# Bloggers: Left & Right. Different?



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

A friend and host of a popular political blog recently talked with me about the bloggers linking to his site. He commented that those on the "right" far more often link to comments with which they agree ... while those on the "left" link to points with which they disagree. 

As the host is fairly even-handed ... I don't think this is comment regarding his particular viewpoint. I'm thinking it is more a comment about the mindset of the bloggers ... left and right. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I completely agree, although I hope this doens't mean I'm on the Right 

Really, this is the liberal vs conservative bit in a nutshell. Conservatives want to conserve meaning they obviously see something good in conserving. Liberals are more apt to change which means they see things worth changing.

The reality is that most of us are somewhere in the middle !

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

It is in the nature of a liberal to rebel, even if just for the sake of rebelling. He cannot help it, like the story of the scorpion who hitches a ride across the pond on the back of the frog. He therefore is always looking for a fight.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> It is in the nature of a liberal to rebel, even if just for the sake of rebelling.


Yep. And thank God for it. It's the foundation of change and social progress.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yep. And thank God for it. It's the foundation of change and social progress.


Yes but sometimes it is sheer buffoonery!

By the way, there are ways to rebel that are meaningful and make one pay attention. Thoughtful, considerate dissent is healthy and welcomed. Sticking a hand covered with red paint in the face of the secretary of state and yelling "war criminal" and shouting down those you don't agree with ala the brown shirts is plain silly. The right in this country has its demagogues but most aren't elected officials and I have yet to see anyone yell and scream on the right in order to prove their point.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The Right, by its very nature, is self-referential. Conservatism thinks of itself as replicating an idealized past, hence its desire to preserve tradition, warts and all. 

The Left still thinks of itself as revolutionary -- creating a future that, in many fundamental ways, has admittedly never existed. It is, therefore, often eager to ditch tradition, hence Frank's regurgitation of typical Leftist platitudes like "change and social progress." 

One of the most prominent themes among right-wingers is how there are all these terrible things in the world, and how conservatives stand in the way of imminent collapse. That's why they are tough on crime and see enemies lurking under every rock. 

On the Left, the main theme is how the Right-wingers are the cause of problems because they stand in the way of "change and social progress." 

For the Right, the enemy is chaos, the unknown, the unfamiliar, the dangerous. For the Left, the enemy is the Right. They define themselves by what they are not. They are anti-Right, first and foremost. 

It's not hard to see, therefore, that the Right tends to talk about the news while the Left tends to talk about the Right.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> It's not hard to see, therefore, that the Right tends to talk about the news while the Left tends to talk about the Right.


Perhaps that was true in the past, but I'd say the present environment is often 180 degrees to this notion.

-spence


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

pt4u67 said:


> Thoughtful, considerate dissent is healthy and welcomed. Sticking a hand covered with red paint in the face of the secretary of state and yelling "war criminal" and shouting down those you don't agree with ala the brown shirts is plain silly. The right in this country has its demagogues but most aren't elected officials and I have yet to see anyone yell and scream on the right in order to prove their point.


Civility is my preferred response to anything. So I certainly agree with "thoughtful and considerate."

And yes, the Left has its over-the-top bloggers ... screamers ... throwers pies and paint ... and destroyers of property ... and I support NONE of that! Frankly, that is beyond acceptable. But are you seriously telling me that the Right doesn't have it's share of the same? Perhaps you could think a bit about this. And do remember ... each side has its preferred version of strong-arming tactics.

I really don't want to add a list of offenses of "the other side" ... as I am hoping to keep this thread civil. But once we start pointing fingers ... it won't be long before the civility is lost ... and that's right here in River City ... or rather this "gentlemanly" forum.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Phinn said:


> ...the Right tends to talk about the news while the Left tends to talk about the Right.





Spence said:


> Perhaps that was true in the past, but I'd say the present environment is often 180 degrees to this notion.


Spence, you have a point. As I see it, the Right seems bent on talking about and destroying the Left. But that is not to say the Left doesn't continue to talk about the Right.

