Posted on 07/25/2006 7:55:23 PM PDT by pcottraux
Instead of endless babble about keeping religion out of public discourse, we will now hear competing messages: "Christ is actually pro-choice" and such.
And watch how the media, so dismissive of the religious right, will suddenly have all kinds of interest in the religious left--expect lots of shots of Katie Couric with a pen in her hand, nodding with interest as some leftist refering to God as "She" talks about the "immorality" of the WOT, for example.
Gay marriage doesn't prove to be very 'divisive' when the people actually get to vote on it, as its been voted down handily every time, from a low of 57% to a high of over 80%, and an average of about 70%.
Basically, the 'religious left' calls for bigger govt, amnesty for illegal aliens, and complete and unconditional surrender of conservatives in the Culture War.
Wishful thinking on the part of the MSM. Left-wing "ministers" have been around for decades (two ran for president as Democratic candidates). Their agenda will have no impact on the so-called religious right.
The religious left probably applies a socialist standard to Christ's teachings. In other words, instead of being all salvation, sacrifice, and God's plan for humanity, Jesus was some sort of hippy peacenik.
Suuuure. A couple of pastors does not a movement make.
It is kind of an oxymoron.
As an atheist, quite frankly, you can say nothing with confidence because your beliefs are rooted in nothing except that which you believe is your own intellectual superiority.
I've read your post, I don't think you qualify.
Other than for us to remind them that the cafeteria is closed.
There's no such thing. It's a convenient fiction created for this election cycle. It's not likely that an ideology that embraces every perversion known to man can lay any credible claim to religious gravitas.
More about Jim Wallis and the Sojourners organization:
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/conferences/psca/
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.display&item=050111_godspolitics
http://www.calltorenewal.com/events/pentecost06/index.html
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=resources.discussion_guides
My opinion, this Jim Wallis is a money-changer. That is, a professional con man, using religion as his vehicle. It is his racket to end poverty by taking from the foolish, and putting the money in his own pocket.
I don't believe it. Odd the reporter didn't name the "scholars"?
I'll accept that.
Roosevelt had no confidantes but a lot of confidence. His playmates were imaginary but, from a young age, he believed in himself. He grew up that way not only because of class privilege and the expectation of being served, but because of his theology and his expectation, similar to Woodrow Wilson's, that he was chosen to perform great services to mankind.
Franklin Roosevelt particularly learned to think that way during his college preparatory experience at the Groton School in Massachusetts. Nine of ten students entered Groton as members of Social Register families. Many of them left as partakers of the Social Gospel. Endicott Peabody, founder and headmaster of Groton, was a disciple of Charles Kingsley, founder of the Christian Socialist movement in England. Peabody in turn became a lifelong influence on Roosevelt and many others. (When Roosevelt held private services in Washington before his inauguration and on other major occasions, he asked Rev. Peabody to conduct them.) Peabody proclaimed not only the social gospel but social universalism — the belief that it was unfair for anyone to be poor, and that government's task was to eliminate this unfairness by siding with poorer over richer, worker over capitalist. The influence of Peabody's faith is evident in notebooks Franklin kept at Groton on a variety of political issues. For example, Franklin proposed the development of unions backed up by governmental arbitration boards as the way to "resist unjust exactions by the employers."
Old news.
Well, even saying that it's become it's "most active" since the 1960s probably isn't saying much.
There is a "religious left," just not a Christian one. A "religious left" could include pagans, Wiccans, and a myriad of cults.
I apologize if I misunderstood your post.
They are quite sizable here in MA. The most conservative church out of this state from the 1960s is a perfect model in disguise for what exists today: church-going sheep under democrat influence, NOT religious doctrine of any tradition.
Truth is, the religious left has had free reign for a long time. The media has never been out to get them like they have been with the right. So this claim of newness is just an excuse to get them some free media. Talk away. We aren't the ones who want to stifle speech, religious or poltiical.
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.