Posted on 07/06/2006 12:33:11 PM PDT by JSedreporter
Academics finding common cause with left-wing activists are not a new story, particularly since they are frequently the same people. But their effort to influence Evangelical Christians suggests a new twist on an old cliché: If you cant beat them, subvert them.
For Americas evangelicals, reclaiming the faith would produce a social and political ethic rather different from the one propagated by the religious right, Professor Randall Balmer writes in the June 23rd Chronicle of Higher Education supplement, The Chronicle Review. Care for the earth and for Gods creation provides a good place to start, building on the growing evangelical discontent with the rapacious environmental policies of the Republican-religious right coalition.
Once the evangelicals challenge religious-right orthodoxy on environmental matters, further challenges are possible.
Professor Balmer is the author of the forthcoming Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelicals Lament. Dr. Balmer teaches American Religious History at Barnard College in Manhattan.
The growing evangelical discontent Dr. Balmer writes of consists of one manRon Cizikwho got many high-profile religious leaders to sign onto something called the Evangelical Climate Initiative early this year, almost on blind faith, as it were. Thinking evangelicals, meanwhile, have jumped off of the ECI after studying its contents.
The executive council of the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) recently passed a motion saying there is ongoing debate about the causes of global warming and acknowledging a lack of consensus among the evangelical community on this issue, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance revealed in a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D. C. on April 19th this year.
On the one hand, effort[s] to cut greenhouse gases hurt the poor, the ISA points out. By making energy less affordable and accessible, mandatory reductions would drive up the cost of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose especially harmful effects on the Earths poorest people.
The Kyoto climate treaty, for example, could cost the world community $1 trillion a yearfive times the estimated price of providing sanitation and drinking water to poor developing countries. [And, one African dies every minute from malaria, thanks to the ban on DDT.]
Climate models are suspect, the ISA points out. Our atmosphere and climate are so complex that meteorologists have only a rudimentary grasp of what actually causes storms, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps; and climate conditions have changed many times over the centuries.
As for the so-called social issues that evangelicals have been vocal on, self-described evangelists such as Balmer and Cizik would have them shift focus and possibly even positions on them. As for abortion itself, evangelicals should consider carefully where they invest their energies on this matter, Dr. Balmer warns. Both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion itself; it will make abortions more dangerous for the life and health of the mother.
The other objection is legal and constitutional. Many of us have failed in our quest to find abortion-on-demand or even a right to privacy in the U. S. constitution. Moreover, survivors of partial-birth abortions might be perplexed by Dr. Balmers pro-life defense of Americas abortion laws, which, author and policy analyst Carrie Lukas found, are the most liberal on the planet.
As for Cizik, he claims to be pro-life but Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute reports on comments that Cizik made at the World Bank that cast doubt on that claim. Id like to take on the population issue, but in my community global warming is the third-rail issue, Cizik reportedly said. Ive touched the third rail and still have a job and Ill still have a job after my talk here today but population is a much more dangerous issue to touch.
In my community, environmentalists are associated with pantheism.
I dont agree with that assessment, he allegedly added. We need to confront population control and we can.
Were not Roman Catholics after all, Cizik supposedly assured his audience. But its too hot to handle now.
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts ("Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7). Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of "Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit."
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government "aid" to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do "God's Work."
If a government takes a portion of a man's wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman's property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people's tax money and does "God Work" with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an "Ungodly" man?
Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person's paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God's work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the "right things?"
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the "Great Society" programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to "help families and children" or "buy votes" depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960's, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970's there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though "poor" by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The "Great Society" programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the "Great Society" programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the "Works of God" that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government "guarantees" that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave "government help" for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The "worker's paradises" of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do "God's Work."
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is "Who should help those in need?" I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort. "Charity," enforced by the government, is not charity, it is extortion. "Charity," delivered by the government, is not charity, it is a bribe which corrupts both the giver and the receiver.
Very Sincerely,
2banana
When leftist look at a church they see a political action committee. Creating heaven on Earth, not saving souls, is their going concern.
BONG!
Just my opinion of course.
What ongoing debate about the causes of global warming? What a dunce. Sun = global warming. No sun = global freezing. What do you want a thermostat. Turn it up, it's to dang cold in here.
It's even worse than that, as this example of an openly atheist Presbyterian illustrates:
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2006-news/committee-investigates-membership.htm
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2006-news/pastor-defends-admitting.htm
And thus, it's not too surprising that the latest General Assembly meeting of this "ICHABOD" denomination has produced reactions like this:
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2006-news/evangelical-ministers-sessions.htm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You are correct. Further, my experience is that a dwindling number of religious liberals are Christians in that many I've met no longer believe in the Resurrection or the divinity of Christ.
Goofballs.
Only in the bizarro paranoid mind of the eggheaded liberal academic do religious people share an ultra-right orthodoxy on enviromental matters.
The idea that all evangelical Christians share a universal opinion on environmental policy is as absurd as believing that they all share the same favorite color or taste in music.
The academic left views religious people in the same stereotypical, condescending, and paternalistic manner that they view zoo animals, blacks, and the poor.
