"In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation."
In their selective reading, they neglect to read the very next phrase:
"We do pray for mercy; and that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy."
It is obvious James Dobson doesn't understand the concept of mercy. Otherwise he would not have lashed out at Barack Obama in the manner he did today.
I think most of us are guilty of taking selective phrases from sacred writings for our own selfish ends. Viewed holistically, however, if Jesus was around today the radical right would dismiss him as a communist -- "Love thy neighbour as thyself," "Feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned and sick, shelter the homeless," "don't let the right hand know what the left is doing." Jesus also advised us to warn the sinner and instruct the ignorant -- and if someone didn't want to hear the Word, to take his or blessing back and to shake the dust off his or her feet as he or she left town.
Along those lines, would Jesus have approved of the Second Gulf War? Strictly speaking, I don't think so. He might even have raised a red flag about Afghanistan.
The problem with people of Dobson's ilk is that they won't take no for an answer. They also claim to "Focus on the Family" yet are opposed to many legal protections for children. So before Dobson accuses Obama of distorting the Bible, he should remember Jesus also said, "Be not as the hypocrites" and examine himself for the distortions he has advocated all these years. Dobson ought to understand also that evangelicals aren't exclusively Republicans -- a lie perpetuated by the Exempt Media.
Don't throw stones in glass houses, especially the one that you built. It's as true today as it was when we got the Ten Commandments.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
3 comments:
" if Jesus was around today the radical right would dismiss him as a communist -- "Love thy neighbour as thyself," "Feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned and sick, shelter the homeless,"
Wrong . . . Jesus didn't say take from the rich and give it to the unmotivated . . . that is the mantra of the left today. So there you go . . . distorting the Bible.
Christisn charity is voluntary! That is why Conservatives give many times more than Libs.
Dobson was also commenting on Obamawhama's support of partial-birth abortions (no different than executing a toddler in a playground). No genuine professing Christian would think PBA was ok.
As far as the Merchant of Venice, they don't even show that any more cause one scene upsets the muzzies, nuff said.
But how about a little comparison . . . .
"The research is clear," writes Schweizer, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. "Looking at data gathered by the most authoritative and reliable academic research centers in the country as well as academic studies published in refereed journals, a pattern emerged that has until now been completely ignored. When compared to conservatives on a long list of personality and moral traits, modern liberals consistently come up short."
Discover compelling evidence that liberals are, in the aggregate...
. . .less honest. Liberals are more likely to believe that it's okay to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on their taxes (and their spouse), keep money that doesn't belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.
. . .more selfish. Liberals are much more likely to think about themselves first and less willing to make sacrifices for others. They are less interested and much more likely to think about themselves first and less willing to make sacrifices for others. They are less interested in caring for a physically ill or elderly family member, and more concerned with ensuring that their own needs are being met.
. . .more focused on money. Liberals are much more likely to report that money is important to them, that they don't earn enough, and that money is what matters in a job. They are also more likely to be envious of others.
. . .less hardworking. When considering a new job, liberals are more interested in job security and vacation time than their conservative counterparts. They also tend to value hard work less and embrace leisure as more desirable. Conservatism on the other hand is directly associated with the so-called Protestant ethic.
. . .less emotionally satisfied. Liberals are much more likely to suffer from a nervous breakdown, attempt suicide, suffer from depression, and be chronically angry.
. . .less knowledgeable about civic affairs and economics. Despite claims that conservatives are ignorant, studies and surveys show that conservatives and Republicans tend to know more about public affairs, have a better understanding of economics, and do better on word association tests.
... while conservatives are, in contrast ...
. . .happier and better adjusted. Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, their professions, their health, even when compared to liberals with the same demographics (age, income, etc.).
. . .generally more successful parents. Obviously there are many exceptions, but conservatives in general are more willing to make sacrifices for their children, and their children in turn are less likely to take drugs, smoke, or drink at a young age. Conservative families are also closer. They are more likely to stay in touch with each other on a regular basis and trust each other more.
. . .more generous. For all the talk of liberal compassion, the reality is that conservatives are much more likely to donate money and time to charitable causes. Also, the reasons that liberals and conservatives get involved in charities tend to be different. Liberals support charities to "make a statement." Conservatives want to improve the lives of the people they are trying to help.
. . .less angry. Conservatives are less likely to become angry at someone, less likely to seek revenge, and less likely to throw or break things in a temper.
This is no mere tit-for-tat response to liberal name-calling. For too long, explains Schweizer, liberals have fostered unjustified caricatures of conservatives -- and flattering portraits of themselves -- to avoid honest debate.
I've always struggled with the concept that forking over money to an religious organization because they oppose gay human rights would somehow drive up the tally of stats showing who is "more charitable." But since that ploy has been one of the evangelicals best cash draws in the past decade, it must be working pretty well for them. The numbers do speak for themselves.
If a person starts an organization dedicated to opposing assistance to the homeless and gets contributions from their friends, can they add those to the list of "charitable" causes as well. Probably not, but if they were a church I bet the Hoover Institute wouldn't blink an eye.
After all, it is a conservative bastion. Apparently Don Rumsfield is going to be a visiting fellow for the next year. Now there's a charmer . . . and so charitable as well. Can't wait to see the fruits of his labours with the institute. A report on "pre-emptive" charitable causes throughout the world perhaps?
__________________
I hasten to add that there are many churches - and many people on the right and left end of the political spectrum who are kind and good and nurturing and truly charitable. And, frankly, I think most of us could stand to close introspection on how to be a bit better each day in hopes that we will follow our better angels.
But, oldschool, you're tirade there just gets my goat. Do you have any objective abilities at all? Is it not entirely possible that someone who feels the need to create a report to "prove" who on the political spectrum is morally superior might have a vested interest in the outcome?
As long as churches continue to be tax-free political entities masquerading as pure saints, then I regard contributions to them as highly highly suspect. Show me a study where those activities and gifts are not included in the tally, and they might have a bit more credibility. In fact, show me a study that tells us what was considered "charitable" at all if we're going to play this parlor game.
Either way, in the end, I suspect one doesn't get judged on what the public research showed about charity and self-satisfaction during ones days on this planet.
Joseph . . . why not name some of these organizations that are not "Chritian charities" that are out helping the homeless and other unfortunates.
The most effective help in my town comes from Christian groups.
Why do lefties call factual information a rant??? Just cause you don't agree with it?
Your heterophobic nonsense is also silly . . . did God appoligize to Sodom and Gamora? If he did I didn't hear about it.
The problem with lefties is as Ronald Ragan said:
"It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that so much of what they know isn't true."
Conservatives believe only what they see, Liberals see only what they believe.
In the 60's it was "Let's be friends with the Soviets". In the 70's it was "Here comes the new ice age". In the 80's it was "Here comes the population explosion and famine". Now it's "Global warming will destroy our planet". Why, you might ask. Two reasons: To increase their ability to tell others how to live, and to get into our wallets.
I believe the quote is Winston Churchills: A Man who isn't a socialist before he is 21 has no heart; A Man who IS a socialist after 21 has no head.
Post a Comment