Alterman on Colbert: Liberals Ignore God, But Jesus Is a Liberal

Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham | April 2, 2008 - 17:39 ET

Eric Alterman was the latest in a long conga line of liberal authors plugging their books on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report on Monday night. He began by confusing the audience about God. Liberals refuse to take orders from God (since he doesn’t exist, or isn’t important enough to take orders from) or the Fatherland (conservatives-are-Nazis jokes always work with the stilted studio audience). But in the next breath, Alterman was claiming Jesus for the liberal side:

ALTERMAN: To be a liberal, Stephen, just means you believe in the truth. You don't take -- you don't take orders from God. You don't take orders from the Fatherland, you don't take orders from --

COLBERT: But God is truth. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the light [sic]. What part of that don't you understand?

ALTERMAN: Jesus was a liberal. There he is [on the Alterman book cover], right next to Willie Nelson.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

COLBERT: Jesus was a liberal? Albert Einstein was a liberal? Abe Lincoln was a liberal? He was a Republican.

ALTERMAN: There used to be liberal Republicans before you and I were born.

This raises the natural rebuttal: If Jesus were a liberal, why wouldn't liberals take orders from Him?

Alterman at least pretended not to understand that Colbert isn’t really a conservative, he just plays a conservative buffoon on TV for liberals’ amusement. Colbert asked why proclaiming a liberal isn’t a "dark secret" you shouldn’t admit these days. Alterman protested: "Friends of yours, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, those guys have been beating up the name so much, have been associating with all these horrible things, that even people who are liberals are afraid to call themselves liberals."

He also carried on with his line that conservatism has the virtue of being unsophisticated, unlike the deep intellectual complexity of liberalism: "Liberalism is about truth, and truth is complicated, Stephen, I’m sorry...truth is complicated and that’s actually one big problem liberals have. It is hard to say what it means to be a liberal in just a few sentences. Conservatives can say X, Y, Z – They ignore it when they come to power, but they can say it. Whereas liberals have a more complicated case to make."

Alterman’s complaint about the conservative conspiracy to destroy the glory and honor of the word "liberal" is remarkably broad, encompassing the broadcast networks and PBS. To page 73 of Why We’re Liberals:

As discussed above, the conservative movement – frequently aided by the putatively liberal members of the mainstream media – has invested many millions of dollars in sullying the good name of liberals and making a mockery of their true beliefs. This effort involves well-funded foundations, think tanks, newspapers, cable stations, talk-radio programs, Internet sites, gossip columnists, PBS programs, publishing houses, and network broadcast programs – to say nothing of the resources of the Republican National Committee – all of whom have made a concerted effort to vilify and dishonor the word liberal, associating it with all manner of weakness, treachery, and immorality. (Italics his.)

If Colbert were truly a conservative, he could have just read this passage and exploded in laughter. But he’s not. He’s a liberal sheep in plastic wolf’s clothing. According to Tom Edsall at The Huffington Post, Alterman had prepared a different cover of his book, dominated by a cartoon of Colbert saying the words "Why We’re Liberals."

Edsall quoted Alterman suggesting it was shunned from the show since they "hate when guests try to be funny." But it also underlines the truth that Colbert is a liberal, and The Colbert Report is all about making liberals laugh at fake conservatives. It’s quite funny for Alterman to appear on this show complaining about simplistic mockery of the other side’s true beliefs.

Update 18:27 | Matthew Sheffield. Alterman's liberalism-is-too- complex-to-explain point is a typical one of non-thinking lefties who apparently lack the capacity to realize that one can easily make the case that the reverse is true. Here's an example:

Conservatism is about truth, and truth is complicated, Stephen, I’m sorry...truth is complicated and that’s actually one big problem conservatives have. It is hard to say what it means to be a conservative in just a few sentences. Liberals can say compassion, anti-racism, and and anti-homophobia– They ignore it when they come to power, but they can say it. Whereas conservatives have a more complicated case to make.

This is a pathetic argument. What Alterman and many other shallow thinkers fail to realize is that neither political philosophy would have survived had it not developed reasonably coherent intellectual arguments on its behalf. If conservatism or liberalism were merely bumpersticker mentalities, neither would have gotten anywhere.