People, and entities such as churches and other groups (governments), are supposed to keep their vows. Yet our politicians are taking so much in taxes, and giving away so much in wasteful charity (to buy votes), that the government will not be able to keep its vows that it made to its citizens, such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. This is NOT godly or biblical. There is a point where giving becomes ungodly (especially if it is wasteful and/or counter-productive), and our politicians have long since gone past that point.
The Trinity report was so embarrassing . . . .
Please, don't remind me of the PCUSA's lunatic Assembly. Oy.
The Trinity report was so embarrassing . . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Perhaps this item on the reception of a prominent Presbyterian at the Southern Baptist convention will be more to your liking? LOL
Christian Century shows disdain
over Rice's address to Baptists
By John H. Adams
The Layman Online
Thursday, July 6, 2006
The Layman is an outstanding source of intelligence as to what the liberals are up to, isn't it?
Yes, they seem to do a pretty good job of turning over rocks and shining a spotlight on whatever crawls out. Now they seem to be leading the way to the nearest exit from this steaming mass of apostasy and perversion. About time, but they had to try to turn it around, I suppose.
AFAIC abortion is never justified under any circumstances other than in those rare instances when the mother's life would definitely be seriously endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Rape and incest are often given as valid reasons for aborting a baby, but I believe aborting the living human product of incestuous intercourse or criminal rape is nothing less than murdering one of the two victims of those crimes. If the mother/victim in those cases doesn't want to raise the baby because of mental and emotional trauma caused by the crime, there are many thousands of potential adoptive parents eagerly waiting for her to sign the baby over to their loving care.
"If the mother/victim in those cases doesn't want to raise the baby because of mental and emotional trauma caused by the crime, there are many thousands of potential adoptive parents eagerly waiting for her to sign the baby over to their loving care."
Who knows, perhaps with advances in natal management technology it will be possible for a corps of pure souls like yourself to be established who will be willing to have beings conceived under such circumstances (rape or incest) transplanted into your uterus, where you can bear them to term and either keep and raise them, or relinquish them for adoption. You could even make a career of it and become a "repeat host". And, if there are not enough volunteers, perhaps a draft from the group of pure souls could be instituted to make sure that every conceived being has a uterus in which to gestate. (Matt 7:2)
Your attempt at clever sarcasm is wasted on me, but perhaps it will be appreciated by other readers who like you are apparently not appalled or even at all bothered by the barbaric US abortion holocaust. I have neither the time nor the inclination to exchange comments with someone who appears to be unable or unwilling to recognize the scope of the collossal human tragedy that Roe v Wade has caused.
Your several references to Matt 7:2 do not offer a practical solution to the problem of pregnancies by rape and incest IMHO. In practical terms there is nothing that either you or I can do to alleviate the emotional suffering of rape or incest victims who we do not know or to who we are not related, and I am not interested in speculating about biologically impossible answers to those tragic and difficult situations. The bottom line for me is that there is nothing other than saving the life of the mother that justifies the taking of innocent human life in the womb. As for your repeated references to Matt 7:2, I don't see any connection with my comments and the teaching of Jesus regarding accusing others of sins that the accuser is guilty of himself. I have not impregnated anyone through rape or incest myself, and I have not accused the rape and incest victims of committing any sin in connection with their unfortunate situation. It seems to me that your concern for the emotional distress of the rape/incest victims is more important to you than the deliberate killing of the innocent babies who pay for the father's sin with their own lives. As I see it, the legal status of abortion in America only makes it possible for the women who abort babies conceived through rape or incest to share some of the guilt for aborting those babies with the abortionist and the criminal father. There are other and much better ways to resolve that situation than aborting the ultimate victim, one of which is adoption.
My point in mentioning adoption in my original comment was simply this; If legalized abortion was not the readily available "answer" to many of the relatively few difficult situations such as pregnancy by rape and incest, the many thousands of American couples who are now adopting babies from China and eastern Europe every year would provide a humane, morally acceptable alternative for those victimized mothers. My niece and her husband expended a large amount of time, effort, and money to travel to China and arrange the adoption of a Chinese baby girl. They are now in the expensive and time consuming process of adopting another Chinese baby. While in China they met many other American couples who were there for that same same purpose. If legal and readily available abortion did not offer the preferred "answer" for American victims of rape or incest, those American couples would provide a humane and morally acceptable "way out" for those unfortunate girls and women instead of paying the abortion industry to dispose of their "problem".
The cruel irony of the situation is that every day while those American couples are waiting in places such as China, Romania, or the Ukraine to pay for and adopt babies, American abortion mills are being further enriched by slicing and dicing thousands of pre-birth babies. At least some of those lives would be saved by adoption if not for the "answer" provided by our legalized abortion industry. You might answer by saying that in that case the foreign babies who are now being adopted by Americans would become the victims instead of the American babies who are being aborted. While that may be true, I would much rather that God assign the guilt of murdering babies to those nations' account instead of to America's account. I can't believe that God will tolerate the present situation indefinitely without imposing severe punishment on the offending nations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.