In the real world, moralism is a lot less black and white than the Republican party has been able to admit.
Today, we learn that Sarah Palin, John McCain's VP candidate, has a pregnant 17 year old daughter, Bristol. The salivating news anchors I saw on TV were quick to add that Bristol plans on marrying the child's father, and that her parents are glad she's decided to keep the baby.
Here we have another opportunity for Republican politicians to realize they're living in a real world, not one imagined by Ned Flanders. The GOP world, in which everyone is Christian, white, heterosexual, and abstinent, simply does not exist.
The world I live in is more complicated than that. Not everyone is Christian in my world, nor are they necessarily heterosexual or white. Humans are created as sexual beings, so it's not a shock that someone gets pregnant without being married (and it's not automatic that the mother should marry the father either).
Jesus talked a lot about the real world in which he lived. It was a world in which race, religion and gender didn't matter so much as how people treated each other. Jesus talked about loving people, not judging labels. Maybe the realness of Gov. Palin's daughter's experience can inspire the GOP to stay away from judging people this week, and be honest about policies.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
God have mercy on your ignorant soul, which you have obviously sold shamelessly in the persuit of your thesis.
Would you care to elaborate?
(Thoughts continued from post "Can Our Dreams Conquer Our Fears.")
Several times, you have insinuated or directly stated that the evangelical conservative base of the GOP is a racist, homophobic, sexist, uneducated group. Where do you get this? From your liberal books calling the Christian right “fascists”? Have you been to any of these churches you denounce? Of all the churches I’ve been in, I have never heard the hateful doctrine you claim we espouse. Instead, I have only heard love for people who are hurting. No, we don’t agree with changing all of history’s basic family stability because a certain faction is loud (who, incidentally, is truly hateful toward evangelicals). That does not make us unloving. We don’t agree that human life should be discarded because it is inconvenient (and don’t give me the “for the health of the woman” line—so rare it’s ridiculous, the “it’s my body” line—so childish in how it completely shirks personal responsibility, or the “it’s not life” line—try telling that to your wife when she was puking her guts out with that beautiful little life growing in her.) That does not make us unloving; it makes us concerned about life, which, of course, is fundamental to having any other rights.
Don’t use our candidate (about whom we are psyched!) to lecture us about being loving and forgiving! I don’t understand why liberals believe that all evangelicals are unforgiving and mean-spirited. Do you know many of these people? Are Paul and I the only conservatives you know? Do we strike you as hateful people? Are you truly suggesting a comparison between real-life evangelicals and a character on The Simpsons? You have got to be kidding me. Quit lecturing us about forgiveness and Jesus’ actions! Jesus certainly loved toward the people around him, but he never, NEVER, condoned sinful behavior. Jesus forgave and specifically told those forgiven to “sin no more.” (And your argument has fallen apart: previously you’ve strongly stated that race, gender, and class were factors that Jesus was fighting against. Now it’s just about treatment of others and being nice? Jesus didn’t treat those Pharisees very nicely, nor did he treat those profaning the temple very nicely. He did not, does not, will not say it’s okay to sin whether in a social war or a niceness war.)
Perhaps instead of reading nasty books about evangelicals, you should meet more of them. We’re a great bunch!
~Jil
P.S. Remember, this is in the spirit of friendly discussion. I’m fired up in general, not offended by you personally.
To my evangelical friend,
Wow, lots of issues.
On National Security: I 'm sorry, but I just think you have a vastly oversimplified attitude. I can tell you with a great deal of faith that no one wants to kill me because I am free. They might want to kill me because my country has made their life politically or economically miserable, but it has nothing to do with freedom. I would far rather die at their hands than condone the killing of their children for the whims of a war-mongering president. (Also, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin)
On abortion: I share your discomfort with abortion. That is my choice. As you so eloquently spoke about wanting government out of our private lives however, I simply cannot concede this point. Government has NO business making this choice for individuals. We could have a long conversation about when life begins, and at the end of the day we'd still disagree. You may actually know and care about someone who needs a choice at some point.
On evangelicals: You are correct to push back against me if I am being over-simplistic. I am reacting to the over-abundance of people who have talked about family and constructing it as a solely heterosexual institution. I have many LGBTQ friends who are part of very loving and wonderful families. I don't appreciate people assuming there's something wrong or disordered, or immoral about my friends who are created in the image of God. I don't see any connection between the good, moral lives my friends are living and the systematic oppressive behavior of the Romans or Pharisees, against which Jesus was preaching. There is no correlation between heterosexuality and "basic family stability".