As for news ... it seems to me each side has a different vision of what constitutes news ... and how that news should be tempered.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The Right, by its very nature, is self-referential. Conservatism thinks of itself as replicating an idealized past, hence its desire to preserve tradition, warts and all.
> 
> The Left still thinks of itself as revolutionary -- creating a future that, in many fundamental ways, has admittedly never existed. It is, therefore, often eager to ditch tradition, hence Frank's regurgitation of typical Leftist platitudes like "change and social progress."


It's not a platitude, it's reality.



Phinn said:


> On the Left, the main theme is how the Right-wingers are the cause of problems because they stand in the way of "change and social progress."
> 
> For the Right, the enemy is chaos, the unknown, the unfamiliar, the dangerous. For the Left, the enemy is the Right. They define themselves by what they are not. They are anti-Right, first and foremost.
> 
> It's not hard to see, therefore, that the Right tends to talk about the news while the Left tends to talk about the Right.


Watch a random 15 minutes of The Bush Channel (Fox News) or listen to 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh's show, then come back and tell us the "right" spends its time talking about issues instead of attacking the left.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Please don't make the mistake of conflating the entirety of the Right with the neoconservative movement.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Excellent point, Jolly Roger. There is quite a difference between a Conservative and a Neoconservative.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Please don't make the mistake of conflating the entirety of the Right with the neoconservative movement.


Like the Right conflates the entirety of those who don't subscribe to their rantings with Moveon.org?

-spence


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

RSS said:


> Excellent point Jolly Roger. There is quite a difference between a Conservative and a Neoconservative.


Yes, the principal one being that a neo-conservative used to be a liberal and brought much of his nonsense with him. :icon_smile_big: As with the nonsensical notion that conservatism is somehow dispassionate and therefore ought to be made compassionate.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> It's not a platitude, it's reality.
> 
> Watch a random 15 minutes of The Bush Channel (Fox News) or listen to 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh's show, then come back and tell us the "right" spends its time talking about issues instead of attacking the left.


Fox News = the "Bush" channel. That probably tells the whole story. You must work for for either Channel 4 News or the fair and impartial NY Times.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Spence said:


> Like the Right conflates the entirety of those who don't subscribe to their rantings with Moveon.org?
> 
> -spence


Perhaps many of those extremely misguided _neo_conservatives do just that, but again the neoconservatives are *not* "the Right".

Do you realize that you just made the very mistaken mischaracterization I implored you to avoid?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> while those on the "left" link to points with which they disagree.


I think someone that consistently links to points/atricles/etc. they disagree with is because this person, whatever side of the political spectrum they are on, simply cannot stand that someone dares to hold a different opinion than they do. This dissenting person must be held up to scrutiny and/or ridicule as they obviously lack the depth of insight and native intelligence needed to understand the topic "correctly".

Keep in mind, this summation is based on the OP, but that I think people on both sides of the aisle can fall into this. Where I think there is a dichotomy is that on many topics, the "right" simply feels you have a moral failing if you do not take their stance. The "left" feels you not only have a moral failing but also an intellectual one.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Spence, I'm not sure how old you are ... but perhaps you don't remember the "Right" to which Jolly Roger refers.

I'm thinking of John Dean, author of _Conservatives Without A Conscience_ ... who these days has more in common with the Left than with neoconservatives ... who are anything but conservative.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Mark from Plano said:


> Yes, the principal one being that a neo-conservative used to be a liberal and brought much of his nonsense with him. :icon_smile_big: As with the nonsensical notion that conservatism is somehow dispassionate and therefore ought to be made compassionate.


Actually _compassionate _in that sense is a code word from the far right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement ... not the left. Although left-leaning non-literalist Christians are perhaps truly the more compassionate.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> compassionate in that sense is a code word from the far right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement


A code word for what?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> Actually _compassionate _in that sense is a code word from the far right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement ... not the left. Although left-leaning non-literalist Christians are perhaps truly the more compassionate.:icon_smile_wink:


But what is compassion? If it's a euphemism for license or acceptance without determining the good, is that truly compassionate? Or just a basis for self congratulation?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> A code word for what?