I also have to take exception to Alterman and others who attempt to place modern political arguments into the mouth of Jesus who during his life had nothing to say about the issues of our time because...he didn't live in our time. To try and fit Jesus into any modern political paradigm is incredibly facile.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That's LIFE you idiot, Jesus

That's LIFE you idiot, Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (Jn 14:6).

If they're going to mock the Almighty God, you'd think that they'd at least try to get it right. It never ceases to amaze me how patient God is with humanity, clowns like this in particular.

The Avatar

never ceases to amaze me how patient God is with humanity

...it's His Grace: getting what we don't deserve

...and His Mercy: not getting what we do deserve

v

It's a pretty common

It's a pretty common mistake to make with that verse. Aside from the fact that light and life both sound and are spelled similar, Jesus is also called the light very often. Saying that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light may be mixing up verses slightly, but it is still factually correct.

I've watched the Colbert Report quite a few times and I've never really noticed Colbert mock God other than a few very mild jests (He actually pokes as much or more fun at muslims, which I admire. Not many comedians will do that). It seems to me he seems to have a better grasp on Christianity then most liberals do. I remember seeing one interview of his where he tore apart some athiest author who was being a snide little condescending ass about Christians. It made me cheer.

"ALTERMAN: Jesus was a

"ALTERMAN: Jesus was a liberal. There he is [on the Alterman book cover], right next to Willie Nelson."

How can you argue with logic like that? He's on the cover next to liberals, therefore he must be a liberal. Seriously, these people would consider that a valid syllogism.

And sorry, Eric, but the people who made "liberal" a dirty word are the liberals who ran from the term after Rush, et al, clearly defined what modern "liberals" are, what they believe and what they do. Turns out most Americans don't like those policies.

Whoda thunk it?

IJ... You hit the nail

IJ...

You hit the nail right on the head....

Loved the last three words the best...lol/

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

The proposed cartoon...

Is so un-funny that I believe this guy literally doesn't get the show, Tim. And I think I fully-understand why they would "hate it when guests try to be funny!"
JMR

PS This attempted "joke" is about as un-funny as anything I've seen on "NewsBusted." Clearly, sucking at comedy knows no party.

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

THE MODERN NATIONAL LIBERAL IS A

Secular socialist...they vote that way but often avoid speaking that way on purpose... the secular feature is needed to continue to expand gov-ment... socialism demands that traditional morality be eroded... and gradually replaced by the religion of dependent non-thinking socialism...where churches and parents are replaced by an almighty intrusive federal gov-ment. We are well on our way.

Secular socialism has made great gains the past few decades and the "dependent voter" strategy is working. Nearly half of all workers now work for gov-ment, the gov-ment workers are unionized. Their usual annual budget growth is 4-12%, justified or not, needed or not.

Congress is an awful vote-buying excuse-making pandering machine that boldly blames others for their actions and inactions. They detest long-range realistic solutions because then they can't campaign and rant about the issue the next election. Heck, they even borrow money to send us a tiny "stimulus check". Beam me up Scotty.

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

Jesus must be the only

Jesus must be the only liberal banned from US public schools

Beautiful comment

Even my public school teacher parents (retired) in a red state would agree!

What's Truly Disgusting

Is that Alterman, and others, are paid good money to spout this nonsense.

Not only that, but people actually buy this nonsense. It's currently rated #333 on amazon. Funny thing-someone is trying to sell a used copy of the book for $36.99, even though amazon sells it new for less than half that amount.

Even funnier-the very first customer review says the book is "well researched". As I recall reading here at NB, isn't the opposite true?

If Altermann feels Jesus is

If Altermann feels Jesus is a Liberal, then I suggest that he discuss abortion with Jesus when he meets him.  Ought to be a brief conversation.

Or...

Or, a conservative could discuss the death penalty.  Should be just as short a talk.

You can't shoehorn Jesus into man-made political parties.  IMO that's an insult to God.

IMO that's an insult to

IMO that's an insult to God.

I agree with this statement, though I disagree with the implications behind this statement:

a conservative could discuss the death penalty.

I'm not saying that conservatives are "God's party" but trust me, the death penalty is one of the easiest things that can be justified by the Bible. C'mon, try something harder.

Sort of justified...

I appreciate you're not trying to claim a party for God.  And I see where you're coming from in Biblical justification for the death penalty (eye for an eye...).

