Lindsey Graham, normally one of the most articulate members of the U.S. Senate, apparently misspoke when he said this, quoted today in The State:
“We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys.”
Obviously, he forgot the last two words, “… any more.”
Just joshing, Republican friends. While you may be the party of white guys, you haven’t all been angry, all of the time. Some are pretty ticked off nowadays, though, so much so that they’ll pay good money to hear one of their own shout insults at the other side.
The question the senator raises is, will the party continue to be that way in the future? And the debate over that has broken down on familiar lines. No, not racial lines. And not “statism vs. freedom,” as much as the Sanford wing would like to define the world that way.
The divide is one that I’ve struggled with myself a good bit over the years — whether to be right, or be effective.
Set aside for the moment the fact that Jim DeMint is wrong about many things. He believes he’s right — believes it with a great deal more certainty than you and I believe we’re right (you have to, to be such a committed ideologue) — and he believes in shaping his party so that it includes only those who are “right” as he sees the right. He said that about as clearly as it can be said here:
“I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs,” DeMint told The (Washington) Examiner in a comment that has been widely quoted.
Sen. Graham, by contrast, would rather get some things done. That means working with, and supporting, people who don’t bow down to the same gods with the same ritual intensity. Work with Democrats (such as John Kerry) when that helps. Support Republicans (such as Bob Inglis) who are willing to think for themselves (even though they are sometimes wrong, as Inglis was on the Surge). And finally, bring in enough voters to make a majority rather than a minority.
And no matter what ideologues may claim sometimes about the ubiquity of their beliefs, you will never, ever have a majority if you only let in people who think exactly the way you do.
As for the “right vs. effective” dichotomy. I have written several times about my own struggles with that choice (which I don’t like being a choice any more than anyone else does; in a fairer world you could be both). And you’ll see if you follow that link that I’ve had a tendency to choose “right” when forced to choose. Part of that, though, was that that was what my former job was all about — determining the right answer to the best of your ability, and advocating it as strongly as you can. And I should also point out that my sense of rightness has been very different from Sen. DeMint’s. With me, it was about identifying the best answer on a specific issue under specific circumstances. You would never catch me falling into the absurd error of insisting a certain side or faction was by definition always right, by virtue of its ideological purity.
Similarly, Lindsey Graham has been willing to go down in flames trying to do the right thing — whether it’s comprehensive immigration reform, or the Surge, or reversing man-made climate change.
But for the sake of this discussion, the one raised in the piece in The State this morning, the contrast between the two senators breaks down pretty neatly along right-vs.-effective lines, with Sen. Graham on the pragmatic side, the one where not everyone has to be an angry white guy.
Related Posts
It will be interesting to see how DeMint’s strategy plays out when it comes time for his re-election.
Graham, a Seneca Republican elected to his second term last year, says the party must stop alienating young people and Hispanics and start promoting pragmatic, “center-right solutions” to the country’s most pressing problems
I think a healthy party needs both the DeMints and Grahams. There’s a time for ideology and a time for pragmatism. A time for standing your ground and a time for compromise. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they are no healthy party.
The Republicans have a long way to go if they want to stop alienating young people. For one they are putting themselves at a disadvantage by, as a party, holding on to “traditional values” of which younger generations are less likely to claim. They also have the disadvantage that what young people know as the Republican Party is Bush-Cheney — whose policies ranged from wildly unpopular to blatantly negligent.
Also, I think if the “limited government, free markets, free people” DeMint-protester crowd wants to have any credibility with the American people, then they have to answer the question of where the hell they have been over the last eight years.
The Republicans need to get it together soon. We can’t be a country governed by just one party — whichever it is.
I went back and read about your “struggles” and could not help but note that the only comment was from Lee who, of course, came down on the side of right rather than effective. Doesn’t that give you pause?
As I have noted before, I am so old I remember the Ev and Jerry Show when Dirksen and Ford were minority leaders in Congress; of course I was a mere child at the time. That’s my idea of how things should work. Decency, civility, bipartisanship (when possible, which it usually is), but strong opinions.
I think the history of the founding of our country is about people with different views coming together, compromising, forming coalitions to accomplish mutual goals in ways that are acceptable -not jump up and down thrilled about it – to all sides. Isn’t that something to really ponder?
Our founders were not the inflexible type of ideologues that are so common today. But, that’s not good enough for these people now. It’s just like religion. They believe their interpretation of the Good Book/Constitution is the only “right” interpretation and themselves, the only true descendents of the founders.
You seem to describe two absolutes but there are innumerable shadings between the two. How could you support one committed to “getting things done” if that were not limited by SOME core beliefs. This seems to me to be a tremendous oversimplification.
I tend to favor a multi party system where smaller groups support parties more closely aligned with their personal political beliefs and coalitions are formed after elections (really requires a parliamentary system to work). Those who now call themselves Republicans would split into several groups: theocrats, corporatists, libertarians, etc.
Perhaps there would be a grouping for the “get things done” folks: the oportunists.
Greg,
You sound delightfully European in your approach. Coalitions instead of a rigid two party system with varying degrees of rightness and leftness.