If he told you, he would have to kill you. What good is a code word if everyone has it figured out?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Phinn and Yachtie ... I'll come back to answer you soon ... but tonight I have dinner at Rivoli. (Zagat 27!) But no Yachtie ... it's not about license ... nor acceptance (per se) ... nor self. And no, Wayfarer ... I won't have to kill him. There are already several books on the subject of fundamentalist "code" ... although I'm not convinced it is really code.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> Phinn and Yachtie ... I'll come back to answer you soon ... but tonight I have dinner at Rivoli. (Zagat 27!) But no Yachtie ... it's not about license ... nor acceptance (per se) ... nor self. And no, Wayfarer ... I won't have to kill him. There are already several books on the subject of fundamentalist "code" ... although I'm not convinced it is really code.


Code? Hmm. Learn something new everyday. That's what happens when you're not a fundamentalist- Hey they don't let you in on the code , or the secret handshake, or anything! Let us know how Rivoli was :icon_smile_big:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Reservation at 9:00 ... but found this quickly ... so here is ...

Compassionate Conservatism was coined by Marvin Olasky … and based on his view of original sin. I quote “Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing. … Man’s sinful nature leads to indolence … appetite and lust and idleness.” He assumes that poor peoples' sins are the root cause of their poverty and that, as such, fundamentalist Christianity is ultimately the only cure for poverty. The “compassion” has to do with conversion to fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow, so there is a VRWC.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

RSS said:


> Reservation at 9:00 ... but found this quickly ... so here is ...
> 
> Compassionate Conservatism was coined by Marvin Olasky &#8230; and based on his view of original sin. I quote "Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing. &#8230; Man's sinful nature leads to indolence &#8230; appetite and lust and idleness." He assumes that poor peoples' sins are the root cause of their poverty and that, as such, fundamentalist Christianity is ultimately the only cure for poverty. The "compassion" has to do with conversion to fundamentalist Christianity.


There was an old Paul Newman movie...can't find the name in my brain right now. Sally Field played a reporter who winds up ruining several lives. A key line in the movie surrounded a particular news story that was "accurate, but not true."

While it may be accurate that the term was coined by a fundamentalist please don't think that that means "conservative". Olasky was a communist before he invented "compassionate conservatism" and sold it to George Bush. Compassionate conservatism as practiced by the GWB adminstration was always meant as a "code word" for "we'll protect government giveaways."

You seem (and I'll let you tell me where I'm wrong here) to assume that all fundamentalists are conservatives. Also not true. Conservatism in the Taft/Goldwater/Buckley/Reagan strain was less dependent on social matters than "conservatism" today. In the 1950's both parties were anti-communist and both parties were split on the abortion issue, although it was generally at that time more of a state than a federal issue. Hell, the Dem's favorite President, JFK was a pro-life anti-communist, but that didn't make him a conservative. What distinguished conservatives was a firm belief in the limited role of government and of a limited "interests-based" foreign policy.

During the '50s and '60's as more Dems became enamoured of leftist ideas, ardent anti-communism was ceded conservatives. With the Roe decision in 1973 the Moral Majority was born and it's only option to sit at the grown up table was with the Republicans since the Dems were well into their program of political fratricide of all pro-life Dems.

Consequently, if one was pro-life and anti-communist in 1973 one became a Republican and embraced "conservatism" whether or not one was actually a "conservative". Hence the neo-conservatives who embraced anti-communism and certain social policies, but believed in expanded governmental roles both domestically and internationally.

Compassionate conservatism is unnecessary because, as Reagan liked to point out "a rising tide lifts all boats." It is the American free market economy that is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised by man. Nothing could be more compassionate. The 1994 Contract with America was extremely compassionate when it reformed the welfare system and permanently moved millions of people from dependency to independent means.

Long-winded, but the point is, don't confuse fundamentalist Moral Majority types with true conservatives. They've generally corrupted the movement. Many of us choose not to be defined by the leftists in our midst.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Long-winded, but the point is, don't confuse fundamentalist Moral Majority types with true conservatives. They've generally corrupted the movement.


And yet Jerry Falwell (co-founder of the Moral Majority) insisted he was a conservative. So do Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney claim the same thing, as does their Ministry of Propaganda (Fox News, Limbaugh etc). So do most of Fox News' viewers and Rush's 20+ million listeners. So does the current leadership of the Republican Party. I could go on for hours listing others.