On religion and the Republican party: The new slogan of the McCain campaign gets right to my frustration on this: "Country First". Shouldn't the believer put God first? Moreover, before you go slandering the idea of liberalism, it was in fact liberalism that ended slavery. It was liberalism that gave you, a woman, the right to vote. It was liberalism that gave you the weekend. Liberalism gave you the Bill of Rights. I have no problem with you being conservative, that's your choice. I would appreciate it however if you would lower your hostility to liberalism - it's my choice.
Government: Actually, the Bush tax cut was enough to pay for health care for every American. Not to mention the Billions spent on an unnecessary war. And I'm sorry to say that the Bush economic policy is a disaster. And you don't have to look to the allegedly 'liberal media' for this, just look at gas prices and the mortgage crisis. The 'liberal media' had nothing to do with the economy - that all has to do with conservative deregulation and politicians (yes, even Republicans) who're in the pocket of big oil.
Environment: It's God's creation. We have a responsibility to take care of it, not take advantage of it. You're right, the planet will survive long after we're gone, but will it be habitable to those who come after us?
Thanks for your comments. In the future, if you could stick to the issues on the blog, and save the personal for in person, I'd appreciate it.
You know very well that I have no hostility to your choice of being a liberal. I am hostile to half-truths and distortions (even, I admit, very likely unwittingly) being used to push the liberal agenda. I don’t think you are being unkind in your assertions, but you have made broad generalizations that I simply can't let go. I am somewhat hesitant to write more for fear of being argumentative. Read on if you choose; I do not expect a response and think no less of you if you choose not to respond. (And no, I don’t have an already low opinion of you—I promise!)
***
On national security: I will not say that everything the President has done has been done well or the right thing; however, just because you guys keep calling him “war-mongering,” it does not make it true. He presented the same information that loads of Democrats did about Iraq.
If the terrorists act because of our “war-mongering” president and our policies making them “politically and economically miserable,” then why attack cities around the world? Why the attacks before President Bush took office? Why the attack so soon into his first term? We cannot blame our country for the behavior of terrorists.
And I don’t think it’s a good idea to argue that the terrorists are politically and economically miserable: they have vast financial and political resources they are using for evil purposes. The terrorists are not miserable because our country has made them so. What policies do you point to about this? The terrorists are in control in their countries and killing their own people, those who oppose them, and those who defend themselves against the terrorists' jihad.
Furthermore, no one is killing their children, and to assert that our troops are purposely killing civilians to win this war is abhorrent. You have the right to say it, but they protect your right to be wrong. If you were to speak to troops returning, the majority would tell of the Iraqi welcome they received, one of gratitude and celebration.
***
On abortion: Here is a key difference between our ideologies and a matter of semantics: I don’t have a “discomfort with abortion”—I am dead-set against it! The government’s job is to protect life and it should err on the side of caution, on the side of the pre-born children who cannot defend themselves. If not enough is known about the beginning of life, why would we choose to eliminate it? Ideally, the government would not have to make this choice, but because there are those who seek to end lives, the government should, has a responsibility to, protect those innocent lives.
Liberals suggest that conservatives and/or evangelicals don’t deal with these issues, and it 1) simply isn’t true, and 2) is awfully presumptuous. I do have someone who had to make a choice; my brother is the result of that choice.
***
On evangelicals: Once again, Jesus never preached a message in which he condoned sinful behavior. And even secular studies HAVE shown a direct correlation between heterosexual families and the stability of the children raised in those homes.
I don’t suggest that non-heterosexual families can’t show love, but I will not use that as an excuse to topple centuries of social construction. Being created in the image of God does not grant immunity to every individual from God’s standards! I don’t appreciate people suggesting that being created in the image of God makes all of one’s decisions moral.
***
On religion and the Republican party: The believer does put God first. McCain’s campaign slogan is political and I’m sure you can imagine the liberal outrage from non-believers if McCain’s slogan was “God first.” As an evangelical conservative, I, and millions like me, vote through the lens of “God first.” Additionally, not all conservatives are evangelicals.
On liberalism’s accomplishments: Please don’t discount the evangelical Christians who were a major factor of the abolition movement. Beyond that issue, one of the problems with liberalism is that proverbial slippery slope. I love, value, and relish my right to vote, but women’s suffrage was a blot on the timeline that led to radical feminism which has led to the breakdown of the family, the emasculation of men, and the murder of millions of unborn children. I would even risk this heresy: I would relinquish my right to vote to my husband if it meant a reversal of the just mentioned issues. (Just so I am clear, it is radical feminism that has led to these things, not women’s suffrage; women’s suffrage changed election results very little at the onset.)
We see, again, the slippery slope in the weekend example. Sure, unions were begun as a good thing to protect workers. However, the unions have become powerful monstrosities, and in their furor, they have weakened the economy by accidentally producing a lazy workforce…and shoddy products, too.
