, etc.
The problem is he twists Beck's lay critique and then pounces on it.
So what is the motivation for the twist?????????
I just do not agree with advancing arguments for the Gospel for justice on the back of twisting popular person's statements or lives. This comes in many forms. This is just one form.
And what is the twist?????? Beck did not take to the Christian church's teachings on justice or actions to advance justice. He took on the use of "social justice" as code for a political agenda with which he disagrees.
I don't agree with his stance. But we can't argue that we are for talking, for justice, for love---and then not listen to people.
Further, just to clarify the Sojo headline: Mr Wallis appeared on the show "Olberman". Now why not say that in the headline versus saying he appeared on MSNBC?????? Might it be because most of us know there is ongoing vitriol between Beck and Olberman and it might appear Wallis is being triangled into this feud?
My bottom line feeling: I am wholeheartedly for social justice--but think there is a segment of the church that does not want to be called on their use of the term as code for a political agenda. I think Beck is wrong--but I think we have more to gain from reflecting on his critique than exploiting his comments to advance our own voice.
It's a separate world, there where Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are the "truth" tellers...a world surrounded by a thick wall impenetrable with logic, facts, reasoning, or reality.
The rest of us just need to keep praying for a miraculous recovery for the residents of the denizens of the "right."
It's a separate world, there where Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are the "truth" tellers...a world surrounded by a thick wall impenetrable with logic, facts, reasoning, or reality.
The rest of us just need to keep praying for a miraculous recovery for the residents of the denizens of the "right."
I see many have taken out of context what is being said in the media. It is said, as they, who claim to be true christians, that social justice is inspired by the Holy Gospel. Yet at the same time they are judging not only Glenn Beck, Rush and the Churches. It is not for us to judge. There is only one person that is allowed to JUDGE us and that is our Creator, GOD.
Please go back to the scriptures and see how Jesus felt, lived and died for us. He did not take up with the politicians nor did he condemn them. He spoke the truth from his heart. It is time everyone woke up and re-read the Holy Scriptures.
I see many have taken out of context what is being said in the media. It is said, as they, who claim to be true christians, that social justice is inspired by the Holy Gospel. Yet at the same time they are judging not only Glenn Beck, Rush and the Churches. It is not for us to judge. There is only one person that is allowed to JUDGE us and that is our Creator, GOD.
Please go back to the scriptures and see how Jesus felt, lived and died for us. He did not take up with the politicians nor did he condemn them. He spoke the truth from his heart. It is time everyone woke up and re-read the Holy Scriptures.
As a Christian, I'm highly offended by your false doctrines of redistribution of wealth. You're taking away reliance on God to provide for our needs and turning the government into God. The Bible in no way says that we should take from the wealthy to give to the poor. It says that the Lord loves a cheerful GIVER, not a cheerful tax payer. Jesus praised the widow in the temple for giving her mite. He didn't order anyone to give her their money. We are to give out of our need, meaning, we give, even if we don't have much and we rely ON GOD to provide for our needs, not Obama or Congress.
2 Thess 3:10 says that if you don't work, you don't eat. Show me one single place in the Bible where Jesus took from one person to give to another. He gave OF HIMSELF. He ordered us to do the same. The government has no role in this process. I get to choose who I want to help, not the Government. I don't want my money funding abortion mills. I am a steward of the money God has provided for my use and I am charged with deciding how to spend it. You should be ashamed of yourself for telling Christians what their political views should be when you've associated yourselves with the most pro-abortion, socialist dictator in the history of our country. My rights of freedom and choice in how I worship, vote and spend my money came from God, not from the Government, so they have no right to take it away. You need to hit your knees, open your heart and ask God to reveal to you the error of your ways. You'd better be careful what you say "in the name of God"
As a Christian, I'm highly offended by your false doctrines of redistribution of wealth. You're taking away reliance on God to provide for our needs and turning the government into God. The Bible in no way says that we should take from the wealthy to give to the poor. It says that the Lord loves a cheerful GIVER, not a cheerful tax payer. Jesus praised the widow in the temple for giving her mite. He didn't order anyone to give her their money. We are to give out of our need, meaning, we give, even if we don't have much and we rely ON GOD to provide for our needs, not Obama or Congress.