So my question is, at what point does labeling Neoconservatism a "corruption of the movement" become completely irrelevant, since true conservatism has been virtually wiped off the political map in America? "Corruption of the movement" has become the ONLY movement among Republicans.

And meanwhile, the only U.S. president in the last 40 years who submitted balanced budgets and reduced the size of our federal government in real terms was a guy named Bill Clinton.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

u


Mark from Plano said:


> While it may be accurate that the term was coined by a fundamentalist please don't think that that means "conservative". Olasky was a communist before he invented "compassionate conservatism" and sold it to George Bush. Compassionate conservatism as practiced by the GWB adminstration was always meant as a "code word" for "we'll protect government giveaways."


Mark, you'll note that I didn't say conservative beyond the term _compassionate conservatism_. And you might note my comments further up the thread. Yes, we are talking neocons ... but they currently control the Republican Party ... and rightly or wrongly ... they are commonly referred to as _Conservatives_ as well as _the Right._ Frankly I think they are just demented ... but that's my personal bias.

However, compassionate conservatism is an inside code referring to not just any government spending ... but spending via faith-based initiatives ... the current administration's desire to funnel tax money via churches. When George W. Bush first used the term, most of the media thought it to be a empty election year slogan ... a Republican hope of softening the view of neocons. And of course, the neocons were not exactly unhappy that the real intent was overlooked ... especially given their desire to advance their goals as quietly as possible.

And by the way, Bush not only wrote the introduction for Olasky's book_ Compassionate Conservatism ..._ Olasky was standing nearby when our president first used the term publicly ... so there really is no doubt of the connection.

And yes, Olasky did start as a communist ... before becoming a fundamentalist Christian ... with very close ties to Kennedy/Coral Ridge bunch. Perhaps it can be said he has a strong preference for authoritarian power.

Here is a sample quote from the coralridge.org home page ...

_Do you have a God-sized vision for your nation? Can you envision a land in which God is honored from the schoolhouse to the White House? Can you see hundreds of thousands of missionaries spanning the globe to fulfill the Great Commission. Can you see an America that leads not just economically, but morally and spiritually as well?_​
Of course, this also means an America ruled with an Iron fist. Not very Amercan at all from my point of view.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

*the Berkeley Hillbillies*

Well &#8230; as for Rivoli being a Zegat 27 &#8230; I say conservatively it's a 25 &#8230; liberally a 27. Now, when it comes to restaurants I'm conservative &#8230; so I say it's two points overrated. Still, it's quite good.

Those who have dined there may remember that the dining room looks out to a walled garden. Well, during dinner a possum made an appearance &#8230; causing me to think of Irene Ryan of Beverly Hillbillies fame. Of course part the theme song went through my head: _*Beverly &#8230; Hills that is &#8230; swimming pools &#8230; movie stars*_. But Rivoli, being on the dividing line between Albany and Berkeley &#8230; and being a resident of the Berkeley Hills &#8230; another potential theme song came to mind &#8230; this one is for the Berkeley Hillbillies: *Berkeley &#8230; Hills that is &#8230; hot tubs &#8230; liberals. *

You see, these hillbillies were wiser ... rather than move to Beverly Hills to live among the idle rich ... they moved to Berkeley to become enlightened. And I hear Elly _May Day_ Clampett is the best looking liberal anyone has ever seen.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> I think someone that consistently links to points/atricles/etc. they disagree with is because this person, whatever side of the political spectrum they are on, simply cannot stand that someone dares to hold a different opinion than they do. This dissenting person must be held up to scrutiny and/or ridicule as they obviously lack the depth of insight and native intelligence needed to understand the topic "correctly".
> 
> Keep in mind, this summation is based on the OP, but that I think people on both sides of the aisle can fall into this. Where I think there is a dichotomy is that on many topics, the "right" simply feels you have a moral failing if you do not take their stance. The "left" feels you not only have a moral failing but also an intellectual one.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Interesting ... as my most recent search parameters are ...

"What idiot has the audacity to actually disagree with_* ME *_?"_* :icon_smile_wink:*_​
As a resident of Berkeley ... I can say that your observation stated in the last sentence is generally true. But of late ... I also hear neocons say that about the Left.