But, every learned Christian knows that Jesus brought 'new rules.'  "If someone hits you in the left cheek, show them your right."

That said, I agree... the death penalty can be better argued as legitimate from a Biblical stand point than abortion.  God "knew us before we were born." As a Christian, it's something I wrestle with.

Religiously, I'd (hopefully) never advise that for anyone in my life.

Politically, however, my religious views should never be pushed on anyone else.  Which is why I'm pro-choice.

Of course curator

You gotta love Obama for pointing out women get "punished with a child".  Don't you just hate it when children decide to be conceived at the most inopportune moments?

I can be just as tolerant as the next person.  I just wonder why my tax dollars force me to be complicit in this crime against our children.

♣ a seal

I agree

 I just wonder why my tax dollars force me to be complicit in this crime against our children.

Like I said, a perfectly legitimate argument.

The problem is, legally, an abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure.  Outside of the moral, ethical and religious debate... it is a medical procedure.

Now, I'll agree with you that it's unfortunate we, as taxpayers, have to pay for the abortions of negligent teens and 20-somethings that get pregnant from unprotected sex.

But, I'm just as angry that I have to pay for the cancer treatments of a lifetime smoker on welfare.  (as a proponent of social medicine, this is something of a dichotemy (sp) for me).

And what do you think Jesus

And what do you think Jesus would say about government benefits payments to individuals?

I will postulate that Jesus would be appalled.  He always advocated alms to the poor donated by willing individuals, but no where in the Bible do I see Jesus advocating that Caesar should sieze 50% of every man's income each year, siphon off 78% of it to pay of himself and his lackies, and then distribute the remainder amongst the politically correct downtrodden classes.  When Jonathan Altermann can show me where Jesus ever said that Caesar was an integral element in the administration of Christian charity or that charity was a function of Caesar, then I will buy that Jesus is a Liberal.

um, just wanted to make sure you knew that obama wasn't talking

about abortion.

He was talking in reference to abstinence-only education. Which I'm sure you'll object to as well, it would just be better if you whined accurately.

http://mediamatters....

 

yeah, yeah, i know you don't like media matters.

So what if Obama wasn't talking about abortion

It is the attitude behind the words "punished with a baby".  A baby = punishment.  Poor choice of words that provides a window into how he feels about unwanted babies.  How can we as a society justify:  Wanted Baby = blessing, Unwanted Baby = punishment worthy of aborting.  If a baby is "wanted" we celebrate each moment in the womb as the miracle it is, but if a baby is "unwanted" we are supposed to accept the mother's right to kill it with the aid of a medical doctor.  And yeah, while Obama may not have been speaking about abortion, he is "pro-choice" (which is a nice way of saying "if you don't want the child you created it is ok to kill it)

Nay, I couldn't have said it

Nay, I couldn't have said it better....

"If someone hits you in the

"If someone hits you in the left cheek, show them your right."

That applies to someone who wrongs you personally, not to someone who kills indiscriminately. You are to forgive someone who wrongs you, but you cannot forgive someone who wrongs another. Only God can do that.

"Politically, however, my religious views should never be pushed on anyone else. Which is why I'm pro-choice."

One should never abandon their religious principles for political expediency. Standing up to something you know to be wrong, is the right thing to do. Should people have stood idly by as slavery continued, just because they didn't want to push their views on others who partook in a legal activity?

Curator, please don't think I am being critical of you, you seem to be reeaallllly close to leaving the dark side :-)

 

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

"Politically, however, my

"Politically, however, my religious views should never be pushed on anyone else.  Which is why I'm pro-choice."

This, my friends, is the classic ostrich with its head in the sand (John Kerry being the poster child).  To claim that you believe, with religious conviction, that something is immoral (e.g., "I believe that racist discrimination is wrong and sinful in the eyes of God..."), but then look the other way when it happens to others ("... but I can't push that belief on others, and therefore there shouldn't be any laws against it -- if my company boss doesn't want blacks to work in our office, then that's his choice."), then you either (1) don't really have a conviction, or (2) don't really have a backbone.

I can never understand this

I've never understood the premise that someone can be pro-life but say it's not a legal issue.