2 Thess 3:10 says that if you don't work, you don't eat. Show me one single place in the Bible where Jesus took from one person to give to another. He gave OF HIMSELF. He ordered us to do the same. The government has no role in this process. I get to choose who I want to help, not the Government. I don't want my money funding abortion mills. I am a steward of the money God has provided for my use and I am charged with deciding how to spend it. You should be ashamed of yourself for telling Christians what their political views should be when you've associated yourselves with the most pro-abortion, socialist dictator in the history of our country. My rights of freedom and choice in how I worship, vote and spend my money came from God, not from the Government, so they have no right to take it away. You need to hit your knees, open your heart and ask God to reveal to you the error of your ways. You'd better be careful what you say "in the name of God"
Totally insulted by what???????
The media is by definition part and parcel of a culture. Do you believe the dominant culture to be one upholding a Christian view of reality--or to be a worldly system that corrupts truth?? I am not sure the comment you responded to was saying this--but then I'm not sure your offense is really justified.
I don't think journalism assaults Christianity. I do think every profession creates its own subculture and functions (and is formed by) a larger culture and we all must be self-reflective and self-aware of how we integrate into, stand within, and function in worldly systems.
Totally insulted by what???????
The media is by definition part and parcel of a culture. Do you believe the dominant culture to be one upholding a Christian view of reality--or to be a worldly system that corrupts truth?? I am not sure the comment you responded to was saying this--but then I'm not sure your offense is really justified.
I don't think journalism assaults Christianity. I do think every profession creates its own subculture and functions (and is formed by) a larger culture and we all must be self-reflective and self-aware of how we integrate into, stand within, and function in worldly systems.
I just get sick and tired of my industry being scapegoated, almost always unfairly. Worse from my perspective, what that does is allow people to substitute their own version of "truth" that is, under scrutiny, illegitimate (because they just don't get their facts right). That's why we're even talking about this.
I just get sick and tired of my industry being scapegoated, almost always unfairly. Worse from my perspective, what that does is allow people to substitute their own version of "truth" that is, under scrutiny, illegitimate (because they just don't get their facts right). That's why we're even talking about this.
jim,
your gospel works only if you're on the 'poor' side of the tracks.
once your not poor anymore, I guess you don't need the gospel. I really don't need a Savior named Wallis. My Savior's work is still perfect, still working just fine. Whether I have resources or not, He doesn't change, nor am I loved more or less.
It sucks when you're wrong, but, even Saul repented.
jim,
your gospel works only if you're on the 'poor' side of the tracks.
once your not poor anymore, I guess you don't need the gospel. I really don't need a Savior named Wallis. My Savior's work is still perfect, still working just fine. Whether I have resources or not, He doesn't change, nor am I loved more or less.
It sucks when you're wrong, but, even Saul repented.
"Show me one single place in the Bible where Jesus took from one person to give to another." Matthew 14: 13-21
In addition, although this person was disobedient, Jesus asked him to give everything he had and give to the poor. Mark 10:17-34 Might He still be asking this of us today? I think probably yes.
"Show me one single place in the Bible where Jesus took from one person to give to another." Matthew 14: 13-21
In addition, although this person was disobedient, Jesus asked him to give everything he had and give to the poor. Mark 10:17-34 Might He still be asking this of us today? I think probably yes.
Keep one thing in mind, if you don't go after the Advertisers of these Shows, you are just faning a lot of hot air discussing the issue. You have to attack the Core of the problem, or you have to ignore it, but to make a lot of followup comments, or send insignificant emails that are mostly overlooked, and stays in the news just a few days at most, is silly.
These Shows are allowed to exist because there are many people out here who support them with their dollars, but when you say you are not going to buy a product that says it support these types Shows and its messages, you got something to build on, and it could expand to a whole lot of different Shows.