Political belief does not fall on a linear spectrum–it is multidimensional, encompassing parameters for degree of authoritarianism/personal liberty, central control/local control, ownership of the means of production and so on. There are devoutly Christian “liberals” and atheist conservatives,etc.
I do think that Lindsey Graham, as an obviously well-educated deeper thinker, is more into steak than the sizzle of marketing that is DeMint–not that marketers cannot be extremely deep thinkers (Marshall McLuhan?)–but DeMint seems like such a sloganeer, while Graham enunciates principles that he seems to have thought out for himself.
Greg, I think Graham has core beliefs. I see him as a conservative, in the older sense of believing in traditional values, rather than the new sense of being ticked off at everybody all the time. I wrote a column about that awhile back. I was talking then about McCain, but the same things can be said of Graham.
The difference here, the kind of difference I’m talking about, is that, in order to accomplish the things he wants to accomplish in keeping with his core values, Graham will work with John Kerry. The kind of Republicans that DeMint is appealing to want to throw Graham out of the party for consorting with the “enemy.”
… Which brings me to Martin’s point about the Ev and Jerry show. I have this Unified Field Theory about politics in America. When I was growing up, Democrats and Republicans honestly disagreed, but they did NOT think of their fellow Americans as “the enemy.” Political operatives today DO think that way for the most part, and it’s destroying the country. And my theory is that the difference between then and now is that those guys back then had been united in a struggle against a REAL enemy in WWII. And even guys who came along a little later, who served their time in the military back when we had a draft (and before Vietnam split the country) — I’m thinking of the Elvis generation here — were imbued with that same sense that we’re all Americans, and while we might disagree, we’re in this together.
I always remember an anecdote I heard about Bob Dole. He came home to Kansas after fighting and suffering in the war, and decided to run for office. He went down to file to run, and the clerk asked whether he wanted to run as a Democrat or a Republican. He asked which party had won the last election locally, and when told it was the Republican, he said to put him down as that.
No, I don’t expect everyone to be THAT careless of party, but I do expect them to place a lot less emphasis on it, and to treat people in the other party as fellow Americans. The ideological purity crowd that DeMint appeals to (and the Nancy Pelosi et al. appeal to on the other side) increasingly don’t see the “other side” as human, much less fellow members of a community. They just see them as the enemy.
Do you think it is a coincidence that DeMint is a marketer? I don’t.I believe a lot of the “us vs. them” mentality can be laid at the doorstep of the entertainment and infotainment media and the marketing types who feed them. It a big game to them–not real on-the-ground stuff–that was what struck me so favorably about Graham’s position as portrayed in the paper–he basically said that the mass of men leading lives of quiet desperation just want help–jobs, health care, military security–and don’t much care about the politics of who gives it to them. He’s right on.
The Point/Counterpoint 24/7 media maw must be fed. Just as ESPN has created interest in a lot more sporting events than Monday night football, CNN and its spawn have created an appetite among many for politcal sporting events. TLC and its ilk have lifestyle sporting events…all the world’s a coliseum, it seems.
“What’s the score” is easier to comprehend than the nuances of drama, policy, etc. Go team!
Graham and DeMint are both part of the obstructionist right. They just go about it in differnt ways. DeMint for his part is quite comfortable being a partisan hack slinging insults and platitudes about like some MLB pitcher throwing fastballs. It’s just part of his persona.
Graham on the other hand is the more dangerous of the two. He comes across as someone willing to work with the Democrats, and on some issues he actually does. But when the rubber meets the road Graham is every bit the dangerous conservative who pushes war, torture and the status quo health insurance nightmare. Sure he voted to confirm Soytemeyer. That had no bearing on the final outcome and he knew it. But he saw an opportunity to score some points with the press corp groupies who swoon over the prospect of a rock star hero who is willing to flash his bipartisan “bonafides”. He’s a bit of tease in that regard. Like the poor geek with the glasses and pocket protector who helps the cheerleader write her term paper the press is more than willing to carry Graham’s public relations water for him while he recklessly goes down the conservative path of disaster after disaster.
At the end of the day Graham is an ultra-conservative party hack on most of the important issues. On the really big bills he consistently votes with the corporate elites and the war mongers. Graham’s a smart guy but he’s also not in any sense of the word a true bi-partisan consensus builder. Anyone who can vote pro torture AND pro rape cannot be respected. And this proud liberal certainly doesn’t.
Why would Lindsey Graham accept a
$1000 donation from this guy? How is he any different than Howard Rich?
BRONFMAN, EDGAR
NEW YORK,NY 10152
JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM/CHAIRMAN & CEO
4/19/09
$1,000
“With Vivendi Universal SA on the edge of financial turmoil in 2002, Edgar Bronfman Jr. began selling shares in the company using inside knowledge that the business was in shambles, according to allegations made in a French court.
Mr. Bronfman, the former Vivendi vice-chairman and the music-loving heir to the fortune behind iconic Canadian liquor manufacturer Seagram, is one of seven ex-Vivendi executives now facing trial in Paris on charges that they misled investors. Also included is former chief executive officer Jean-Marie Messier, who left the company in 2002.”
