slight typo in 2nd para: Chritians
Thanks - fixed it - p
Posted by klevenstein at May 21, 2006 10:50 AMDtchng th ld sprtn dgm r rsrvng t yrslf dffrnt stndrd? Clrly whn smn prfsss n nt-Chrstn nms thn gs bt tryng t ppl t psd-Chrstn st f vls sch s cmplsry ncm rdstrbtn, brng th ntn's nck t th wlvs fr fls pc, nd bsssv dltry n th frm f rth wrshp, thr rlgn hs mr n cmmn wth Mrx/Lnn thn wth Jss Chrst. Whn n pn nd hnst dpctn f th prty's ntr fls t swy, clvr sbtrfg prfms th crcss.
<>Y mst hv brwn ys - p
[Editor: ignore=off]Spiritual is Liberal. There is no way around it.
Posted by Anjha at May 21, 2006 11:17 AMBendito, you need to read Luke chapter 6.
Posted by Donna at May 21, 2006 11:42 AMFunny that you brought up the "values" voters. The pundits said the exit polls showed Kerry hands down winning since the 'pukes avoided the pollsters. So gee, guess the values the voters were talking about weren't gay marriage and abortion, but poverty, health care, and social programs. Hmmmmmmmm
Posted by Sharon at May 21, 2006 11:59 AMDitching the old separation dogma or reserving to yourself a different standard?
First, the post merely reports on a set of Christians who approach politics form a different angle, a set of Christians whose interpretation of their faith leads them to different conclusions and different actions. Pessimist wants to be able to recognize them and distinguish them from their counterparts on the right. Nothing about holding the left to a different standard as far as the separation of church and state was implied.
As far as the metaphore of separation goes, however, I'm not sure you understand it. Ultimately, it means that the state may not make any religion compulsory (free exercise) nor may it legally ordain, promote or support any particular religion, thereby relegating others to a second-class status (establishment). It's a matter of liberty and equality.
Left wing relgious folks have to be held to the same standard as right wing religious folks, and nothing in this post suggests otherwise.
When an open and honest depiction of the party's nature fails to sway, a clever subterfuge perfumes the carcass.
Actually, the illusion, I would argue, comes from our two-party system. Although it could be interpreted as two grand coalitions of otherwise diverse interests, what passes for discourse today is a sort of black'n'white, binary, in-group / out-group polarization - a deligitimization of "the other."
The way you see it (at least from what I can gather), "the left" is comprised of anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Bendito forces. All you need to know is that we are not you. So you see in this post an unfair, dishonest encroachment on your political domain.
All this post truly points out is that there is more than one kind of Christian, more than one kind of liberal, and implores us to recognize both that fact, and to find a way to distinguish between Christians on the left and Christians on the right.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at May 21, 2006 12:17 PMThe problem here is that the media and political pundits, including web activists are largely ignorant of the diversity of Christianity, as well as other religious traditions. In addition there is a great ignorance of the diversity of traditions of spiritual practice which may, or may not, be connected to sectarian religion or denominational affiliation. For example the network of the Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, includes many who do not identify with any religious tradition but find his approach to spiritual practice profound and life-giving. He has long been a peace activist, linking spirituality and peace and justice making.
Posted by Bill R. at May 21, 2006 12:34 PMWhen an open and honest depiction of the party's nature fails to sway, a clever subterfuge perfumes the carcass.
Don't jump to conclusions Benny, the Republicans haven't been open and honest about their nature yet.
Posted by herbal tee at May 21, 2006 01:30 PM"You must have brown eyes P" What the eff does that mean? Non-Aryan? Bendito you're obviously a classic forties fifties Bircher-type with the usual thin cosmetic veneer of Cristianity thrown over the top. "Perfect love that casteth out all fear" for an hour or so on Sunday and cowering behind bunker-busters, Apaches and and those oh-so-pious war profiteers the rest of the week. You're a pathetic, benighted, frightened dinasaur. Find a tarpit and fall in. Putz.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 01:34 PMAnd why would any genuine Christian be so concerned about "income redistribution"? Ben-hur mentions it in practically every post. His "kingdom is not of this world." Uh huh.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 01:50 PMJondee: "You must have brown eyes", I believe was added by pess, referring to the vertical ascension level of Ben's bullshit, which I believe to be an accurate assessment.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 21, 2006 04:29 PMPss, thnks fr ll th wrk n ths pc. fw tms, f y wll. Frst, th tr Chrstn chrch hs bn brly lv snc th dys f brhm. Lk t th chrch n ths wy: thr r tw lyrs. Th fls grp f hypcrts nd th smll mnrty f tr lct. Th lttr hv bn smll grp thrght tm. Th frmr s bn nmrs nd wth ts 2300 slly dnmntns nd vrs rgmnts f wrldly stndrds f dcdnc. D y s? 2300 lft wng nd rght wng nd tp nd bttm wngs, whtvr: bt ll kky nd wrng.
Nw, y my nt lk ths, bt bn s f th lct. Hs styl s ncnt, cls t th styl f ljh, Hs, r prhps Mlch. , ls, m f ths grp, bt my styl s smlr t Jrmh, f nly tht tlk t mch.
Bn s n xtrm blssng t hv vst yr st. t s crtcl tht y nt ttrbt ny frm f hmn flng t whtvr h sys, s y dn’t knw wht h s flng. H s tllng y xctly wht th Bbl sys; nd, qt btflly.
