« God Is Not Great | Main | Three Ex-Terrorists to Speak at UC Irvine »

May 29, 2007

Comments

Melinda,
as a complete verbal bomb-thrower I disagree a little bit. I find Campolo's kindness passive-aggressive. It is disarming to hear such a pleasant man say such unpleasant things with wit, charisma and conviction. But I think Christ (and Paul) saw through sugar-coated language and called people on it, while we can't read inflection into his words, his words were appropriately harsh to some of his opposition...and gentle to others.

What bugs me about Campolo is that he has always been just another baby-boomer liberal and his religion has only inspired him to baptize his political ideology with Christian lingo. Wrapping it in an appealing package makes for great politics but it's still just putting a wedding dress on a maggot.

Is Tony my brother in Christ? Yes. Do his ideas eminate from Christian doctrine? No. Both Andrew Sullivan and Michael Moore have used the scriptures to claim homosexuality is blessed by God. The most "Christian-toned" voices are the hardest to dismiss and the most seductive to the ear. I scream louder about them than anyone else...Carter, Campolo, the emergent folks et al.

Even when I hate what Tony is saying, he's pleasant to listen to. He is one of the most charismatic speakers we have. Lucifer would probably be even more appealing.

How do you in one breath say that Tony is your brother and then in the next compare him to the devil?

Is George Bush your brother?

Interesting comeback. :)

I never compared him the devil though!

Hey Doug!!!!! We need you back doing social and political commentary. I would trade your blog for all the blogs out there!!!!

"I never compared him the devil though!"

AC, my point wasn't that Tony was a devil...though I think he's unknowingly doing the Devil's work. These "progressive" Christian groups only serve to weaken the leading party in the Pro-Life movement which is trying to save 5,000 humans a day instead of 3,000 U.S. soldiers over 5 years.

The point of Melinda's post is that she's impressed with Tony not being disagreeable, while I think there's a place for being artfully disagreeable (and I'm not using myself as an example...I clearly cross the line at times and I don't want to baptize my sin with Christ's good reputation). If you look at who got the brunt of Christ's admonishments they were the religious whitewashing themselves in whatever culturally acceptable vernacular of the time would give their own agenda credence.

Tony, and other well-meaning Christian Democrats are in all practicality, enabling Amerian genocide in the name of war critique. When the Iraq war civilian body-count goes up to 5,000 a day then I'll give Tony a little respect. When the Iraq re-opens rape prisons under the new administration I'll hear what he has to say about no WMDs.

Tony is not the devil, but the devil's tactics are also to be well-informed winsome and attractive in today's culture. Don't let the gentle delivery fool you into thinking message isn't garbage. It's part of why I LOVE Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...you couldn't have put together a more homely, unattractive, ineloquent group of politicians. Compare that to the virtual beauty contest on the left and you'll see where we should point our feces-detectors.

Everybody sing: "A spoon-ful of sugar makes the arsenic go down!"

Not to add that this polite debater (Tony Campolo) also says things like:

"Islam is much more gracious towards evangelical Christians who are faithful to the New Testament, than Christians are towards Islamic people who are faithful to the Koran. The Islamic faith will ask, "Are you faithful to the book that you have?" Mohammad was very understanding that there was great truth in Christianity. He differed with us in that he felt he had a more complete truth, and Islam would hold to that, but Mohammad contended that we would ultimately be judged in terms of the truth that we had at our disposal.

I think there are Muslim brothers and sisters who are willing to say, "You live up to the truth as you understand it. I will live up to the truth as I understand it, and we will leave it up to God on judgment day."

and:

"There is much in Christianity that would suggest exactly the same thing, particularly Romans the 2nd chapter, where the apostle Paul says "What do we say of those who do not accept the law of God," and I would add "as we understand it," "and are faithful to all the things that God calls us to do—will God not have to make room for them?"

So I guess your remark wasnt that off base.

The wolf is using a sheep's debating tactics.

Where's The Enforcer?!

You all should listen to this one too. Anna in Colorado: "We are in Iraq because there are two holes in New York; there's a hole in the Pentagon." You have to listen to it to believe it. It's 2007 and there are still people who believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. I assume Anna from Colorado is in the 28%. Both Michael and Tony let the lie slide, thereby reinforcing it in those who still believe it.

BTW, Tony wasn't all that well prepared.

I am ex military, sometimes get a little ruff. But I always try to get ruff with a persons stance, or what they said, and not for whom the person is. I will attack the action, while trying not to attack the person.

NEW THOUGHT: While talking with a friend I proposed that we blast bacteria and other single celled organisms (and DNA RNA fragments) into deep space, aiming at different areas of the galaxy that might contain livable planets.

Part of my reasoning was that as the only known species with the capability to do so, and with the constant (although minimal) threat of our extinction through some catacalysmic event, we owed it to the universe to make a "good faith effort".

He said this was a waste of money and should not be considered. His retort was that there would be a "million billionth" of a chance of it being worthwhile.

I asked him if he thought the chances were so remote of my plan succeeding, then what does that mean for the chances planet Earth and people would exist without any divine help?

He tried kicking me,...

"It's 2007 and there are still people who believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. "

It's 2007 and there are still people who believe there are no terrorists in Iraq.

Bush never said Saddam performed 9/11...he was clear when he said he was changing the regime in Iraq and going to war in Afghanistan "to drain the swamp of terror".

While you probably disagree with Osama Bin Laden and Iran that the front lines of the war on terror are in Iraq, I consider them a better expert on terror than you or other isolationists.

Go get a world map, look at where Afghanistan is located...then look at where Iraq is located...then look at what is between them and you'll see what our glorious war machine is about to pull off no thanks to you and Campolo. But in 50 years during the victory celebration of the liberation of the entire Middle East of fundamentalist terror I'm sure you'll be around to take credit in some strange way.

Hi, Doug, at least read what i write before firing on me. I clearly stated that it was a caller to Medved that believed that. We don't need to go into who said what. There are two established facts.

1.Around the time of the Iraq invasion and just after around 70% of the American people believed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.

2. There is absolutely no evidence connecting Saddam and 9/11.

That 70% of the American people came to believe a lie and why folks like Anna in Colorado still do is a testimony to the incompetence of our media. Michael knows the truth and so does Tony (although he seems a bit slow on the uptake), yet neither bothered to correct a lie that is in part responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Anyone who is curious as to the origins of the lie and who directly and indirectly perpetuated it can do the research - if you are reading this you are on the internets afterall.

"Go get a world map, look at where Afghanistan is located...then look at where Iraq is located...then look at what is between them and you'll see what our glorious war machine is about to pull off no thanks to you and Campolo."

Dude, whatever you are smoking, pass it around, it has to be good. Humor aside, how many troops do you figure would be necessary to do what you seem to believe is going to happen? How many troops do we have? Duho.

One can speak boldly without being uncivil. However, the pattern established by politicians is an application of means of propaganda to influence public opinion. Unfortunately, politicians and other persuasive speakers have found that vitriol and ad hominem arguments achieve these ends better than well-reasoned civil discourse. Our system of education has fed this pattern by failing to teach such as logic and critical thinking. As such, the pattern of political discourse has bled into the private sector and we see the fruits here in bit-land where we may "speak" without personal accountability.

The comments to this entry are closed.