Thursday, September 17, 2009
(Neil and friends are pontificating on economics, government regulation, fiscal policy, biblical texts and other things they don't know jack about)
Fascinating. Seriously. There is only the hint of a voice of reason and unhatred in there. It's like lookin' through a two-way mirror.
On the other hand, I was just as bad, read a bit before I felt my blood-pressure rise, and clicked away.
Less a two-way mirror, it's more a fun-house mirror distortion of the gospel. I wonder if anyone has asked Neil if he believes that the government should not be pushing charity down the throats of the miserly amongst us, why does be believe it should shove an end to abortion-on-demand on Christian grounds as well? Context!
Beyond that, I didn't read much, taking Brothers Geoffrey and Alan's advice...
Have you seen the latest at American Indecent? M-dawg is advocating that they be prepared for bloody revolution if Obama does not resign or get impeached. Skirting close to the legal definition of treason, it seems.
Turning this around, what might you suggest is the most abused Bible passage?
One that jumps to my head is, "The poor you will always have with you..." using that as an excuse not to assist the poor.
Or perhaps, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword..." Too many use both those passages to justify the complete OPPOSITE of what Jesus was about.
Were the liberals the ones who pushed women's rights? An end to Jim Crow laws? The New Deal? Or was it conservatives? Or were those terms even in use then as they are now?
Anyone know? Anyone know where to find such information?
Off the top of my head, 100 years ago, I don't think the terms were used, at least not so frequently. "Liberal," though has its pinning in "liberty," which 100 years ago was a generall anti-government thing. "Conservative" had nothing of the religious sense, and really meant more "status quo" than anything -- BUT look up "Bourbon Democrats." They were the conservatives of their day, not much more than 100 years ago.