Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

ER,
How do you think GW's latest revelation that, "God Made Me Do It", will play to the middle 45%?
 

Occurs to me: The so-called "center-right" Americans, if they are the ones with the -values agenda, are really looking outside themselves for validation that they are A-OK Americans and individuals -- by lining up with -values that practically no one can dispute as being, well, valuable if not "-centric" to all "being." So....focus on family. Who will fault them for thinking "family values" are noble and desirable? To line up with like-minded people insulates them for the dis-integrity of their individual, morally lax SELVES (that need redemption, even if not in the spiritual sense). They don't want to feel BAD about making money, so they call it "family values": "must have SUV to take FAMILY to places where we can all bond....," eg.

Liberals, so-called, on the left. OK, some of them make money, too. They have a lot of angst about both themselves (morally bankrupt but often recovering from some form of that) and the society at large. So they push an agenda that focuses on the INDIVIDUAL -- the putting that person in charge, with the hope that a group of empowered individuals, together, make a strong nation.

Momentarily back to the "Jesus is a LIBERAL" argument: of course! It all starts with the individual, acting in freedom to achieve what is "right" -- but not right-leaning. Right-leaning wants to have the individual left alone -- where the darkness in that one life festers.
 

Agreed. However, in practice the problem with "appeal to the swings" is that it risks potentially reinforcing the image of the Democrats as without a solid platform. I think a lot of the "solidify the base" argument is really about "solidify a clear platform." And that, I think, is important.

Personally, I think that Hillary's got the idea, and is going for a solidly pro-family liberal platform. Whatever her merits as a candidate may or may not be, I think that would be a winning strategy.
 

Kurt Vonnegut in his book "Mother Night" identified an organization named the "John Spruce Society". Private John Spruce of the United States Army was the first soldier killed at the Berlin Wall. He was accidently run over by a Russian tank as he sat in the middle of the road at Check Point Charley.
Thus the "John Spruce Society" was a radical middle of the road group of true believers. I joined that group when I was in college, or fair to say I founded the Oklahoma Chapter of that group. There were three members back in the early 1960's. They were me and my two room mates. Now one have moved to Virginia and gone off into the radical right and the other went off to Colorado and fell in with the radical athiest left. So I am the lone member of the original Oklahoma Chapter left in the middle and in Oklahoma. The motto of the Oklahoma Chapter was taken from the famous Oklahoma song writter from Eric Oklahoma, Roger Miller. The motto was: The Pendulum Swing Like The Pendelum Do.." It was our profound understanding that that the pendulum was only swing to the left 25% of the time and was swing to the right only 25% of the time but was swinging towards the middle 50% of the time. thus we John Sprucer knew that we were correct at least twice as much as the right or the left in that it touch our middle twice as often as it did the right or the left.
When I first saw Slick Willey and listened to his pain, I knew then that he too was a "John Sprucer", and that at least Arkansas had a Chapeter as well. Anyway anyone who wants to be a member of the Oklahoma Chapter of the John Spruce Society all you got to do is say so and you're one of us (or me's, or with me).
 

Maybe I'm just dense, but this is about the umpteenth time you have bashed Focus on the Family.

Just what exactly is your beef against them?

It grieves me to see Christians with such hate towards an organization that only wants to preserve the Christian values that this country once embraced because this country understood the importance of God in our culture.

One only needs to read the newspaper and watch the evening news to see what removing the influence of Christians from Anerican culture has done. Murder, theft, graft, corruption, moral terpitude, extortion, chicanery, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And that's just in the legislature!

If I have you wrong please enlighten me.
 

So that the converstions may proceed from a common point, here is the official Guiding Principles of the entity under discussion.

Focus on the Family: Our Guiding Principles

Since Focus on the Family's primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes, we have firm beliefs about both the Christian faith and the importance of the family. This ministry is therefore based upon five guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These "pillars" are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists. In short, Focus on the Family is a reflection of what we believe to be the recommendations of the Creator Himself, who ordained the family and gave it His blessing.

