Religion of Liberalism: Washington Post's 'On Faith' Blog
The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog network bills itself as “a conversation on religion and politics.” But the conversation of “On Faith” more accurately resembles a diatribe justifying liberal politics with religious imagery.
During this past week, Becky Garrison claimed that Christian actor Kirk Cameron was not a Christian because he opposes homosexual marriage, and Lisa Miller declared that “In churches across the land, women are still treated as second class citizens.”
But “On Faith” regularly cloaks attacks on conservatives and liberal advocacy in religious language and themes. Regular “On Faith” blogger Anthony Stevens-Arroyo wondered of Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum whether “such sanctimony [is] attributable to the secretive Opus Dei that he esteems.” The director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, Louise Melling, bizarrely declared that the Obama administration’s “birth control decision defends religious liberty.” Prolific “On Faith” blogger Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite opined that “None of what the tea party teaches has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.”
The Culture and Media Institute analyzed 149 posts on The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog network from December 1, 2011, to January 31, 2012. Posts that posited a liberal view of religion outnumbered conservative posts by over a 3 to 1 ratio. Of 79 posts that touched upon political matters, CMI found that 57 posts reflected a liberal point of view, 17 posited a conservative point of view, and 5 took no overt political stance.
It is unsurprising that the “On Faith” blog network reflects a liberal tilt. “On Faith’s” editor, Sally Quinn, is a religious agnostic, strident liberal, and ardent feminist, who infamously declared in 1999 that Bill Clinton was America’s first “woman president.” Even liberal critics have harshly criticized Quinn: the Huffington Post’s Taylor Marsh has called Quinn crazy, and The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz expressed astonishment that “Quinn is being paid by the Post to write this sort of dreck.”
Quinn is not shy about injecting her peculiar brand of liberal feminism into “religious” writings on the “On Faith” blog. Five of Quinn’s seven personal columns blasted GOP candidates or conservative politics. She mocked Herman Cain after his exit from the GOP presidential race, snarking “What will God whisper in Herman Cain’s ear next?” Another of her columns attacked evangelicals who voted for Gingrich as being hypocrites – despite the fact that she herself broke up her current husband’s marriage. Quinn pushed similar stances in “On Faith’s” Under God section, advancing in one column the notion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus Christ’s lover.
Like Quinn, the regular “On Faith” bloggers are reliably liberal. One post by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo (who in 2008 compared American George Patton and Alvin York to Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan), was titled “Christmas Means the Redistribution of Wealth,” and argued that the spirit of Christmas was best embodied by liberation theology. Snide comments towards conservatives are common fare at “On Faith.” Openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson huffed that “Rick Perry would be pathetic, if he weren’t so infuriating” for his stance on homosexuality. Susan Jacoby, writing for the column “The Spirited Atheist,” mocked “the size of Newt Gingrich’s head” in a post otherwise unrelated to American politics.
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a minister of the United Church of Christ and a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, penned 17 articles in the 2 month period CMI examined, more than any other “On Faith” blogger. But Thistlethwaite’s Christianity is one of ambivalence: in August 2011, Thistlethwaite blamed Christianity for influencing Anders Brievik to commit murder after the Oslo shootings.
Her posts exude a blend of ridiculous pseudo-Christian theology and liberal political spin. In one post, she claimed that Jesus would have supported the Occupy Movement, even declaring that “Jesus was [emphasis hers] an Occupier.” Often, her posts are transparent anti-GOP rants with little to no religious connection, such as her comparison of Newt Gingrich to the Grinch in which she asked “Is it the Grinch who stole Christmas, or the GOP?”
“On Faith” interviewed prominent liberals such as Cornel West and Russell Simmons, giving them forums to spew their talking points on matters such as Occupy Wall Street and the Lowe’s “All-American Muslim” controversy. By contrast, “On Faith’s” interview with “outed” conservative Christian bisexual Ted Haggard highlighted the scandal of his outing, noting that he “just wanted to die” after being exposed.
Only one of “On Faith’s” regular bloggers, Jordan Sekulow, holds a traditional Christian conservative political view. But, lest readers be caught unaware by orthodoxy, Sekulow’s section is helpfully labled “Religious Right Now.” However, left-wing hack Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s blog is simply titled “Catholic America.” A more suitable name might be “Liberal Democrat Catholic America.”