Keep one thing in mind, if you don't go after the Advertisers of these Shows, you are just faning a lot of hot air discussing the issue. You have to attack the Core of the problem, or you have to ignore it, but to make a lot of followup comments, or send insignificant emails that are mostly overlooked, and stays in the news just a few days at most, is silly.
These Shows are allowed to exist because there are many people out here who support them with their dollars, but when you say you are not going to buy a product that says it support these types Shows and its messages, you got something to build on, and it could expand to a whole lot of different Shows.
Mr Wallis holds to a very orthodox, Evangelical view of the Gospel; so your critique really doesn't hold any water. The Biblical concepts of salvation,healing, peace, shalom, righteousness, mercy, justice are all closely related. Jim's view does not make your view wrong and vice versa. Maybe you could stop and listen.
Mr Wallis holds to a very orthodox, Evangelical view of the Gospel; so your critique really doesn't hold any water. The Biblical concepts of salvation,healing, peace, shalom, righteousness, mercy, justice are all closely related. Jim's view does not make your view wrong and vice versa. Maybe you could stop and listen.
Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. I subscribed for years to World Magazine, which touts itself as the sole-needed source for Christian world view reporting.
The final straw came, I think with Edward Gene Veith writing in there that the prisoners in Guatanamo were "relaxing, sunning themselves on Caribbean vacations, at US taxpayer expense." And he was not being ironic.
Often, it was simply an uncritical cheerleading for all things Republican, ignoring and excusing every Republican lapse, even going so far as to never refer to "the Bush Administration," but rather, in every story, as "Team Bush."
Many of the scandals that major media reported that involved Republicans, were completely unknown to World Magazine readers. Such were simply never reported, no matter how egregious. Yet the criticism of the other party was constant and every one of its adherents were constantly maligned, gossiped and allegations even manufactured, without any benefit of the doubt ever given. It was clear to World readers who are angels and who are devils in a black and white world - and also the uncritical promotion of all things militaristic and uncritical jingoistic war promotion was constant. America's Divine Mission in selfless world conquest is never in doubt - except, perhaps, when Democrats have any say.
So much of that sort of bad journalism, with every factual event wrung through an extremely narrow, preconceived ideological bias, with only "news" that "proves" what they already "know" to be true allowed to emerge in a highly distorted manner, as a constant.
I often think of the New York Times' motto - "All the News that Fits" - modified to, "All the News That Fits Our Preconceptions."
It's not news, but ends up being propaganda. And how hurtful - how devilish - to tout such as the product of the understanding of the Holy Spirit.
It is really simply the religiously political arm of a rump part of the Republican Party's re-election machine, exploiting the genuine thirst among Christians for reporting that better reflects truth.
Yeah, the mainstream media can be highly biased, and we all realize it might not be possible for any reporter to eliminate personal bias completely as everyone has a perspective which causes them to even decide what is news or what questions to ask. But professionalism demands that one recognize one's own biases and nevertheless attempt to be fair when reporting. Sadly, this effort is far more visible in the mainstream than in some Christian publications, notably World Magazine.
Because people like Marvin Olasky and his staff are ideologues and advocates so sure of themselves and also regard their mission as to evangelize what some of them might actually believe to be identical with "God's views" they don't even attempt to be fair. Being fair is seen as giving the devil wiggle room.
Sometimes an honest observer - even a Christian who is pro-life and has a very high view of Biblical authority and is by no means an advocate of higher taxes or expanded government, is forced to see that some of what they spin out as truth is blatant lies.
Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. I subscribed for years to World Magazine, which touts itself as the sole-needed source for Christian world view reporting.
The final straw came, I think with Edward Gene Veith writing in there that the prisoners in Guatanamo were "relaxing, sunning themselves on Caribbean vacations, at US taxpayer expense." And he was not being ironic.
Often, it was simply an uncritical cheerleading for all things Republican, ignoring and excusing every Republican lapse, even going so far as to never refer to "the Bush Administration," but rather, in every story, as "Team Bush."