We believe that the ultimate purpose in living is to know and glorify God and to attain eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, beginning within our own families and then reaching out to a suffering humanity that does not know of His love and sacrifice.


We believe that the institution of marriage was intended by God to be a permanent, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, regardless of trials, sickness, financial reverses or emotional stresses that may ensue.


We believe that children are a heritage from God and a blessing from His hand. We are therefore accountable to Him for raising, shaping and preparing them for a life of service to His Kingdom and to humanity.


We believe that human life is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions, including the unborn, the aged, the widowed, the mentally handicapped, the unattractive, the physically challenged and every other condition in which humanness is expressed from conception to the grave.


We believe that God has ordained three basic institutions — the church, the family and the government — for the benefit of all humankind. The family exists to propagate the race and to provide a safe and secure haven in which to nurture, teach and love the younger generation. The church exists to minister to individuals and families by sharing the love of God and the message of repentance and salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. The government exists to maintain cultural equilibrium and to provide a framework for social order.

Our commitment to these principles is apparent at every level throughout the organization. The values and techniques taught to parents are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists. In short, Focus on the Family is a reflection of what we believe to be the recommendations of the Creator Himself, who ordained the family and gave it His blessing.
####

Now when I read this, I have far more in agreement with them than in disagreement. I might quible about "marriage",role of the "wife", and I would wonder if "family" ment the same thing to him as to me?
It is when he defines "government" that I personally depart from him.

"The government(ordained by God) exists to maintain cultural equilibrium and to provide a framework for social order."

I don't believe that any government is ordained by God. (God should be able to do a whole lot better than any government I've ever seen or read about) I don't hold that government should exist with a central purpose to maintain cultural equilibrium, eg. status quo. I do subscribe to the concept that government assist in the providing for social order, but it is only one one of several elements doing so.

Back in the 1970's when I had young children I found James Dobson's advice to be very practical and helpful to me as I raised those kids. But now it seems his focus is not on the family as much as it is on government eg. same sex marriage amendments, Supreme court - Roe -abortion, and the government's role in attacking "Chistianity". It also bothers me that these efforts are distracting from the primary stated reason for their existance. That is where the "rub" ,as they say, is for me. When I hear ER lay down criticism on FOTF, I hear him coming from somehwere around that position. ER will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.
 

So then, what you're saying is Christians should just keep their mouths shut and let the government lead the people into moral depravity and degradation, and stand obediently by while the government destroys the American family by allowing the murder of the unborn, the infirmed and brain damaged, and indoctrinate our children into a depraved unbiblical lifestyle such as homosexuality and extra marital sex?

We are supposed to meekly allow our civilization to be perverted by principles of Athiests and not object?

Is that what you're saying?

You are saying that Christians are supposed to be the only religious or ethnic group in America that shouldn't have the first amendment right to free speech?

We are supposed to defy our Christ given mandate to go into all the world and preach the gospel, because the government says certain parts of the world are off limits?

You outlined Focus on the Family's mission statement. How does that violate any part of the COTUS? Where exactly did they cross the line? And why is that wrong?
 

Re Hillary . . .

I'm of the opinion that Hillary has the capacity to win the 2008 presidential election if she decides to run. I also think that she, alone among the 'top' Democrats, can form a workable platform for the party. On top of that, I think that if she were given the chance, she would be at least a decent president - with potential to lead better than Bush II and somewhere on par with Bush I.

However . . . she would not be given the opportunity to truly lead. She would be the most divisive president in history (save maybe for old Abe himself). She is a very polarizing figure. Sadly, only a small part of that is her own doing. She is unfarily attacked by my very own conservative leaders.

I just don't see how she could possibly do the job. I don't think the Right would give her the chance. The hate that spills forth now towards Bush would be nothing compared to that which would flow towards her. It is unfair and I wish it wasn't so, but this is what I believe.
 