The Washington Post’s editorial page reflects a left-liberal point of view. It is not surprising, that “On Faith” is often little better than religiously cloaked liberalism, considering the political predispositions of its editor.
To liberals, religion is not at its heart concerned with the service of God; rather it is a vehicle for the intertwined liberal gospel of Democratic politics and “social justice.”
The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog reflects that liberal view of religion – and excludes the traditional view of religion.
Methodology
The Culture and Media Institute examined 149 “On Faith” posts from these columns: Sally Quinn’s personal column, “Catholic America,” “For God’s Sake,” “Georgetown/On Faith,” “Guest Voices,” “Religious Right Now,” “The Spirited Atheist,” and “Under God.” CMI examined “On Faith” during the 2 month period December 1, 2011 to January 31, 2012.
- Paul Wilson's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Such blasphamy...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 12:42pm.
...WILL not go unpunished!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Anybody but Jesus...
Submitted by MacWell on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 12:45pm.
these people seem like they're afraid of being hung for witchcraft. Change the Gospel, tell a different story, sell it to this segment.
Why people actually listen to this nonsense is beyond me, I just can't understand it. It's like they think they're going to change what will be, to what they wish it to be.
I've got news for you guys, it ain't gonna happen.
We Americans are getting tired of the few, (sometimes less than 1% of the population), who think they have the right to tell the rest of us how we may live,
like it's up to them?
We are going to show you what we think of your adventure to "fundamentally transform" America.
We are going to remove all of you who think America is evil and should pay.
America has, in less than 300 years, has done more for the world, than all the rest of the nations combined.
I'd say that's exceptional.
America feeds more people, clothes more people, cures more people, and pays more people than the rest of the world combined.
Does anyone here think we need to apologize for that record?
Imperialists?
Show me one country we beat in a war or because of a war, that America has enslaved and taxed the people for our benefit?
We the people must stand up in force in November and send a clear message,
NO MORE!
We must begin to remove all career politicians from Congress.
Congress was not meant to be a career.
Do our new President a favor, help him/her by starting to reclaim OUR Congress.
Should be called "Instead of Faith".
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 1:48pm.
That's really what it is. Rejecting the tennents of the faith (any faith) and inserting the political ideology of the author in it's place.
Like a childless woman who's never been married telling an acquaintance how she should disciplin her child and relate to her husband.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
LOL, c5!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 4:07pm.
I've said they should call it Dumping On Faith!
What are we to expect when the feature's editor is an agnostic??
Good Lord! The guys at The Onion are green with envy!
People "It is the Washington
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 2:07pm.
People "It is the Washington Post" a liberal organization that provide propaganda for the DNC and the Obama administration.
Did you really expect honesty, forget what the section is "suppose" to be about, to liberals the only thing that matters is the agenda. Religion is counter to the agenda so it must be made to look and sound like the liberal agenda.
“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” Ronald Reagan (1987)
It's not "On Faith". It should be "No Faith".
Submitted by GW on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 2:44pm.
.
Quinn
Submitted by mmilesll on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 3:25pm.
Quinn has been out of it for years-look at her on O'Reilly, she looks like she is high. Most of America could care less about what she says, and to add to that, most don't know who she is. She reminds me of a dried up puppet. You said your left wing crap now try to find your way home.
Faith?
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 12:10pm.
The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog reflects that liberal view of religion – and excludes the traditional view of religion.
The liberal view of religion is Atheism (capitalized because it is a creed). Liberalism is in fact the natural and logical consequence of espousing Atheism, imho.
The idea of being politically liberal and religious at the same time is total bunk, hence the bizarre and twisted creations known as liberation theology, leftist Christianity, and the incomprehensible drivel Quinn and others like her write. Theirs is just a cynical and malevolent tactic to bring genuinely religious people (whom the Left sees as deluded and naive) into the Leftist fold.
Tell JESUS that it's impossible to be a LIBERAL and a Christian
Submitted by Rayosun on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 3:34pm.
1) According to Luke 4:18 Jesus described his mission in life : ]
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me;
he has appointed me
to preach Good News to the poor;
he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted
and to announce that the blind shall see,
that captives shall be released
and the downtrodden shall be freed
(i.e. liberated) from their oppressors."