Oh well ... Lots of wine last evening ... what other excuse have I for this morning's attempt at humor.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Yachtie &#8230; my response to your post.

At the start of the new millennium, leaders from 191 nations, including the United States, agreed on a plan to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. Yes, it's an overly ambitious task, but a worthy one. Together, they created the eight Millennium Development Goals (just Google them). At the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church formally endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. In 2006, at the 75th Convention, the Church voted to make the MDGs a mission priority over the next three years.

The Christian Left has embraced a Gospel of deeds as being more relevant -- both to Christianity and to society -- than one based in the old Mosaic laws. Of course, I hear it over and over from the Christian Right &#8230; you're nothing but an apostate church that has taken up the liberal social agenda &#8230; why your Gospel is nothing but a social gospel (always with a lowercase g). 

Nothing but a social gospel? Well yes, we have taken up a social Gospel &#8230; because, quite frankly, that *is *the Gospel. You see, from our point of view &#8230; the Christian Right's view of the Gospel is warped by a theory known as "the consolation" &#8230; which dates from the eighteenth century. Under this theory of Christianity &#8230; there is no need to act &#8230; it's all about the self &#8230; with Christ reduced to being a "personal" savior.

Were someone to ask me &#8230; Are you born again?" &#8230; and/or &#8230; "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" &#8230; I would answer, no. This may shock some &#8230; but ALL that is implied in those two questions was never a part of Christian tradition &#8230; well, not before its introduction in 18th century revivalism &#8230; via "the consolation."

From our point of view, the purpose of the Church is not to forbid and proselytize the personal savior theory &#8230; it is to act on the Gospel. And while I am certainly not a literalist &#8230; to the literalist &#8230; I say &#8230; read &#8230; and this time &#8230; don't be so selective about it. If you are a literalist &#8230; you are NOT free to pick and choose the parts you like (such as those self-serving moral laws used to uphold bigotry) &#8230; and ignore the parts you don't like (for example those parts concering the very different paths to heaven ... other parts to numerious to list). Well, there is one I should mention &#8230; don't forget &#8230; no cotton/poly shirts (see Leviticus) &#8230; this is AskAndy after all!

EDIT: At best any religion -- or denomination thereof -- is a collective vision. It is faith ... not fact. No way is the "One True Way."


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> ... since true conservatism has been virtually wiped off the political map in America? "Corruption of the movement" has become the ONLY movement among Republicans.


It's ludicrous to assert that the Old Right has been "wiped off the political map" when a current Taft/Goldwater Republican presidential candidate is speaking before crowds of over 2,000 screaming college kids who pull out 1 dollar bills and light them on fire every time he says "Federal Reserve".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> It's ludicrous to assert that the Old Right has been "wiped off the political map" when a current Taft/Goldwater Republican presidential candidate is speaking before crowds of over 2,000 screaming college kids who pull out 1 dollar bills and light them on fire every time he says "Federal Reserve".


I said "virtually wiped off the political map". Call me when Ron Paul polls anything close to double digits, even among Republicans.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I said "virtually wiped off the political map". Call me when Ron Paul polls anything close to double digits, even among Republicans.


I hope you're ready to eat crow when he wins New Hampshire.

And regardless of whether he wins, his campaign has already changed the direction of the the national dialogue. The other candidates have seen the appeal of his message and have begun paying lip-service to many of his ideals.

They can see the writing on the wall. Too bad so many are too myopic and media-influenced for that.

Wiped off the political map? Hardly. We're just getting warmed up.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I hope you're ready to eat crow when he wins New Hampshire.


Eat crow? I'd celebrate along with you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Eat crow? I'd celebrate along with you.


Count me in too. However, I think you are right about Paul's chances Frank.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Count me in too. However, I think you are right about Paul's chances Frank.


Don't forget that Buchanan was only polling 6% nationally going into the NH primary, and he won it easily.

Paul is already polling higher in NH than Buchanan was at the time of the primary, and it was only this week that he began a media advertising campaign there.

Nothing is written in stone yet. He's definitely in play in NH and Nevada, two of the earliest primary states. Victory there could propel him to a top spot in other states as well.