Gee whiz. I leave for a day to go see OSU get whupped, again, and y'all fall into a real row. :-)

Re, "Maybe I'm just dense, but this is about the umpteenth time you have bashed Focus on the Family. Just what exactly is your beef against them? It grieves me to see Christians with such hate towards an organization that only wants to preserve the Christian values that this country once embraced because this country understood the importance of God in our culture."

PBTPTHP! It's because they pretend they're trying to restore this country to something that never existed. Any serious reading of history will dash the notion that this was ever, or ever meant to be, a "Christian nation" in the sense that the right-wing religious groups mean now. So, FOTC is dishonest. That's enough reason right there for me to dislike them.

If most of their work is actually helping families, then the loudest arm of it SHOULD, yes, should shut the hell up -- NOT because they don't have a right to blather, but because the blathering is creating a situation where the good they actually do is being lost in the right-wing rhetoric. Shut up. Love Jesus. Help families. AND QUIT PRETENDING YOU'RE NOT A RIGHT-WING POLITICAL AXTION COMMITTEE. THE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE DOESN'T CLEAR IT UP.

Re, "It grieves me to see Christians with such hate towards an organization that only wants to preserve the Christian values that this country once embraced because this country understood the importance of God in our culture."

Yeah, well, sorry. See above. And, none of that is the job of the Church, or its "branches" or "PACS or 501(3)c's. Be for all of that you want to. But don't lower the reason for the Church to the level of changing social mores and mere politics.

Drlobojo's assessment of "the rub" with FOTF, as far as I'm concerned, is right on. Their concept of "family" and mine are different, as is their concept of what government is for.

Re, "You are saying that Christians are supposed to be the only religious or ethnic group in America that shouldn't have the first amendment right to free speech?"

No. Hell no. Thast's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I think Christians should shut the hell up about crap that has nothing to do with the mission of the Church. I. Me. ER. ... I am NOT saying the church does not have the right to keep on being stupid and worldly and offensive and, well, an actual obstacle to people hearing the call of the Gospel. How can people hear God with all the loud religious politics being argued in His name? SHUT UP about politics. Get out of it. The right wing is making a disgrace of the Gospel by making it a question of politics.

Re, "We are supposed to defy our Christ given mandate to go into all the world and preach the gospel, because the government says certain parts of the world are off limits?"

NO. You are supposed to do as you think the Lord commands. BUT DON'T TRY TO MAKE IT EASY BY CHANGING THE DANG LAW, IN A MULTICULTURAL NATION WITH A SECULAR GOVERNMENT. It's not supposed to be easy. Paul spent time in jail. You are not suppsoed to expect government or cultural approval. Why in the world do you think otherwise?

--ER
 

Rem, I think your assessment of Hillary's chances is right on. She might make a veep candidate, though -- especially for a conservative Dem prez candidate. Unfortunately, I can't think of a single conservative Dem to go at the top of the ticket.

--ER
 

Gee Mark, I'm not exactly sure how you got all that you think I said out of what I said. By your account I look like some sort of weak sister, heartless, anti-christian, blood drinking deamon, who would stand by and not only let the "government" roll over the good guys, but applaud as they did. Did you read some of your own angst into what you think I said. You pushed all the buttons I think.
ER has given a point by point considered argument to your statments, and I applaud that.
He believes that you deserve a rational answer to your most likely rhetorical questions.

I am interested that FOTF spends on 7% on "policy" and that it does it as a seperate entity. But that 7% does get 99% of the public limelight because that what makes the most noise these days. I see that as partially the fault of the news media, and their "he said--you said" games they play. Dobson doesn't have to play, but he does, and that's the fact.
As for the ACLU, well I don't read about "The Great Commission" in their mission statement, so I would not expect them to be working on it.
What was the Blog about today, recruiting voters from the middle? Then why are we arguing about the outer edges?
Is it because the middle is not as much fun?
 