2) { According to Matthew 11: 2-5, Jesus described himself in similar words to his own cousin, John "the Baptist" :]
" When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?"
Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them."
In response to the question, "Sir, which is the most important command in the laws of Moses?"
3) { According to Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus replied (Jesus explicitly identified his and the Bible's highest priorities) : :]
"This is the first and greatest commandment: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.'
The second most important is similar: 'Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.'
All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets stem from these two laws and are fulfilled if you obey them. Keep only these and you will find that you are obeying all the others."
4) [ According to Matthew 25: 31-46 ]
"When I, the Messiah, shall come in glory, and all the angels with me, then I shall sit upon my throne of glory. And all the nations shall be gathered before me. And I will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and place the sheep at my right hand, and the goats at my left.
Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me."
Then these righteous ones will reply, "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you anything to drink? Or a stranger, and help you? Or naked, and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?" And I, the King, will tell them, "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!"
Then I will turn to those on my left and say, "Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me."
Then they will reply, "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?"
And I will answer, "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me." And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life."
5) [ According to Matthew 5: 2-12, Jesus proclaimed :]
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who went before you."
6) [ According to Luke 16 : 19-31]
"One day Lazarus, a diseased beggar, was laid at the door of a rich man's house. As he lay there longing for scraps from the rich man's table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. Finally the beggar died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham in the place of the righteous dead.
The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went into hell. There, in torment, he saw Lazarus in the far distance with Abraham. 'Father Abraham,' he shouted, 'have some pity! Send Lazarus over here if only to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in these flames.' But Abraham said to him, 'Son, remember that during your life-time you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted and you are in anguish."
"And besides, there is a great chasm separating us, and anyone wanting to come to you from here is stopped at its edge; and no one over there can cross to us.'
Then the rich man said, 'O Father Abraham, then please send him to my father's home – for I have five brothers – to warn them about this place of torment lest they come here when they die.' But Abraham said, 'The Scriptures have warned them again and again. Your brothers can read them any time they want to.' The rich man replied, 'No, Father Abraham, they won't bother to read them. But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins.' But Abraham said, 'If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even though someone rises from the dead.'
7) [ According to Luke 10 : 25-37 ]
"One day an expert on Moses' laws came to test Jesus' orthodoxy by asking him this question: "Teacher, what does a man need to do to live forever in heaven?" Jesus replied, "What does Moses' law say about it?" "It says," he replied, "that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself." "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you shall live!"
But, wanting to justify himself, the man asked, "Which neighbors must I love?" And Jesus replied with an illustration:
"A Jew going on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along; and when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but then went on.
But a despised Samaritan* came along, and when he saw him, he felt deep pity. Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came to an inn, where he nursed him through the night. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins and told him to take care of the man. "If his bill runs higher than that," he said, "I'll pay the difference the next time I am here."
"Now which of these three," Jesus asked, "would you say was a neighbor to the bandit's victim?" The man replied, "The one who showed him some pity." Then Jesus said, "Yes, now go and do the same."
8) [ According to Luke 3:11-14 ]
In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."
Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, "Teacher, what should we do?" He said to them, "Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you."
Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages."
9) [ According to Matthew 19:16, 21-26 ]
Someone came to Jesus with this question: "Good Master, what must I do to have eternal life?
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But when the young man heard this, he went away sadly, for he was very rich."
. . . Then Jesus said to his disciples, "It is almost impossible for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again – it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God! When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, "Then who can be saved?" And Jesus replied, "For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible."
10) [ According to Luke 16:13-15]
" No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they ridiculed him. So he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God."
11) [ According to Luke 14:33-35]
"So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it away. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!"
12) [ According to Luke 12:15-21]
And he said to them, "Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'
But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God." "Yes, every man is a fool who gets rich on earth but not in heaven. Sell what you have and give to those in need. This will fatten your purses in heaven! And the purses of heaven have no rips or holes in them. Your treasures there will never disappear; no thief can steal them; no moth can destroy them. Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be."
13) [ According to John 16:1-3 ]
"I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me."
14) [ According to John 8: 2–11 ]
"Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
15) [ According to Luke 18 : 9-14 ]
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were were righteous and regarded others with contempt:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.'
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."