Let's open all the prisons and let every criminal out free because what they did was between them and God. Let's stop prosecuting child abuse because those parents have to answer to God for it.

Wait, there's a difference? There's a difference between an unborn baby and an older child?

Sounds like being pro-choice to me. A baby is nothing more than a useless glob of tissue, but because I'm a Christian I'm kind enough to advise my friends not to kill them. Yet don't expect that to carry over into defending them by any other means.

You're not hearing me.

"Let's open all the prisons and let every criminal out free because what they did was between them and God."

No.  Because (more often than not) criminals are in jail because they broke the law.  Again, abortion is not illegal.

I'm pro-life personally and pro-choice politically because of another debate.  Separation of church and state.  It's a blurred line, I know.  And open for legitimate debate.

But, I have no right to impose my religous view that abortion is wrong... any more than a muslim can impose on me to worship Allah five times a day... or that a Morman can force me not to drink coffee.

These are all religious positions.  And, our constituation says we cannot impose religious positions on other people.  Period.

I have no right to tell what someone else to do with their body because of my religious view.

"One should never abandon their religious principles for political expediency. Standing up to something you know to be wrong, is the right thing to do. Should people have stood idly by as slavery continued, just because they didn't want to push their views on others who partook in a legal activity? "

Great point, Jerry.  Standing up for your beliefs is the only way to make change and this is a great example.  Which is why I have no problem whatsoever when people debate against abortion. (as an aside, it's sad to me that the anti-war crowd get labeled as unpatriotic for speaking up for what they believe... and those throwing those labels out there are the ones speaking out against abortion.)

"no right to impose my religous view that abortion is wrong..."

"But, I have no right to impose my religous view that abortion is wrong...

These are all religious positions."

No not religious but moral position. Big difference.

You would probably think it was "wrong" if someone came to your house and killed one of your kids, but it's o.k. for your wife to kill your unborn one?

It's morally wrong to kill any innocent child.

http://www.firstscie...

My personal awakening to the sadness that is abortion came when I answered the question, "Who were you the day before you were born?" My answer forever changed me. -Just Jason

v

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
Mother Teresa

"But, I have no right to

"But, I have no right to impose my religous view that abortion is wrong..."

Another common media-driven misconception: That somehow abortion is an "article of religous faith."  While the morality of it may be tied in to basic Judeo-Christian morality (i.e., "thou shall not murder"), that does not mean it is confined to the realm of religion: It is not.  Many, if not most, pro-lifers, including myself, are motivated by a purely factual knowledge of what goes on in an abortion clinic.  It is precisely for this reason that radical pro-abortionists detest any photographic public exposure of "the abortus."  The prefer to frame it in terms of a religious "theocracy" -- it makes vilifying "the other side" much easier. 

Yes, many, if not most, pro-lifers may be Christian, but they oppose abortion because they simply call it for what it is, with their moral beliefs ("you shall not murder; whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do for me") compelling them to do something about it rather than stick their head in the sand.

Have you ever actually READ

Have you ever actually READ the Gospels?  If you had, you would know that Jesus condoned the death penalty for crimes.  Recall the thief hanging on the cross next to him at Calvary? Jesus forgave the thief who believed in him his sins, but he did not excuse him from suffering death on the cross for his crimes.

The adultress who was to be stoned is another of these points.  When Jesus intervened to prevent her stoning, he said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.   He did not say, 'Let he who is without crime cast the first stone'.  The other thing Christ did at that time has always interested me.  The scriptures say he knelt on the ground and scratched something into the dirt.  Ever wonder what that was?  I think it was the name of the man with whom the adultress had consorted.  He was shaming the Pharisees for punishing the whore without punishing the Adulterer who was equally guilty. --Hypocrisy--  Jesus singled this out at the sermon on the mount as the one sin he hated most.  Which brings us once again to Jonathan Altermann and the liberals. Hypocrisy is the essence of Liberal ideology. 

And Jonathan Altermann thinks Jesus is going to endorse that?

 

 

I'm conservative

I'm conservative but oppose the death penalty anyway - on Christian grounds - pro-life all the way:)

Then you diverge from what

Then you diverge from what Jesus did in his life on Earth.  The teaching of Christ on Earth, both in word and in deed, is the Christian Gold Standard of morality.

You also countenance these Moslem filth.