Many of the scandals that major media reported that involved Republicans, were completely unknown to World Magazine readers. Such were simply never reported, no matter how egregious. Yet the criticism of the other party was constant and every one of its adherents were constantly maligned, gossiped and allegations even manufactured, without any benefit of the doubt ever given. It was clear to World readers who are angels and who are devils in a black and white world - and also the uncritical promotion of all things militaristic and uncritical jingoistic war promotion was constant. America's Divine Mission in selfless world conquest is never in doubt - except, perhaps, when Democrats have any say.
So much of that sort of bad journalism, with every factual event wrung through an extremely narrow, preconceived ideological bias, with only "news" that "proves" what they already "know" to be true allowed to emerge in a highly distorted manner, as a constant.
I often think of the New York Times' motto - "All the News that Fits" - modified to, "All the News That Fits Our Preconceptions."
It's not news, but ends up being propaganda. And how hurtful - how devilish - to tout such as the product of the understanding of the Holy Spirit.
It is really simply the religiously political arm of a rump part of the Republican Party's re-election machine, exploiting the genuine thirst among Christians for reporting that better reflects truth.
Yeah, the mainstream media can be highly biased, and we all realize it might not be possible for any reporter to eliminate personal bias completely as everyone has a perspective which causes them to even decide what is news or what questions to ask. But professionalism demands that one recognize one's own biases and nevertheless attempt to be fair when reporting. Sadly, this effort is far more visible in the mainstream than in some Christian publications, notably World Magazine.
Because people like Marvin Olasky and his staff are ideologues and advocates so sure of themselves and also regard their mission as to evangelize what some of them might actually believe to be identical with "God's views" they don't even attempt to be fair. Being fair is seen as giving the devil wiggle room.
Sometimes an honest observer - even a Christian who is pro-life and has a very high view of Biblical authority and is by no means an advocate of higher taxes or expanded government, is forced to see that some of what they spin out as truth is blatant lies.
I think that trying that given Mr Wallis's past leanings, he is still trying to commit this country to socialism. I worked hard for what I have. Along the way I have voluntarily given to those in need, Not because my government took from me but because I wanted to. the people behind the present administration are all about power and wealth. And giving to those who do not work... that makes no sense. I do not want my freedoms taken from me. I do not need the government to make decisions about my life. And I will fight this with everything at my disposal. My heart, my mind and my resources. I think this man is evil, as I say, look into his past. It comes down to which side are you on. He says he is not political, etc. Baloney. He is left, left, left or our Pres wouldn't want him on his team. Maybe Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity lean far right, but we need balance. The left would take all our freedom of speech away. And while they are at the game of take, take, take, why don't they ask George Soros, (the Nazi Collaborator) to give his fortune for social justice and parity. don't think that is going to happpen.
I think that trying that given Mr Wallis's past leanings, he is still trying to commit this country to socialism. I worked hard for what I have. Along the way I have voluntarily given to those in need, Not because my government took from me but because I wanted to. the people behind the present administration are all about power and wealth. And giving to those who do not work... that makes no sense. I do not want my freedoms taken from me. I do not need the government to make decisions about my life. And I will fight this with everything at my disposal. My heart, my mind and my resources. I think this man is evil, as I say, look into his past. It comes down to which side are you on. He says he is not political, etc. Baloney. He is left, left, left or our Pres wouldn't want him on his team. Maybe Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity lean far right, but we need balance. The left would take all our freedom of speech away. And while they are at the game of take, take, take, why don't they ask George Soros, (the Nazi Collaborator) to give his fortune for social justice and parity. don't think that is going to happpen.
maybe you've never been really poor. I have. Mr. Wallis' social justice is patronizing and polarizes between the have's and the have nots.
who decides what is enough and not enough? Who differentiates between who is 'worthy' of getting a hand out and who gives the hand out?
That is the domain of each individual, not the gooder's.
Righteousness comes from God. As the Bible says, 'let God be true and every man a liar.'
Let's encourage each man and woman and child to be Christ followers and doers of the Word, on their own.