Frthr, th nsvd ncnt kngs f bth srl nd Jdh htd bn’s styl spclly, bt ny styl f th chsn n gnrl; smtms thy klld hs brthrs ff, r smtms thy jst kpt ths styl nrby fr pltcl rsns, (th Hgh Prst ws n lct, tc.).
f y wll, pls, jst s y tlrnt m, f nly bcs f pssbl sclgcl pnts tht my ht th mrk, frbr bn. Rd hs stff crflly nd drw hm t whn y hv srs qstn. Y my nt ndrstnd hs nswr, bt wll.
Fr nstnc, n bn’s bv cmmnt, h s syng th sm tht sd n ths pst, md mr t yrslf, bt wth svrl knck-t pnchs smlr t prz fghtr. H thnks t th spd f Jprdy cntstnt, whrs ’m bt th spd th rflctv spcttr. sspct tht h s ld, prhps rpn dctn, bt tn f Bblcl knwldg. H my knw bth Hbrw nd Grk, myb h wll crrct m n ths gsss, my b nt. Fr, t hm, wht thnk bt hs prsnl lf dsn’t mttr. Nr, wht y thnk bt hm, thr.
nywy, thnks fr bng thr, pssmst.
Now can I call him schizophrenic?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 21, 2006 05:50 PMThey'll ("they", for conspiracy theorists) make the Christian Left wear yellow crosses on their sleeves.
By their yellow crosses thou shall know them.
Posted by degustibus at May 21, 2006 06:11 PMBen is an extreme blessing to have visit your site.
Yes, indeed. Nothing he says has ever made any sense from an intellectual standpoint. It's blessing to know you can skip his post and miss nothing.
And you? False prophet. jesus warned about you and your type.
For, to him, what I think about his personal life doesn’t matter.
You did know that bendito is gay?
Posted by phidipides at May 21, 2006 06:21 PMIs it just me or does Bendito strike others as a cranky Archie Bunker type? This makes me laugh every time I read a simpering scout post calling Bendito one of the elect. I simply can not see God saying that Archie is one of his wise men.
Posted by Donna at May 21, 2006 06:45 PMdnn, 'smprng?' Wht 'd d? Tlk bt crnky; ws mrly bng rspctfl t r hst, mst dffclt jb, s y'll s wth th ccsnl rdnss spks. Ys, knw, btg y rd th Bbl nd r tlrnt, lk phd.
phd, y wrkd ll dy svng th wrld, nd cm bck t bt p rch nd kll hs chrctr? Whr's th lv thr? h, y crry grdgs.
[Editor: ignore=off]scout, I'm not one of the elect. Why do you expect so much of me?
Yes, simpering. Reread your post at 4:33. You appear to believe that Archie has the wisdom of the ages, when he is just a smarmy crank.
At first I found you amusing, but now I am wondering if you truly are mentally ill.
Posted by Donna at May 21, 2006 07:19 PMThe thing you've left out is the profit motive.
It can be good to be the minister. You don't have to answer to anyone. You get a large and largely tax-free income. You get to leave your parachurch and its revenues to your children. You don't get to waste time and money on welfare activities like the mainline churches. You get access to the corridors of power. You get to back up your lifestyle with divine sanction and law enforcement is reluctant to investigate too closely.
It's really hard to beat the parachurch business model.
Posted by Alan at May 21, 2006 07:34 PMLeftist Christians. Benny (the Aramaic scholar) and Joons worst nightmare. How could things keep devolving and the suffering become increasingly horrific - "fulfilling prophecy" and drawing the desperate and distraught to a conveniently located, tithe taking church near you - if the actual needs of the community were given priority over the needs of elect, their favorite politicians and Jehovah H. God esq.'s preplanned catastrophe?
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 11:18 PMHoly shit, looks like the weekend was spent pushing the hot button at TLC! Over 180 comments on religion from the Da Vinci Code to our perplexing Christian brethren!
It seems to me that the political left must oppose any group that wants civil (state and federal) law to mandate and enforce the social rules and behavior that is commanded in their "scriptures" (or "interpreted" into them). Given the weakness of the Left in this country, I'll be happy to ally with anyone who opposes theocracy, whatever their religion!
Over two thousand years ago, the Roman government thought that crucifixion was the appropriate way to handle a particularly vocal proponent of the idea that God's "judgement" was at hand and the "end times" were upon them. Today, the voters of the United States and Iran elect such "end times" believers to the position of Head of State.
This is what worries unbelievers.
Posted by euzoius at May 22, 2006 06:43 AM
Alan right on.
Bendito - ummmmm whatever. Check out Frank Rich's peice for more onthe pseudo church.
"Politicians, particularly but not exclusively in the Karl Rove camp, seem to believe that voters of 'faith' are suckers who can be lured into the big tent and then abandoned once their votes and campaign cash have been pocketed by the party for secular profit," Rich writes.
Sweet!
You can't get the whole story, but it breaks down how R Reed and Jack conspired to help casinos and others by passing legislation they told thier christian flocks was anti gambling.
Their is a similar bill out there right now,but of course Jacks fingerprints are not on it (I think) but whoever is working his racket now most likely is laying real low and raking in the cash from horse racing intersts etc...
Check out for more ....
Posted by told you at May 22, 2006 12:14 PM