Sunday, April 24, 2005
In the name of Jesus?
I take back what I said in a comment earlier this week. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family is sort of loony. And dangerous to the health of the republic, which is supremely ironic considering his own rhetoric.
From the Los Angeles Times via Yahoo:
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
Read all about it.
Said the friend who brought this story to my attention: "Facsists in the pulpits. Thomas Jefferson would be turning over in his grave. This kind of thinking makes us sound like one of the weird new Russian republics."
Fascist? A little extreme maybe. We'll see. Jefferson spinning? Yes. "Weird" republic? Absolutely. No wonder the rest of the word thinks we've gone mad.
The leaders in power today hate the government they lead and seek to undermine it. And to do what they do, and say what they say, in the name of Jesus diminishes the Cross and attempts to reduce the Christian faith to a faction of a political party.
--ER
P.S. Dr. ER's heart was on similar matters in the wee hours, I see from her own blog. See "Sotto Voce." Amazing woman, she is.
From the Los Angeles Times via Yahoo:
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
Read all about it.
Said the friend who brought this story to my attention: "Facsists in the pulpits. Thomas Jefferson would be turning over in his grave. This kind of thinking makes us sound like one of the weird new Russian republics."
Fascist? A little extreme maybe. We'll see. Jefferson spinning? Yes. "Weird" republic? Absolutely. No wonder the rest of the word thinks we've gone mad.
The leaders in power today hate the government they lead and seek to undermine it. And to do what they do, and say what they say, in the name of Jesus diminishes the Cross and attempts to reduce the Christian faith to a faction of a political party.
--ER
P.S. Dr. ER's heart was on similar matters in the wee hours, I see from her own blog. See "Sotto Voce." Amazing woman, she is.
Comments:
<< Home
Nick:
1. Too bad, if you quit posting. But hey, it's not about you. This is an open forum to anyone who comes by. I shouldn't have called you out, (since redacted) and for that I'm sorry.
2. We differ, is all, but not really that much. I just think that miring the Gospel in these matters -- or pretending to -- is an insult to it. Fight your fights over the courts, the separation of powers and whatever -- but it makes me LOL to think of these POLITICAL organizations as having much to do with the Gospel. It's all about power. And not the power of God, but of man.
3. I think Mr. Jefferson would be gagging over the above, not the notion that judges shouldn't be called to task sometimes.
4. Do you honestly believe that this kind of political work is "precious in His sight"? I just don't see it, myself.
5. Pious? Not from me, ya jughead. My sin is PLAIN. I don't try to hide it. So is my faith. I don't try to hide that either. But I do know how to keep my faith separate from the "wood, hay and stubble" that makes up this society and our political system.
1. Too bad, if you quit posting. But hey, it's not about you. This is an open forum to anyone who comes by. I shouldn't have called you out, (since redacted) and for that I'm sorry.
2. We differ, is all, but not really that much. I just think that miring the Gospel in these matters -- or pretending to -- is an insult to it. Fight your fights over the courts, the separation of powers and whatever -- but it makes me LOL to think of these POLITICAL organizations as having much to do with the Gospel. It's all about power. And not the power of God, but of man.
3. I think Mr. Jefferson would be gagging over the above, not the notion that judges shouldn't be called to task sometimes.
4. Do you honestly believe that this kind of political work is "precious in His sight"? I just don't see it, myself.
5. Pious? Not from me, ya jughead. My sin is PLAIN. I don't try to hide it. So is my faith. I don't try to hide that either. But I do know how to keep my faith separate from the "wood, hay and stubble" that makes up this society and our political system.
Some clarification on Jefferson and Marbury v. Madison. The comments above make sense when you understand that he was at odds with the decision in the first place. Further, he seems to have used legitimate means in his dispute with the judiciary, i.e., leading, or at least acquiescing congressional action -- not trying an end-run around procedure by "withholding funding" from part of a separate but equal branch of government. What follows is from Encyclopedia Americana, via a site of The American Presidency, at http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0221870-00&templatename=/article/article.html
XXXXX
"Dispute with the Judiciary.
"Jefferson restored party balance in the civil service, but he was relatively unsuccessful in his moves against the judiciary, which had been reinforced by fresh Federalist appointees at the very end of the Adams administration. In the eyes of Jefferson and the Republicans, the federal judiciary constituted a branch of the opposing party and could be expected to obstruct the administration in every possible way. He treated as null and void late appointments by Adams that seemed of doubtful legality, and the Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 with his full approval. But he was rebuked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous Marbury v. Madison case (1803) for withholding the commission of a late-hour appointee as justice of the peace. The effort to remove partisan judges by impeachment was a virtual failure; Federalists remained entrenched in the judiciary, although less actively partisan."