The real question is not whether you consider yourself to be a Christian.  It is whether God considers you to be a Christian.  That issue is in doubt whenever you supplant the views of Jesus on morality with your own personal views.  This is independent of whether you are a sinner.  A man can sin against God and still agree with God that those actions are sin as defined by God.

Words from the Author of Life

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

-- Matt. 19:14

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

-- Job 31:15

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

-- Luke 16:17

He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

-- Matt. 25:45-46

Jonathan Altermann does not

Jonathan Altermann does not believe that God is the "author of life".  He thinks life is a cosmic accident and that God didn't have a farthing to do with it.  Read MediaMatters a little bit and see what Altermann and the rest of those characters say about Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinism.

NL207

I assumed as much.  Whenever someone says "Jesus was a liberal," it usually means they wish to deconstruct Him into a groovy, flag-burning hippy.  I was just providing some words that suggest otherwise, words that might very well be called to mind during the forthcoming day-of-reckoning between Altermann and Christ.

How many ways can someone go wrong in one conversation

You don't take -- you don't take orders from God

But here's Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane just before He was crucified, "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.";

Sounds like He's actually not a liberal then, He did take His orders from God. Want more examples?

And there are still plenty of liberal Republicans.

???

I'm a liberal.  I'm a Christian.  But, I truly have no idea what this man is trying to say.

"To be a liberal means to believe the truth?"

I declare bullshit.  Libs (nor conservatives) have a monopoly on 'truth.'

This guy is just confused.

Pandering to an audience?

Why, one might almost think that he was pandering to an audience of atheists, non-believers and mockers of Christianity and all things spiritual and good! Perhaps doing it just to sell capulent books and make money!

Nah.

No one could possibly be that shallow, mean-spirited, childish and hateful. Could they?

 

Not Sure...

I don't know.  I'm not inside the guys head.  But, I don't think that's an unreasonable guess.  People have tried to make money in shadier ways.

I have long asserted that we

I have long asserted that we have slurred the meaning out of most labels. Really, what is a "conservative?" What is a "liberal" any more?

Good Point

I agree.  The use of general terms to label an entire group of people is rarely a good thing.  I consider myself a liberal because I believe in a woman's right to choose, legal adults should be able to marry any other legal adult they choose, and that the government should provide health care for it's citizens.  All points many disagree with - and for many legitimate reason.

But, I'm a fiscal conservative.  So, where does that leave me in the political spectrum?

Like you said, however, generic labels have become blurred... and, are more often than not, damaging.

"Where does that leave me

"Where does that leave me in the political spectrum?"

Wanting it both ways?  A fence sitter?   As G. K. Chesterton said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

Its just my contention that

Its just my contention that labels have become meaningless. Our political beliefs are tied to how much and in which categories government should be involved in our lives.  This seems to be a matter of degrees.

If you really dissect the meanings of words, then one could assert that there is no such thing as "conservatives."  Rather, our nation is split between liberals and totalitarians.

We live in a liberal democratic republic. 

Liberal - having liberties - freedom of movement and activities that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Democratic - voting rights.

Republic - representation.

The demcoratic aspect of our country is supposed to give us a say in what goes on.  The republican aspect ensures that half plus one can not enslave the rest (ostensibly).

 

We live in a liberal democratic republic - PeskyDane

...excellent. I will use that with my homeschooled kids.

Thanks

v

Curator,

You're a fiscal conservative, yet you believe that the govt. should provide health care for it's citizens? I'm having a little trouble reconciling this in my mind. Could you please clarify? Are you sure you are not just not warring inside your head?

This raises the natural

This raises the natural rebuttal: If Jesus were a liberal, why wouldn't liberals take orders from Him?

well because Jesus told the man "sell what you have and give to the poor"

now had Christ said "take that guys stuff and give to the poor" the current democrat leadership would be all over it

 

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

It cracks me up that while

It cracks me up that while Liberals mock the conservative Christians, it must drive them crazy and get under their skin, because they keep trying to claim the "Jesus mantle" for themselves - maybe because Jesus is the last "institution" the liberals don't and can't control...

Depends on who we're talking

Depends on who we're talking about. Some mock Christians, some merely poke fun, being Christians themselves. Some of that mockery probably comes from conservatives who use religion to say that people don't belong, are bad people, etc.

who use religion to say that people don't belong, are bad people

Bal, not bad, just lost.