16) [ According to Luke 6: 37–8]
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
17) [ According to Luke 15:11-32 :] Jesus told this parable:
"A man had two sons. When the younger told his father, 'I want my share of your estate now, instead of waiting until you die!' his father agreed to divide his wealth between his sons. "A few days later this younger son packed all his belongings and took a trip to a distant land, and there wasted all his money on parties and prostitutes. About the time his money was gone a great famine swept over the land, and he began to starve. He persuaded a local farmer to hire him to feed his pigs. The boy became so hungry that even the pods he was feeding the swine looked good to him. And no one gave him anything.
"When he finally came to his senses, he said to himself, 'At home even the hired men have food enough and to spare, and here I am, dying of hunger! I will go home to my father and say, "Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you, and am no longer worthy of being called your son. Please take me on as a hired man.' So he returned home to his father.
And while he was still a long distance away, his father saw him coming, and was filled with loving pity and ran and embraced him and kissed him. "His son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and you, and am not worthy of being called your son. "But his father said to the slaves, 'Quick! Bring the finest robe in the house and put it on him, and a jeweled ring for his finger; and shoes! And kill the calf we have in the fattening pen. We must celebrate with a feast, for this son of mine was dead and has returned to life. He was lost and is found.' So the party began.
"Meanwhile, the older son was in the fields working; when he returned home, he heard dance music coming from the house, and he asked one of the servants what was going on. "'Your brother is back,' he was told, 'and your father has killed the calf we were fattening and has prepared a great feast to celebrate his coming home again unharmed.' "The older brother was angry and wouldn't go in. His father came out and begged him, but he replied, 'All these years I've worked hard for you and never once refused to do a single thing you told me to; and in all that time you never gave me even one young goat for a feast with my friends. Yet when this son of yours comes back after spending your money on prostitutes, you celebrate by killing the finest calf we have on the place.'
"'Look, dear son,' his father said to him, 'you and I are very close, and everything I have is yours. But it is right to celebrate. For he is your brother; and he was dead and has come back to life! He was lost and is found!'"
18) [ According to Matthew 21: 28-32 Jesus made a similar point in this parable : ]
"What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' He answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not go. which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of god ahead of you.
19) [ As for what the bible thinks about liberalism, according to Isaiah 32: 1, & 5-8 KJV : ]
"Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. . . . 5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand."
Did you have a point, Ray?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 3:56pm.
Modern liberalism is at odds with Christianity.
Period.
Your quotes have nothing to do with modern liberalism, and boil down to you playing with the Bible in lieu of making a succinct point.
--Mike
were you tying to show that Jesus was a Liberal?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 3:56pm.
Because if you were, that was an Epic Fail.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Whackadoodle alert.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 3:59pm.
Please visit some of Reverend Whackadoodle's priestly nonpartisan sites, including TheGodlessConservativeParty.org, JesusNoRepublican.org and CatholicArrogance.org.
Hey everybody, calm down.
Submitted by GW on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 4:53pm.
We're obviously using the wrong translations. The corrected versions say:
"Blessed are the poor, for the government will give them the earth."
How dare Reverend Ray contradict
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 6:09pm.
Eric the Fred's "HELL R 4 LIBS" slime!
Jer
That's a serious leap, Jer.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 8:10am.
Hell is a place for those who reject the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Unless Eric has specifically said the "slime" you reference elsewhere, you owe him an apology.
--Mike
It's not a serious leap, Mike. It's not even a leap.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 8:46pm.
It's a baby step at most.
Reread Eric's comment. It comes mighty close to claiming [unconditionally] that liberalism is a rejection of "the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". I don't want or expect an apology from Eric, but I certainly don't owe him one.
Jer
He didn't say that, but he did say this...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 9:10pm.
"I certainly have no opinion on what will become of Atheists in the next life. My sense is things will not always be as black and white as we would like to think. Only God knows what is in men's hearts and what their thoughts and deeds have wrought. My suspicion is the commenter above's anger got piqued because he/she is in all likelihood an Atheist and found my original comment offensive. My apologies if I did. I don't seek to offend, merely to expose."
So, there you go.
--Mike
Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 9:54pm.
Eric's remarks which I found objectionable and prompted my initial post are the following:
Faith?
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 12:10pm.