Hillary-------
I don't think she will run for President or Vice-President. I think she sees a greater power potential in the Senate. She does understand the level of Hate towards her and Bill and how it would hamper her in the White House. Beside Willey is running for the head of the UN and he will get that before the next Presidnetial election and that will spoil her chances.
I don't think the next Democratic Presidential candidate is on anybody's RADAR yet. Hillary will stay in the Senate and work her agenda from there.
 

"But don't lower the reason for the Church to the level of changing social mores and mere politics."

Excuse me, but that is exactly what the church is supposed to do.

Change social (hedonistic) mores.

Remember Sodom and Gommorah? God certainly changed their social mores. And how about Ninevah? Do you think God should have stayed out of their business, too?

This country has become morally depraved and it's because of the attitude of people who insist God has no place in government.

"If God doesn't bring judgement down upon America soon, He will have to apologise to Sodom and Gommorah." -- Billy Graham
 

Mark:

"That is exactly what the church is supposed to do. Change sopcial (hedonistic) mores."

I disagree. The Christian mission is to save souls. Christians have two tasks: Love God, and love their neighbors as themselves. The Church is to nurture itself and be a witness. The other things will follow, or not.

Re, "Remember Sodom and Gommorah? God certainly changed their social mores. And how about Ninevah? Do you think God should have stayed out of their business, too?"

You're not God. The Church is not God. And no group of fallen yet saved huanity can speak for God. The Church did not exist at the time of Sodom and Gommorah, and that's what we're talking about.

Re, "This country has become morally depraved and it's because of the attitude of people who insist God has no place in government."

Bullshit. If this country has become morally depraved -- which is arguable! -- it's a product of freedom. And I reject the "solution," if it means reining in freedom for the sake of any particular interpretation of "God" or the Gospel. Churches have never had more money nor been stronger in this country. If they've lost their influence it's their own fault -- probably for wasting time and resources and alienating people by becoming involved in politics.

Re, "If God doesn't bring judgment down upon America soon, He will have to apologise to Sodom and Gommorah." -- Billy Graham."

That sounds like Bill Graham in the 1950s. It does not sound like Billy Graham today. Besides, again, what God does is one thing; what the role of the Church is is another: Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself. Corrolaries: Get off your high horse; don't try to be God; don't cram the Gospel down anyone's throat; don't mistake the cultural expressions of traditional religion in this country for anything eternal in the first place.

Sheesh.

--ER
 

Surprise! Another misquote from Mark! Looks like it was Ruth Graham who said that, not Billy. Maybe. Or not.

Search Google for "soon, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah" -- it helps to spell "apologize" using the American spelling and to spell Gomorrah right.

One more point: I reject that there is more "sin," um, "per capita" now than there used to be. There are more people.

And communication is dang near universal and immediate, so we know more about people than we used to. It's impossible almost, now, to live in little communities shielded from the Big Bad Wor;d, pretending that all that Big Bad Stuff doesn't happened and that Good People are "like me."

Are people in general more sinful? Is this country, specifically? No. People are just more afraid -- which, for a Christian, is anathema, fear being the polar opposite of faith.

Bottom line on Focus on the Family, Mark: My beef with 'em is the same one you have with "liberals." I don't like 'em and I think, at least in the political realm that they do more harm than good. Picking sides and allies and such is the way politics is played.

--ER
 

Just out of interest, was that Ruth Graham the wife, or Ruth Graham the daughter who gave the above quote?
 

Drlobojo, I don't know. I just googled and saw there was more than one attribution.

Also, after a shower and another cup of coffee, I hereby "revise and extend" one of my previous remarks:

"The Church is to nurture itself and be a witness. The other things will follow, or not."