So we grant the right to marry to homosexuals…What’s next? “My best friend needs health care; we’ll get married so she can be covered.” “I’d like to marry my sister.” “My dog is my best friend. I have the right to marry him.” It sounds ridiculous. It sounds demeaning. It sounds possible. Heterosexuals have done a horrible job protecting marriage and many have made it a joke. We should not further degrade this sacred institution by making it what is was not meant to be.
Liberalism did not give us the Bill of Rights—our Christian Founding Fathers did.
***
Government: So, the Bush tax cuts were a disaster because they didn’t provide health care? If the tax cut was enough to pay for health care for every American, then obviously something was done correctly and the money was put back into the free-market system. Jobs were created, wealth built. That’s success.
The media does have a role in the economy: every time they cry that the sky is falling, millions watch and believe it. They blame Republicans and people believe it because there is no flip side presented. Gas prices are up because Democrats refuse to allow other options and the mortgage crisis is because of Democratic policies encouraging bad lending practices. Republicans didn’t get any of the deregulation they wanted, and that is another myth put forth by the liberals and the media.
***
Environment: Yes, I agree, take care of the environment. We should all practice responsible stewardship. But, the earth is habitable after all this time, and it doesn’t have to last forever—there’s already a plan for that!
To be perfectly clear: I am in NO WAY accusing you of lying. I fear I may have insinuated as much in the first paragraph of my last post, and I do NOT believe that you know one thing to be true and say the opposite. I do not think you are engaged in deliberate deceit.
I am truly sorry that I may have offended you.
What bothers me is your desire to separate me as a person from my beliefs. You say you don't want to offend me, and then make blanket statements about feminism, the pro-choice movement, and an alleged 'liberal agenda' with a Manichean-esque tone, as if to say anyone who goes along with this must be demonic. I support your right to disagree with me on any of these issues, but I would appreciate it if you would do it by supporting your own positions, and not by demeaning mine.
Maybe we should just agree to pray for each other!
Ooo, ouch. That hurts, especially in that it is patently false. There is not even a hint of a passing reference to anything remotely close to regarding anything as “demonic.” I didn’t even think anything of the sort until reading your response, and I still wouldn’t say that.
However, I do have to say that truth is not subjective, there is right and wrong, evil does exist and it is opposed to good, and evil often sneaks up on us in subtle ways and infiltrates what is good. I cannot apologize for believing that sin exists, and people calling their particular choices “moral” makes sin no less a fact.
I don’t really understand your statement about separating you from your beliefs; I wrote generally about liberals and liberalism, and you fall into that category. My apology is very specific: in the beginning of the previous statement, I wrote about “distortions and half-truths,” and I did not want to sound as though I am calling you a liar. What you know, you believe and call it truth and write about it. Very different from someone who knows a particular thing and says the opposite.
Which of my positions have I not supported? Which of yours have I demeaned? (Okay, okay… I did ask if you were out of your mind; that was a tease.) Is disagreeing with someone the same as demeaning? No. I have responded to your positions. I have written strongly against your statements, but I have not demeaned you or your positions. (I’m rather ignorant on the point of a blog; is it supposed to invite discussion and debate? On some other blogs I’ve read, mostly people who agree with the post respond. And most of the other responses you have published here are in agreement with you. Is that your goal? If so, I’m terribly sorry and embarrassed!)
***VERY IMPORTANT*** I know you to be a kind and compassionate person. I do not believe that you hold your positions simply to go against the grain, to change the status quo simply for the sake of change. I believe this whole-heartedly. In fact, and this may come as a surprise to you, I generally believe that liberals believe in that sense of compassion and a sense of justice based on that compassion. However, compassion is not owned by the left, and compassion as social policy does not work and it ends up being a destructive force. We can, and must, be compassionate within standards of right and wrong.
I do pray for you. And you don’t have to publish my comments. Do remember, though, that I was invited by a dear friend to join the discussion on this blog. I suppose it is possible that friend thought I would learn something. More likely, that friend knew I would engage in the topics presented.
(Oh, and sorry I keep returning to old posts. I don’t respond so that others will read; if they do, that’s okay, but I’m not seeking a wide audience.)
(And one more thing: Will you please, please read the 22 October post on randyalcorn.blogspot.com?)
It sounds to me like you're still trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. I would like to suggest that we might actually both have points that are valuable and truthful, even if we strongly disagree with each other.
As far as the purpose of my blog is concerned, I'm happy to invite dialogue on anything I post. The only times I don't publish a comment is if someone is overtly hateful, or disrespectful of someone's privacy/confidentiality. For the record, since I started the blog last year, I can only remember one comment that I did not publish.
Post a Comment