The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog reflects that liberal view of religion – and excludes the traditional view of religion.
The liberal view of religion is Atheism (capitalized because it is a creed). Liberalism is in fact the natural and logical consequence of espousing Atheism, imho.
The idea of being politically liberal and religious at the same time is total bunk, hence the bizarre and twisted creations known as liberation theology, leftist Christianity, and the incomprehensible drivel Quinn and others like her write. Theirs is just a cynical and malevolent tactic to bring genuinely religious people (whom the Left sees as deluded and naive) into the Leftist fold.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/03/12/religion-liberalism-...
At the time of my comment, his subsequent and mitigating clarification had not been posted.
Jer
For the sake of discussion...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:24am.
...do you know of any liberals (prominent or otherwise) who are strict adherents to Biblical Christianity?
--Mike
For the sake of discussion...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 3:49am.
"Biblical Christianity" compared to what other form of Christianity?
But, I must tell you, Mike. I prefer not to judge the worthiness of individual Christians or speculate on their level of Biblical fidelity. I leave such matters to a higher and far more qualified Authority.
Jer
If you could answer the question, that would be great.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:58pm.
"Biblical Christianity" is an overly-specific term, like "spherical globe." I was using it to be helpful, and to avoid confusion with groups who engage in publishing worldview such as ethnocentric liberation theology while masquerading as "Christian" when they are not.
No one's asked you to judge anyone, Jer. Just a simple, direct answer to my question would be great.
--Mike
In that case, Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 2:58am.
I don't know whether or not I know any liberals or conservatives within that category.* And, despite your claim to the contrary, a direct yes or no answer would require judgments and speculation, in neither of which am I inclined to indulge.
Jer
*with the possible exception of Mitt Romney
Your answer couldn't be more off base.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 10:14am.
I didn't ask for any judgments of the heart, Jer, but an analysis of adherence--how they live their lives, and how their faith is found in their public acts.
With regard to Romney, the question I asked was about Biblical Christianity, not Mormonism. Had the discussion been about that group, rather than about Christians, Romney would still have a problem. As but one example, I heard a recent radio interview with Romney where he was asked specifically about a point of his group's doctrine, and he refused to answer the question. Point blank. Hardly the response of someone who strictly adheres to his group's belief system.
It's understandable that you don't want to answer, but please don't try to turn it into a noble response.
--Mike
I answered the question, Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 9:25pm.
Once again, I don't know whether or not I know of any such individuals. [The mention of Mitt Romney was simply my needling you a bit in light of your past comments about Romney and Mormonism and Christianity].
How about you? Will you list a few conservatives who, in your opinion, fall within the category [strict adherence...Biblical Christianity] you originally delineated?
Jer
Well, not answering is still answer, Jer.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:01am.
The only answer available is "No, there are no liberals (on the national stage, specifically) who are strict adherents to Biblical Christianity."
And I can appreciate a good needle as much as anyone, particularly with as much blood as I apparently need to have drawn each time I visit my doctor...
Sure, I'll answer the flip-side of that question--that's only fair. As far as (at least moderately) well-known conservatives go, and working with the available information, former President George W. Bush comes to mind, as does current hopeful Rick Santorum. If you're familiar with Roy Moore, he's a prime example of someone whose faith informs his public life. There are others, but those names should be a good start.
As far as political philosophies go, conservatism is really the only home for those of us who are Christians. Even libertarian belief clashes, and liberalism is, frankly, at odds with everything that is true about Christianity.
--Mike
Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:44am.
George W. Bush is certainly a fine man, but does his support for abortion rights, albeit in limited circumstances--rape, incest, life of mother--not affect his strict Christian bona fides in your view?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Roy Moore. Judge Moore, I believe, is one of only a couple of conservatives who even Bernie Goldberg thinks is worthy of a spot among the 100 persons screwing up America because of his theocratic inclinations.
Jer
We weren't discussing theocrats, which Judge Moore isn't...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:29am.
...just as we weren't discussing perfect people, which former President Bush isn't, and which none of us are.
You know, at least I gave you a straight answer.
--Mike
Good morning Mike
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:01am.
You are a true optimist, trying to get a straight answer from a lawyer. Liberals love to condemn christians for not being perfect but praise liberals for their imperfections - Slick Willy comes to mind. Slick Willy was a biblican christian because he occasionally went to church carrying a bible, but George Bush isn't a biblical christian because he isn't perfect.