XXXXX
"Dispute with the Judiciary.
"Jefferson restored party balance in the civil service, but he was relatively unsuccessful in his moves against the judiciary, which had been reinforced by fresh Federalist appointees at the very end of the Adams administration. In the eyes of Jefferson and the Republicans, the federal judiciary constituted a branch of the opposing party and could be expected to obstruct the administration in every possible way. He treated as null and void late appointments by Adams that seemed of doubtful legality, and the Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 with his full approval. But he was rebuked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous Marbury v. Madison case (1803) for withholding the commission of a late-hour appointee as justice of the peace. The effort to remove partisan judges by impeachment was a virtual failure; Federalists remained entrenched in the judiciary, although less actively partisan."
A point from one who lives within the LA Times' territory...
You have to consider the source. The Times does not have the journalistic integrity that they should. They are blatantly liberal and will only tell you one side of the story. It became patently clear during the recall of Gray-Out Davis. That's not journalism when they won't point out the other side.
This does not surprise me, given that Hollywood has such a hold on this area. I'll bet there aren't that many areas of the country that have a regular Hollywood report segment to their evening news.
Since your own 3&8 felt the need to lob a sideways insult because I was proud of a certain comedian being conservative, I respond with, yes, I am proud of him. At least he has the backbone to stand up in a crowd and be for the other side.
Granted, I don't give anyone in Hollywood much weight to their politics, because they're just a bunch of people overpaid to pretend. They get a forum only because of their fame. Very few have actually contributed much of substance to society. However, the conservatives in Hollywood are a special lot because they stand up to peer pressure to be something (in their personal lives) that they're not.
I'll miss you, Nick. My place isn't much on the political, mostly because I just don't want to take the time to type it out, but check in over there once in a while to keep in touch. :)
You have to consider the source. The Times does not have the journalistic integrity that they should. They are blatantly liberal and will only tell you one side of the story. It became patently clear during the recall of Gray-Out Davis. That's not journalism when they won't point out the other side.
This does not surprise me, given that Hollywood has such a hold on this area. I'll bet there aren't that many areas of the country that have a regular Hollywood report segment to their evening news.
Since your own 3&8 felt the need to lob a sideways insult because I was proud of a certain comedian being conservative, I respond with, yes, I am proud of him. At least he has the backbone to stand up in a crowd and be for the other side.
Granted, I don't give anyone in Hollywood much weight to their politics, because they're just a bunch of people overpaid to pretend. They get a forum only because of their fame. Very few have actually contributed much of substance to society. However, the conservatives in Hollywood are a special lot because they stand up to peer pressure to be something (in their personal lives) that they're not.
I'll miss you, Nick. My place isn't much on the political, mostly because I just don't want to take the time to type it out, but check in over there once in a while to keep in touch. :)
# posted by 
: 1:32 PM
: 1:32 PM
Well, I think the "sideways insult" was more in the way of a good-natured jab. However, interpreteth it how thou wilt. :-)
Here, here, here, Three & Eight! Laughter is, after all, the best way to make your belly jiggle. 'Course, when you've got a belly like mine, it's quite fun to watch it jiggle.
I come here to find entertainment, and that happens quite often.
Nick, I hope you don't go, because you've got many interesting things to say. I don't know you from Adam, or even Eve, and I can't say I agree with the way you preach your faith. But I respect it. And it gives me an opportunity to look into my relationship with God. I always appreciate that.
And to everyone else who contributes to this blog of entertainment, I say thanks. Even the yahoos who come on and bash annonymously give me a giggle from time to time.
I come here to find entertainment, and that happens quite often.
Nick, I hope you don't go, because you've got many interesting things to say. I don't know you from Adam, or even Eve, and I can't say I agree with the way you preach your faith. But I respect it. And it gives me an opportunity to look into my relationship with God. I always appreciate that.
And to everyone else who contributes to this blog of entertainment, I say thanks. Even the yahoos who come on and bash annonymously give me a giggle from time to time.
Okay, I'll accept it as a good-natured jab. It just really bugged me initially.
My head hurts, and reading all the back-and-forth isn't helping. I think I'll go find some Motrin. :)
My head hurts, and reading all the back-and-forth isn't helping. I think I'll go find some Motrin. :)
# posted by : 8:23 PM
: 8:23 PM
"Nick Toper" likes what he says so much he says it three times. Wonder if he'll go three and out.
# posted by : 8:54 PM
: 8:54 PM
Aw, gee. A three and eight and three and out lovefest!!!
You're doing that for everbuddy else in the world to see, I can tell.
I hope like all git-out that you two really do know each other, and that you talk on the phone mostly, instead of writing public posts about how much you admire yourselves.