We are all bad, i.e. sinners as God would call us.

Just some of us are forgiven (grace of God),

and some of us are not, thus the lost (mercy of God).

v

That seems to be the left's

That seems to be the left's new approach: suggesting Jesus was/is a liberal.  Being Catholic, I'm no expert on the Bible, but I seem to remember Jesus encouraging individuals to take it upon themselves to give up material possessions to follow him...not encouraging heavy-handed third parties to enforce a tax system that takes away individual liberty towards that end.  But, hey, the Huckabee-types seemed to like this new approach.

Jesus was Not

Jesus was Not Liberal.

 

He Had a Job & Believed in God.

→ GeoGolf

Seems he also believed in personal charity rather than leaving it up to the Government.

♣ a seal

I think Jesus would be

I think Jesus would be offended by His being subjected to the attachment of political labels by the Left or the Right.

Jer  

→ Maybe, Jer

And maybe he would place His hand on the stomach of the poor pregnant girl and say "Begone from her thou evil parasite"

Just trying to see how Jesus would handle life choices from a Liberal's perspective.  How am I doing?

♣ a seal

Not very well, I'm

Not very well, I'm afraid.

Jer

→ Thanks' Jer

I know I forgot the part where He says "Go out and have some more promiscuous sex"

♣ a seal

Let's not forget

Let's not forget that this idiot Alterman also works for the pro-Communist, pro-homosexual, anti-Bush, anti-Fox News, anti-Conservative, anti-American, pro-Clinton, George Soros funded website, Media Matters for America.

You're getting warmer...

You're getting warmer...

Jer

→ Thanks again, Jer

I think I've got it figured out now.

Positively reinforce foolish behavior and, to a Liberal, it's only logical the subject will distance themselves from said behavior because it carries no consequences.

♣ a seal

BINGO!

BINGO!

Jer

→ Right on, Jer

And to think some would say I'm incorrigible.

♣ a seal

Jesus was a Liberal?

Whenever I hear fools like Alterman make stupid comments about Jesus' political affiliation, I am reminded of Mathew Henry and what he said about Jesus and politics.

"The enemies of Christ would be thought desirous to know their duty,
when really they hoped that which soever side he took of the question,
they might find occasion to accuse him. Nothing is more likely to
insnare the followers of Christ, than bringing them to meddle with
disputes about worldly politics. Jesus avoided the snare, by referring
to the submission they had already made as a nation; and all that heard
him, marvelled at the great wisdom of his answer. Many will praise the
words of a sermon, who will not be commanded by the doctrines of it.
"

Jesus NOT a liberal

A major tenets of liberalism:

  • pro-abort [ Jesus regrded ALL life as precious. ]
  • disposable marriage [ Jesus speaks sternly against divorce.]
  • vegetarian [ Jesus fed the masses bread and fish. ]

I could go on and on.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Let's frame the question properly

As an all-too-infrequent contributor these days, I apologize if I'm disrupting the flow of commentary, but the question inspired by the original article is improperly framed.  If I may...

Since political perspectives stem from worldviews (and not the other way around), the question is not whether Jesus is (not "was," thanks) a "liberal," but whether a worldview grounded in a personal, saving relationship with Jesus produces a liberal, moderate, or conservative political perspective.  That puts the horse back before the cart, so to speak. 

To answer the question and prompt discussion, the only appropriate response is this:  A growing, maturing Christian will have as a matter of course a conservative political viewpoint, but that conservatism will not be the primary, driving force in his or her life.

Thoughts?

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport.com

"the question is not whether Jesus is (not "was," thanks)"

...good correction.

And..."A growing, maturing Christian will have as a matter of course a conservative political viewpoint, but that conservatism will not be the primary, driving force in his or her life." has two significant points; 1) "growing, maturing" is key, and more importantly 2) your point of what the primary driving force would be, says it all.

v

I've read the last page of the Bible. It's all going to turn out all right. - Billy Graham

Excellent point. Jesus is

Excellent point. Jesus is the standard of truth by which all things should be measured, including political doctrine. Without question, the more closely one follows Jesus, the more conservative one's world view becomes.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).