Now we have our new savior Beelzebub Hussein.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening Ray
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 03/13/2012 - 6:41pm.
What's ypur point? Jesus came to save us from our sin not to challenge the political systems of government. He did however rebuke the ruling religious leaders because they were not guiding the people to follow God. He came not as a liberal nor conservative politician but as the fulfillment of God's promise of salvation to Adam and again to Abraham. All of your quotes are advice on how to live a moral life. I'm pleased to see you are able to quote the bible but I don't see your point.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Just to reiterate...
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 5:22pm.
... so as to clear up any confusion on my point.
1. Atheism is the philosophical and 'spiritual' underpinning of liberal/Left political, cultural, and economic ideas. The two are deeply intertwined. I would assert that nearly every single position the Left has on nearly every single issue has Atheism at its heart and at its starting point, either explicitly or implicitly. The vast majority of liberals are as well Atheists (and they usually became Atheists first). This is no mere accident.
2. Belief in the existence of a supreme, omnipotent omniscient deity is central to Christian doctrine and philosophy, and indeed to that of all the Abrahamic religions.
3. Therefore, espousing Leftist ideals while professing to follow religious teachings is inherently contradictory and absurd. Sure, people can profess to do both and may do so with honesty, but it doesn't change the inherent absurdity of the position. Sooner or later the two will clash severely and then it is only a matter of which the person holds dearer to their heart, liberalism or God - Atheism or theism.
The same goes to some extent for conservative Atheists. Atheism, imo, robs conservatism of its foundation and backbone. Quite often, conservative Atheists are really just liberals who are conservative on certain economic issues and other social matters particular to their own socio-economic status. I would venture that conservative Atheists quite often find themselves at odds with their conservative ideological 'brethren' and frustrated with their religioun-based thinking and that many end up becoming outright liberals in the end.
Jesus' teachings and central ideas can, imo, only be understood within the context of belief, worship, and glorification of a supreme being. God was really all he talked about. Taking his teachings out of that context strips them of their true, inner meaning (and value) and leaves them open to misinterpretation and manipulation by people seeking to twist Jesus' message to their own ends for their own purposes. This is a deception and a ruse not to fall prey to.
I certainly have no opinion on what will become of Atheists in the next life. My sense is things will not always be as black and white as we would like to think. Only God knows what is in men's hearts and what their thoughts and deeds have wrought. My suspicion is the commenter above's anger got piqued because he/she is in all likelyhood an Atheist and found my original comment offensive. My apologies if I did. I don't seek to offend, merely to expose.
Cheers!
Reply posted below...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 3:38am.
Jer
Eric...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 3:37am.
I certainly have no opinion on what will become of Atheists in the next life. My sense is things will not always be as black and white as we would like to think. Only God knows what is in men's hearts and what their thoughts and deeds have wrought.
Well said.
My suspicion is the commenter above's anger got piqued...
Your suspicion is only partially correct. Your assumption of anger is flawed. I was not angry.
because he/she is in all likelyhood an Atheist...
This part of your suspicion is incorrect.
and found my original comment offensive.
This part, however, is correct.
My apologies if I did. I don't seek to offend, merely to expose.
Are you surprised one would find your unconditionally painting Liberals with the broad brush of Atheism to be offensive? If so, I find that surprising. But apologies accepted.
Jer
Continued
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 7:14am.
Are you surprised one would find your unconditionally painting Liberals with the broad brush of Atheism to be offensive?
I am, actually. Most liberals have no problem being referred to as Atheists, in fact, they often wear it as a badge of honour and tout it as a sign of their superiority. By the way, it is worth reminding that in my original comment I did not say all liberals are Atheists. I stated that liberalism is the the natural and logical consequence of espousing Atheism. I left people out of it.
I do, however, maintain my assertion that one cannot be a true liberal and a true theist at the same time. The two are at fundamental odds with each other. Creations like Liberation Theology and the 'Christian Left' are more concerned with Leftist ideology and its implementation rather than with religion, which is merely carried as a veneer. At every juncture where Leftist concerns of the day clash with religious teachings - even basic ones - religious teachings are jettisoned in favour of whatever 'progressive' ideas are on the agenda.