That my friend is what America was founded on. The right to worship and believe and act according to their own heart.
Mr. Wallis may have his theology correct, but he misses the mark when it comes down to the application.
Let Freedom Ring!
maybe you've never been really poor. I have. Mr. Wallis' social justice is patronizing and polarizes between the have's and the have nots.
who decides what is enough and not enough? Who differentiates between who is 'worthy' of getting a hand out and who gives the hand out?
That is the domain of each individual, not the gooder's.
Righteousness comes from God. As the Bible says, 'let God be true and every man a liar.'
Let's encourage each man and woman and child to be Christ followers and doers of the Word, on their own.
That my friend is what America was founded on. The right to worship and believe and act according to their own heart.
Mr. Wallis may have his theology correct, but he misses the mark when it comes down to the application.
Let Freedom Ring!
Sounds like you want a gospel that extols wealth.
It works like this:
"I have become wealthy and therefore God has blessed me.
Since he has chosen to bless me, I must be pretty good compared to those poor sinners, because God has rewarded me and punished them, by their omission. They must be highly sinful compared to me.. Wealth is a sign of God's favor. Let no man put asunder what God has joined together - me and mammon!"
Sounds like you want a gospel that extols wealth.
It works like this:
"I have become wealthy and therefore God has blessed me.
Since he has chosen to bless me, I must be pretty good compared to those poor sinners, because God has rewarded me and punished them, by their omission. They must be highly sinful compared to me.. Wealth is a sign of God's favor. Let no man put asunder what God has joined together - me and mammon!"
The movement to have Fox's most outrageous shows boycotted by advertisers already started. It was necessary, here's just one site where you can get info on that: http://colorofchange.org/beck/
The movement to have Fox's most outrageous shows boycotted by advertisers already started. It was necessary, here's just one site where you can get info on that: http://colorofchange.org/beck/
Wallis embraces the Marxist perspective regarding social justice.
Such people "confuse the poor of Scripture with the proletariat of Karl Marx. ... In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle.
...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom "God made Lord and Christ" is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed. An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ...
...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man.
...For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.
The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind. ...." ~ Pope Benedict XVI
They actually pervert justice by _favoring_ the poor. ~Leviticus 19:15
"Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."
"Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings."
"Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since 'it is right to obey God rather than men.'"
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
Wallis embraces the Marxist perspective regarding social justice.
Such people "confuse the poor of Scripture with the proletariat of Karl Marx. ... In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle.
...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom "God made Lord and Christ" is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed. An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ...
...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man.
...For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.
The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind. ...." ~ Pope Benedict XVI
They actually pervert justice by _favoring_ the poor. ~Leviticus 19:15
"Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."
"Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings."
"Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since 'it is right to obey God rather than men.'"
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
wow. where did those words come from? I didn't say that. My heart breaks for those who have needs, and I and millions of Christians give liberally. Billions of dollars in aid and lives and secular careers have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. I don't think it's possible to quantify the positive effect believing Christians have had on this earth.
But they heard from the Lord, and in the name of the Lord, they went out.
It was personal. It was between a man or woman and their God.
Don't tell me what your god says I must do for him. I have a direct line, thank you very much. (and He is awesome, btw!)
wow. where did those words come from? I didn't say that. My heart breaks for those who have needs, and I and millions of Christians give liberally. Billions of dollars in aid and lives and secular careers have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. I don't think it's possible to quantify the positive effect believing Christians have had on this earth.
But they heard from the Lord, and in the name of the Lord, they went out.
It was personal. It was between a man or woman and their God.
Don't tell me what your god says I must do for him. I have a direct line, thank you very much. (and He is awesome, btw!)
wow. where did those words come from? I didn't say that. My heart breaks for those who have needs, and I and millions of Christians give liberally. Billions of dollars in aid and lives and secular careers have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. I don't think it's possible to quantify the positive effect believing Christians have had on this earth.
But they heard from the Lord, and in the name of the Lord, they went out.