I said that in impatience, in a discussion about the way a right-wing parachurch organization, FOTF, goes about trying to influence public policy, which is its right. Someone could just as easily say the same thing in impatience in a discussion about the way a left-wing parachurch organization goes about trying to change public policy, which, likewise, is its right.

Ol' Mark came gallopin' in on his high horse, and I just naturally saddled up to meet him at the fence line. Sorry.

My "bottom line" comment above is more to my point. FOTF does not speak for me and I dislike that it purports to speak for "Christians," when it only speaks for a particular strain of 'em.

None of which has crap to do with how the Democratic Party should try to get its s--- together, which was the subject of this post. :-)

Also, I relinquish a legitamacy point (as in, I started going to church again partly because it seemed ludicrous for me to make any kind of arguments regarding the role of Christians, Christianity, the Church and churches in public life if I wasn't even attending): Yesterday's ordeal at Stillwater endd late last night, I got up late, I'm sore and cranky, the house is a wreck and Dr. ER is due back this afternoon, and I have to go into the office today for a half-day. So, I will regret it, but church starts in three minutes, 20 miles away, and I ain't there.

--ER
 

Attacking my spelling is a cheap shot. I'm done. I daresay I represent Christians better than you do. Go worship the ACLU and be damned.

And damned if you aren't.
 

It wasn't a cheap shot. I tried to find the quote spelling the words the way you spelled them, and couldn't. I corrected the spellings, and found it.

On that other stuff: Woo hoo. You have shown your butt, boy.

Here, for if ol' Mark Meanness realizes how vicious and unseemly it is to wish damnation on a fellow believer, and arrogant he's being, and decides to delete his comment:

Mark Maness said...
Attacking my spelling is a cheap shot. I'm done. I daresay I represent Christians better than you do. Go worship the ACLU and be damned.

And damned if you aren't.

11:32 AM

--ER
 

Mark old boy,
Wasn't it just four days ago (Oct 4) in this very Blog that you took me to task for my spelling of Mugwamps.

"I am a CHristian 1st and a Southern Baptist 2nd. That's mug-wumps, Drlobo. I read the book, too.
# posted by Mark Maness : 1:05 PM "

I don't remember damning you to hell, for a "cheap shot" at my spelling or for not knowing that there are two spellings of the same transliterated Algonquin Indian word.
 

Mark, if you can't discuss without cursing a brother, withdraw and stay gone. That was completely inappropriate. And YOU certainly do NOT represent Christ here today with that comment.
 

Mr. Meanness is a living, breathing, blogging example of why I can't stand the right wing of the Republican Party, especially where it connects to the right-wing religionists:

He stands on arrogance as a soapbox and proudly wears his ignorance like a mantle.

None of which has anything to do with his relationship with God, which I don't think I've ever commented on, which is more than I can say for his High-Horseness.

Jerks for Jesus. That's got a real ring to it. Damn straight I'm pissed. And who the heck said anything about the ACLU (in this post and thread?)

Geez! I call what Mr. Meanness has done the fallacy of argumentum ad kitchen-sinkum -- meaning he hardly ever really argues at all, just slings his smack, pretending its "rhetoric." Bah.

Let the record reflect: He drew first blood on the personal attacks.

--ER
 

And a P.S.:

As for Sodom and Gomorrah and all others who were purged by God, don't you understand that is the whole point of the CHRISTIAN FAITH? The failures of the people to be able to follow a code of ethics, even the laws set out by God the Father Himself in the 10 Commandments, is why Christ the Savior was sent to redeem the Earth.
IF people were able to return to a right relationship with the Creator through rules, there would have been no need to send the Son as the intermediary to bridge the chasm.

THAT is what Christians need to focus on sharing, not setting social policy that reflects what is honestly their PERSONAL view. If someone can quote me the chapter and verse where Jesus established FOTF, please do so! I sure thought He issued His teachings to Christians as individuals, to take action as individuals face-to-face with other individuals.
 