Leftism has its roots in the psychology of despair, anger, and revenge, imo - hallmarks of Atheism. Hope, love, and forgiveness are hallmarks of belief in God. The two cannot coexist in any rational, psychologically viable sense. In the end, one must win out over the other.
Hold on, Eric...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 9:51pm.
The liberal view of religion is Atheism (capitalized because it is a creed). Liberalism is in fact the natural and logical consequence of espousing Atheism, imho.
The idea of being politically liberal and religious at the same time is total bunk, hence the bizarre and twisted creations known as liberation theology, leftist Christianity, and the incomprehensible drivel Quinn and others like her write. Theirs is just a cynical and malevolent tactic to bring genuinely religious people (whom the Left sees as deluded and naive) into the Leftist fold.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/03/12/religion-liberalism-...
Most liberals have no problem being referred to as Atheists, in fact, they often wear it as a badge of honour and tout it as a sign of their superiority. By the way, it is worth reminding that in my original comment I did not say all liberals are Atheists. I stated that liberalism is the the natural and logical consequence of espousing Atheism. I left people out of it.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/54391/1659633#ixzz1pWT42crg
Let me get this straight: "The liberal view of religion is Atheism", but no inferences should be drawn therefrom regarding the beliefs of individuals who espouse a liberal view of religion since you are leaving people out of it. I'm afraid that really doesn't make a lot of sense, Eric. In fact, it leads me to conclude your "expose`" is either something you're simply making up as you go along, or perhaps an hypothesis you and a couple of your pals hatched over a few brewskis.
In any event, I assume when you state "most liberals have no problem being referred to as Atheists, in fact, they often wear it as a badge of honour, etc.", you are in fact referring to actual "people". And you would still be stunningly misinformed.
Jer
"The liberal view of religion
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:30pm.
"The liberal view of religion is Atheism", but no inferences should be drawn therefrom regarding the beliefs of individuals who espouse a liberal view of religion since you are leaving people out of it. I'm afraid that really doesn't make a lot of sense, Eric.
Perhaps I haven't been clear. Nowhere have I mentioned anything about people who espouse a 'liberal view of religion'. When I speak of liberals I mean the political kind, the Left, and how the political Left views religion. People who espouse a liberal view of religion could well be political conservatives, or anything else. The two mean different things. My contention is that the political Left, what we call liberals, - especially their leaders and ideologues - think all religion is nonsense and should be discarded if society is ever going to be 'free' and to 'progress'.
And, yes, even though I was discussing purely ideas in my other comment (you know, the way people discuss, say, stoicism, epicureanism, imperialism, etc. just as ideas), it is also my contention that the majority of political liberals are Atheists and that they have absolutely no problem with that. I also maintain that to be a genuinely religious person puts one at serious odds with the ideas, beliefs, and agendas of the political Left.
Also, I'm curious, what is a liberal view of religion? Is it one where you pick and choose which parts of a religion to follow and which to discard, depending on the trends, fads, and government imperatives of the day? I'm not clear on this. Imo, religion is not forced feeding, but nor is it a buffet, where one picks and chooses the bits one likes. Like a marriage, it involves love, personal commitment, and an agreement to adhere to certain rules, not to mention perform a few duties; otherwise it becomes meaningless, empty, and falls apart, much the way the political Left hopes will happen with religion.
I'm not quite sure what the aim of your link was. It illustrates the point rather well. Liberals are a good deal less religious than Conservatives and the trend towards complete irreligion, or Atheism, among Liberals seems evident. My guess is also that if it weren't for the traditional rural Democrats that this study must've included, the evidence of growing irreligion among urban and suburban liberals would be glaring and stark . The article also mentions that more than five times as many Liberals than Conservatives identify themselves as Atheists outright.
Your closing comment suggests
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:29pm.
you noticed the statistical finding in the survey that only 11%! of liberals self-identify as atheists or agnostics. This data seriously undermines--indeed utterly demolishes--your contention that 'most liberals have no problem being referred to as atheists and wear it as a badge of honour', etc. This was the rather obvious point of my link.
No one is denying--certainly not I--that a much lesser percentage of conservatives similarly self-identify as atheists or agnostics.
Jer