It was personal. It was between a man or woman and their God.
Don't tell me what your god says I must do for him. I have a direct line, thank you very much. (and He is awesome, btw!)
wow. where did those words come from? I didn't say that. My heart breaks for those who have needs, and I and millions of Christians give liberally. Billions of dollars in aid and lives and secular careers have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. I don't think it's possible to quantify the positive effect believing Christians have had on this earth.
But they heard from the Lord, and in the name of the Lord, they went out.
It was personal. It was between a man or woman and their God.
Don't tell me what your god says I must do for him. I have a direct line, thank you very much. (and He is awesome, btw!)
wow. where did those words come from? I didn't say that. My heart breaks for those who have needs, and I and millions of Christians give liberally. Billions of dollars in aid and lives and secular careers have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. I don't think it's possible to quantify the positive effect believing Christians have had on this earth.
But they heard from the Lord, and in the name of the Lord, they went out.
It was personal. It was between a man or woman and their God.
Don't tell me what your god says I must do for him. I have a direct line, thank you very much. (and He is awesome, btw!)
Speaking of "socialism", "social justice", etc., let's be clear:
The sort of socialism that is _Scriptural_ is the form that is commonly practiced on a small scale within families, within churches, and other organizations. It is always going to be a voluntary sharing of resources. The Bible teaches that the church and the family should care for the poor rather than the state. The state may step in only as a last resort when no other "safety net" is available. In all but the most dire circumstances --- (mentally or physically non-able-bodied persons) --- all help should be short term and limited.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power?' "
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias' and Saphira's power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, "Property is theft."
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
Speaking of "socialism", "social justice", etc., let's be clear:
The sort of socialism that is _Scriptural_ is the form that is commonly practiced on a small scale within families, within churches, and other organizations. It is always going to be a voluntary sharing of resources. The Bible teaches that the church and the family should care for the poor rather than the state. The state may step in only as a last resort when no other "safety net" is available. In all but the most dire circumstances --- (mentally or physically non-able-bodied persons) --- all help should be short term and limited.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power?' "
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias' and Saphira's power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, "Property is theft."
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
Actually. the founding of America involved theft and conquest of land from other humans conveniently labelled as mere animals and then relied for wealth creation for some on the violent seizure of people from foreign lands who were bought and sold into slavery - all excused because they weren't fully human.
This is the problem - the truth is never acknowledged, just a convenient flattering myth - which means, evil continues to be done and yet is called good.
Actually. the founding of America involved theft and conquest of land from other humans conveniently labelled as mere animals and then relied for wealth creation for some on the violent seizure of people from foreign lands who were bought and sold into slavery - all excused because they weren't fully human.
This is the problem - the truth is never acknowledged, just a convenient flattering myth - which means, evil continues to be done and yet is called good.
Are you seriously comparing Jesus feeding 5,000 to redistribution of wealth? He didn't take something away from the disciples and give it to the poor. He MULTIPLIED it and gave the extra to those that were hungry. He didn't TAKE FROM THEM and GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. The disciples still got to eat their food.
As for Mark 10, that wasn't about redistributing wealth. That was to show the man that he wasn't willing to give up his worship of wealth to serve the Lord.
Even if he had agreed to give up everything and follow the Lord, that's a simple matter of following God's command for us to willingly give ON OUR OWN. It has absolutely nothing to do with the government taking it from us to "give it to the poor," which isn't what they're doing with it anyway. And, suppose this man HAD given everything away and followed Jesus... how would he have lived? Would Jesus have handed him government food stamps, or would Jesus have provided for him Himself? "But MY GOD (not my government) shall supply all your needs according to his riches in glory BY CHRIST JESUS (not universal health care)." Who supported Paul and every other missionary and disciple? THE CHURCH, not Caesar, not the government. God wants us to rely on Him for provision, not the government.
He doesn't need our money. He wants us to give from a willing and thankful heart, not have the government mandate it and then siphon it into killing the unborn. If you think Jesus Christ would support this legislation at all, you're Biblically illiterate.
