« Microevolution Is Not Macroevolution | Main | Nehemiah's Wall Found »

November 30, 2007

Comments

To question Hillary`s motives is a wise and prudent thing to do, so why not question Rick Warren`s motives as well? I believe he has given reasons to question his motives from many past incidences.
Naive? Hardly.
When would you consider it wise to question or to withold questioning another`s motives?

CBS titled it "The Christian Right Turns Left." Pastor Rick described his detractors thusly:

"...the least gracious people on the planet"

From the link in Brett's post.

Warren sees the handwriting on the wall as does this chap:

http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=Home

http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=OnlineBookSales

The handwriting?

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/11/30/the-world-turned-upside-down-down-under/

Warren and Sider are the future.

Let's see: Hillary Clinton is against the spread of AIDS. (God bless her). She also wants the federal government to fund a Woodstock Museum. But Woodstock is where people exercised their unbridled liberty to listen to live music, never shower, do drugs, and exchange bodily fluids. So, Hillary wants to stop the spread of AIDS while celebrating the orgies that spread AIDS. This is the thinking of the enlightened.

The Woodstock "Museum" is actually a business venture with a performing arts complex and regular presentations. The area is, I believe, Republican and the center enjoys community support.

Dr. Beckwith's comment is a good summary of what is wrong with our politics: Too much money and too much irrelevant comment.

The earmark, supported by both of the state's Senators, is pure pork and deserved to be defeated. Shame on both of them. Public financing of campaigns, which we already have in several states, really needs to happen.

The original concert at Woodstock happened in 1969 which was a full decade before the AIDS problem. By 1980 most of the folks who were partying at Woodstock were settled in suburbia with careers and families.
The counter-culture was long dead and we had disco and Reagan.

Woodstock and hippies had nothing to do with the AIDS crisis in Africa and Asia. Either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama is likely to be the next President of the United States. Evangelicals seem to be growing up politically and Rick Warren recognizes that.

I would not expect that most people in the Saddleback congregation would make any kind of final decision on Clinton's qualifications for President by one appearence discussing one issue.

To the extent that this situation is implied in the post and the links I can understand Brett's unease. I don't however consider this as an indication that evangelicals are turning left (or as Alan puts it, growing up politically).

As far as I could count, only one or two people were quoted as seriously considering Clinton for President and I didn't see any quotes from a member of the congregation that thought Clintons position on AIDS might be great but not sufficient to qualify her for President. I suspect there were a few there who might have held that view.

Warren says:
"But when millions are dying each year we are interested in lives, not labels," Warren said in a statement. "We want everyone to become concerned about the AIDS pandemic."

This is fine but of course this was not just about AIDS. It was also a political event that Clinton will use to her advantage. It seems Warren avoided addressing the political question by accusing Christian critics of lacking grace. To me this was not a particularly "graceful" response on his part.

Still, I have no serious problem with Clinton being invited to share her views. It might have been better if she was just asked to provide video when it was apparent that no other candidate would attend.

If I understand Alan, he thinks that this event is some kind of indication that Warren is trying to get into a position of favor with Clinton because he expects her to be elected. Or perhaps that social justice issues are taking a greater role in evangelicalism and therefore Clinton is a more desirable candidate.

I actually don't see this demonstrated by the event or by the links provided.

Hi William, I guess my point is that it is unhealthy for a large bloc of voters to base their decisions on one or two issues. Focusing on abortion has led millions of folks to vote against their economic interests as well as the getting the added bonus of an unnecessary war and the erosion of constitutional rights. That many of them are indifferent or in denial on this is besides the point.

If they broadened their concerns to a wider range of issues, they might actually wind up doing well by doing some real good.

Alan said: "Focusing on abortion has led millions of folks to vote against their economic interests as well as the getting the added bonus of an unnecessary war and the erosion of constitutional rights."

You are entitled to assert your opinion. I would suggest that some issues are more worthy of priority than others, the life issues being highly important, at least to many Christians.

The way the issues have been presented by the media in this situation seem to indicate that the Saddleback congregation, used as representative of evangelicals, may be deemphasizing the life issues to give priority to AIDS programs. This is viewed as moving left.

If this scenario were true I get the idea you would be happy since it supposedly indicates a wider developing concern.

I actually don't think this account is accurate to what is happening at Saddleback. I may be wrong.

Christian concern and involvement is quite wide and has been widening, much to the dismay of some, but as with most any other population, there is disagreement on priorities.

I would resist any move to narrow the concern of Christians for the suffering in this world.

"You are entitled to assert your opinion. I would suggest that some issues are more worthy of priority than others, the life issues being highly important, at least to many Christians."

Hi William, that doesn't explain the focus on same-sex marriage as opposed to, say, universal health coverage which would arguably reduce the abortion rate while saving lives.

After the press conference this week, the negative results of this voting strategy are well beyond mere opinion. Focusing on "life issues" and gay issues simply hasn't worked out so well.

Alan,

Your utilitarianism is showing. It should come as no surprise to you that I don't think what "works" is necessarily what is right.

Hi William, now I'm confused and I don't think this has anything to do with utilitarianism.

Regardless of what ones goals are, it would seem to me that a strategy that discredited me and my goals and led to more harm than good should send me back to the drawing board. One doesn't have to become an agnostic and a liberal; one justs needs to recognize that Christianity and conservatism should be as troubled by incompetence and criminality as your average agnostic liberal is.

The comments to this entry are closed.