Early primary victories could make take him all the way, unless the media starts a concerted slander campaign like they did with Pat.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

...but we're drifting away from the topic, and I don't want to seem like one of those legendary "Ron Paul spammers".


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Fellows ... my thread ... and you have my permission to drift. After all ... we liberals tend to be tolerant ... particularly of this sort of view.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Yachtie ... I was just giving you my view. I didn't mean to suggest that you were my opposite or my opposition in any way ... although we are occasionally be on the opposing sides of an argument ... but what two people aren't. However, I can state emphatically that you are always -- ALWAYS -- a gentleman! 

By the way ... I appreciate your past, present, and future.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Thanks for the response RSS. Here's some commentary:



RSS said:


> At the start of the new millennium, leaders from 191 nations, including the United States, agreed on a plan to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. Yes, it's an overly ambitious task, but a worthy one. Together, they created the eight Millennium Development Goals (just Google them). At the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church formally endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. In 2006, at the 75th Convention, the Church voted to make the MDGs a mission priority over the next three years.


All these goals are laudable on their face. My worry is in the execution. The Guardian reported this concerning a panel discussion on the UK for goal 5:

"Women Deliver was meant to address Millennium Development Goal 5, which is to reduce maternal mortality and poor health. But a letter signed by 14 organisations represented at the conference -- eight with UN consultative status -- said the agenda "was so preoccupied with promoting the ideology and practice of abortion that the genuine health care needs of women and children were virtually ignored in the plenary sessions and overwhelmed in the panel discussions."

As with a lot of high sounding goals, there is an unfortuante tendency on the part of some groups to insert an agenda that while using all the correct "buzzwords" fails to advance the actual direction of the goal. Worrysome at best, disasterous at worst.



> The Christian Left has embraced a Gospel of deeds as being more relevant -- both to Christianity and to society -- than one based in the old Mosaic laws. Of course, I hear it over and over from the Christian Right &#8230; you're nothing but an apostate church that has taken up the liberal social agenda &#8230; why your Gospel is nothing but a social gospel (always with a lowercase g).[ /quote]
> 
> Gee, you mean something like: "by their acts you shall know them" or "faith without works is dead"? So far so good. We've been pushing for a more just Social order for a while:Leo XIII's _Rerum Novarum_ (1891) Pius XI's _Quadragesimo Anno_ (1931), John XXIII's _Mater et Magistra_ (1961), and JP II's _Centesimus Annus_ (1991). The difference being that we've seen no need to pitch Mosaic law to a greater extent than the Apostles did. I.e. Peter's vision etc.as that's part of the Gospel (big G).
> 
> ...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> Yachtie ... I was just giving you my view. I didn't mean to suggest that you were my opposite or my opposition in any way ... although we are occasionally be on the opposing sides of an argument ... but what two people aren't. However, I can state emphatically that you are always -- ALWAYS -- a gentleman!
> 
> By the way ... I appreciate your past, present, and future.


Didn't mean to imply that either and I didn't think you were. Just supplying some commentary.:icon_smile_wink:

Best regards as always RSS.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> I have to take exception to the assumption that adherence to moral law as described in Scripture equates to Bigotry.


I should have been clearer in what I wrote. In my opinion the moral laws are all too often _used _to justify bigotry. However, my main point is ... if you are a literalist ... you are NOT free to pick the what you like about the Bible ... and ignore what you don't.

In any event, I can't understand how anyone is a literalist. Any and everything one reads is interpreted. Lock two literalist in a room and they will be arguing about who is right within five minutes. Moreover, there are so many contradictions in the Bible; even the various versions of the nativity are at odds with one another. Also ... in the opinion of some ... when the word takes center stage over and above God ... idolatry is being committed.

But yachtie ... I'm talking about _my_ faith ... I'm not asking you to accept it. Ultimately, if what another believes is different (be it in terms of denomination, religion, lack of religion, or rejection of religion) that's fine by me ... I can still respect him ... until he decides he has the right to force his version of faith on me and/or others.

I need to head to bed ... early morning tomorrow ... I'm serving. I'll be in my double breasted Anglican cassock by 8:30 AM.


----------