Excuse me, but I think I am the one who is "out." I feel like I stumbled into somebody else's cellphone call by accident. So, I will be directing my cursor other places for a while.
Ya'll love Nick Toper back into your fold, now, ya hear.
You're doing that for everbuddy else in the world to see, I can tell.
I hope like all git-out that you two really do know each other, and that you talk on the phone mostly, instead of writing public posts about how much you admire yourselves.
Excuse me, but I think I am the one who is "out." I feel like I stumbled into somebody else's cellphone call by accident. So, I will be directing my cursor other places for a while.
Ya'll love Nick Toper back into your fold, now, ya hear.
# posted by : 12:24 AM
: 12:24 AM
Re, "So, I will be directing my cursor other places for a while."
No need to announce it, Anon. Just git, fer a spell!
No need to announce it, Anon. Just git, fer a spell!
"Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares". (Hebrews 13:1-2)
# posted by : 12:37 PM
: 12:37 PM
Re, "Jesus is this really cool guy whose life and ministry can be reduced down to a take-off on a Dorito's commercial: 'Keep right on sinning, I'll forgive more.' "
That's closer to the truth than the writer, in a comment above, meant it. The whole dang point of the Cross is this: WE CAN'T HELP BUT SIN. What the hell, so to speak, part of "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" do people not get? Salvation, redemption, sanctification, etceterification -- none of it reduces the fact that we are all so much less than what God intended that nothing we can do, bearing the brand of Jesus or not, makes a whit of difference to the fact that we SUCK in God's sight. There is God. It's not me. Holy, so to speak, CRAP. What can I do? Nothing but throw myself daily, hourly, second-by-second, at the foot of the Cross and cry out, Oh God save me, a sinner. That does not reduce "repentance" to a word from old hymns. But, repentance is a living-breathing thing almost, an attitude. The people who were "saved" -- and I put the quote marks there only because some Christians honestly don't know what all that oh-so-familiar-to-others-of-us shorthand means -- before Christ were putting faith in the promise of a saviour-messiah. Today, the saved put their faith in the historical fact of the man from Nazareth coupled with faith in his Godness. NONE OF IT, at root, had much to do with keeping the law, whether the pre-Cross law or the post-Cross social mores masquerading as sin. Liberty is what the Cross means. Freedom. Not freedom to sin all you want -- in the Southern chicken-fried Baptist church I grew up in we called such salvation "fire insurance" -- but freedom to quit worrying soo damn much about sin in general, and what others, apart from Christ, do in specific. I sin. Oh, wretched man that I am! I sin. Jesus saves. It IS as simple as that.
I love this verse, the last verse of the hymn "Marvelous Grace."
Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
freely bestowed on all who believe!
You that are longing to see his face,
will you this moment his grace receive?
Grace, grace, God's grace,
grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
grace, grace, God's grace,
grace that is greater than all our sin!
Post a Comment
That's closer to the truth than the writer, in a comment above, meant it. The whole dang point of the Cross is this: WE CAN'T HELP BUT SIN. What the hell, so to speak, part of "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" do people not get? Salvation, redemption, sanctification, etceterification -- none of it reduces the fact that we are all so much less than what God intended that nothing we can do, bearing the brand of Jesus or not, makes a whit of difference to the fact that we SUCK in God's sight. There is God. It's not me. Holy, so to speak, CRAP. What can I do? Nothing but throw myself daily, hourly, second-by-second, at the foot of the Cross and cry out, Oh God save me, a sinner. That does not reduce "repentance" to a word from old hymns. But, repentance is a living-breathing thing almost, an attitude. The people who were "saved" -- and I put the quote marks there only because some Christians honestly don't know what all that oh-so-familiar-to-others-of-us shorthand means -- before Christ were putting faith in the promise of a saviour-messiah. Today, the saved put their faith in the historical fact of the man from Nazareth coupled with faith in his Godness. NONE OF IT, at root, had much to do with keeping the law, whether the pre-Cross law or the post-Cross social mores masquerading as sin. Liberty is what the Cross means. Freedom. Not freedom to sin all you want -- in the Southern chicken-fried Baptist church I grew up in we called such salvation "fire insurance" -- but freedom to quit worrying soo damn much about sin in general, and what others, apart from Christ, do in specific. I sin. Oh, wretched man that I am! I sin. Jesus saves. It IS as simple as that.
I love this verse, the last verse of the hymn "Marvelous Grace."
Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
freely bestowed on all who believe!
You that are longing to see his face,
will you this moment his grace receive?
Grace, grace, God's grace,
grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
grace, grace, God's grace,
grace that is greater than all our sin!
<< Home