Whichever Graham is responsible for that quote, note the language: it is the sentiment of a terrorist.
Which is to say "my conception of God says this here society is bad, and therefore must die by my righteous sword".
As to the original point of the discussion; on one hand the Dems can't rely forever on their power base. But at the same time, every time they've tried to diversify, they just come off as GOP Lite, which makes them look like flakes and fools. There already is a Republican party, who needs one and a half?
So I'd have to say-get a message, and make it a good one, don't try to be the mature ones, while yer at it. The GOP sits there and engages in all manner of attack both reasoned and not, and whine like bitches whenever anyone from the left tries to call them on their truly dangerous practices. This has been very effective for them.
So use it against them: don't be afraid to attack, don't be afraid to make a clear statement, but don't bother complaining about politics no longer being a gentleman's game, because it never was.
And sure, rally the churches, but realize that you've already lost the far right, and you're never ever going to get it. So screw 'em. They are their own punishment, for seeing their narrowness as God's own.
 

It wadn't Mark that got deleted now, was it? Just the same ol' asshole.

--ER
 

Er, the quote :Re, "If God doesn't bring judgment down upon America soon, He will have to apologise to Sodom and Gommorah." is by his wife Ruth Bell Graham, and was made probably before the 1960's. In the 1950-60 era the Grahams were friends of the great Southern Baptist Preacher R.G. Lee. Dr. Lee was a die-hard pre-mellinialist who believe in his heart in the end-of-days, the battle of Armagedon, and Christ's reign on earth for a 1000 years. He was certain that America and the Soviets would bring all of this to pass. Dr Lee's God was a violent warrior that would purge mankind of its sinners, very "Old Testiment" or "Zorastrian" in his views of the end. His sermon, "Pay Day Someday" was a model used by many young Southern Baptist Preachers of the era. Dr. Lee is now gone. The Soviet Union is now gone. The threat of a world wide nuclear holocost is remote. Pre-mellinialism however is still here and more popular that ever. Both my Brother and my Brother -in-law still preach sermons based on its premise. G.W. Bush truely believes he is a instrument of God that will help make it happen.
God grant us a reprieve from this self fufilling prophecy.
 

Wait a minute. Drlobojo, are you sayin' you actually THINK about the mere "worldly" ramifications of blind adherence to religious dogma!?!

Are you sayin' that if "God says it" that it don't necessarily follow that "that settles it" and that we should all just declare "I believe it"!?!

Good for you. You should check out Mayflower Congregational Church, if you haven't. They do not require that you leave your mind at the door. :-)

--ER
 

Hey Bub, neither does the United Methodist Church. Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.
 

That's why I went to an Untied Methodical Church for a bunch of years in Tejas! :-)

--ER
 

Via e-mail, I think Mark and I have had a mutual withdrawal of fellowship. Hoo, man. He got even meaner and more judgmental. WhatEV.

--ER
 

And I for my part was curious who "Repub Votin' Redneck" was. He/she/it was in there just moments before I posted my comment. Then It was gone.
Tragic, I'm sure. But I'm curious: were you and Maness friends otherwise, or did you just know each other through this medium?
Because if an actual friendship ended due to this bullshit, that actually Is Tragic. If'n he's just some loudmouth from the blogosphere who you briefly befriended, then never mind.
 

Not friends, beyond the blogosphere. But, I considered us friends within the blogosphere. He's no more loudmouthed than I am. He is more cocksure about his opinions, it seems. I really don't know what's got into him. No hard feelings here. There is an impasse, and it rests with him -- and it may be irreparable, and that's OK, too. He seems to think I can't possiblly be a Christian -- and as galling as that is to me, I can't do anything about it, nor would I want to.

--ER
 

I love the headline on this post, ER. I realize that everyone else is debating issues, but I thought I'd mention that I liked it. You have a real talent with headlines. I struggle to find them for mine sometimes.
 

Tech, gracias!

--ER