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GAM.20091023.RVIVENDI23ART1941/GIStory/
Senator Graham New York donations total:
$214,154
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=NY&zip=&employ=&cand=Graham%2C+Lindsey&c2010=Y&c2008=Y&c2006=Y&sort=N&capcode=7ht7w&submit=Submit
Why? Who does Senator Graham represent?
Universities often do not want to hire their own graduates because of intellectual inbreeding. The republican echo-chamber is creating intellectual and political inbreeding.
In W’s administration, loyalty and not critical thought was the priority. Palin READING talking points from index cards in between winks during her VP debate was considered a great success in proving her merit as second in command of the world’s super power. DeMint spelling out the GOP Waterloo strategy made explicit what we already knew, politics has completely replaced public service in the party of values.
Tancredo and Sessions efforts as the vangaurd in the fight to alienate the largest minority in the US may make all this a moot point.
Brad, would you do some research and articles on C Street please.
Graham and Demint have been greatly influenced by this group/place.
Having done my homework, I am here to tell you that C Street is what is wrong. C Street is what is missing from the conversation . C Street does not reflect SC’s values and neither do Graham , Demint .
Remember Sanford has been working with C Street as well. He self professed.
C Street and their lack of real American values is what is wrong.
Nothing gets fixed until C Street gets fixed.
Everything I’ve read about C Street is tremendously offensive. It is a sad and dangerous perversion of Christianity in the service of outsized egos and irresponsible morals (especially the moral issue of how political power is established and exercised — the sex is secondary). However, I think it overstates things a bit to say that “Nothing gets fixed until C Street gets fixed.” C Street makes the situation worse, but a sense of entitlement, a Social Darwinist world view, and the enchantment of power are not going to be eliminated in our political class simply by doing away with C Street. In fact, they probably just aren’t going to be eliminated. They could be better controlled, though, by a consistent message from religious leaders that C Street has nothing to do with the legitimate message of Christianity.
Charlie-girl–there were some posts in the comments sections about C Street back when the Sanford scandal first hit, but I don’t blame you for missing them among all the chaff. You’re right that it’s a scary thing. book had the good fortune to come out at the same time as the Sanford drama hit, and received a lot of coverage. Just last week, The State published a sample schedule for Sanford last March that showed him going to DC apparently just to spend the night at C Street and then returning the next day. It is scary.
Manchurian Candidate scary.
It’s not just about Sanford and his ilk, by the way.
I ran across this on the NPR site:
“In the September 2007 Mother Jones, Sharlet and Kathryn Joyce reported that Hillary Clinton (pictured at the 2009 National Prayer Breakfast) has been active in Bible-study and prayer circles affilated with the Family. Writing in The Nation, Barbara Ehrenreich reported that Clinton described Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
The C Street ethic fits the Clintons, too. That sort of entitlement that makes someone whose most recent qualifications are being the wife of the President, while a Yale Law Grad and erstwhile partner at a major law firm in a small state, run for, and win the New York Senate seat, run for President, and settle for Secretary of State.
I suppose the Oprah-style belief system that “if you just believe in something enough it will come true” works for these people–or maybe they ARE the chosen ones. We laugh.
Personally, I eschew most forms of magical thinking, but then I’m nobody, aren’t I?
What worries me most about C Street is it’s involvement in foreign relations, sending their members abroad to present themselves as Congressmen while really supporting The Family’s agenda, whatever that is.
That’s what DeMint was doing in Honduras. Since when did he get interested in Central America?
I have read they are deep into the Pentagon, too.
I think there needs to be a Conressional investigation how far this group has penetrated our
government and how the influence of the members has steered our domestic and forein policies. Let the chips fall where they may on both sides of the aisle.
I don’t understand. I really don’t know much about C Street, but I am an evangelical by conviction, which I think I have arrived at by careful study of both Scripture and life for the last 40 years. I know people who know Doug Coe, and all are people of integrity.
It appears to me that Kathryn, and others, want to be tolerant of everyone except evangelicals, after all, we are the only ones with hypocritical tendencies and outright hypocritical examples?
Is belief in the possibility of miracles what Kathryn considers “magic”? Has anyone here read C.S. Lewis?
Perhaps I misunderstand. I hope so.
P.S. Senator Graham is superb. He has his convictions, but it willing to work towards workable compromise. Perhaps not willing enough, but at least to some extent for the good of all.
Yes, he is. I’m as impressed by him as I’ve been by anyone in my close observation of politics dating back to the mid-70s…
As for C Street, let me offer the immortal words of Father Guido Sarducci: “It’s all-a politics.”
By which I mean that religion is a red herring in this. People get suspicious and worried about this group because it has Mark Sanford and Hillary Clinton involved, not because of doctrine or styles of worship or anything like that. (Yes, there are those, particularly on the left, who are suspicious of religion qua religion, but this goes beyond that.)
It’s like… Kathryn keeps busting my chops about what the Catholic Church did in Martin Luther’s day (please excuse the oversimplification, KB), and the thing about all that to me was not so much that the Church AS the Church did all kinds of mean, nasty ugly things, but that it was a seat of temporal power, and therefore all sorts of mean, nasty ugly things were done in the name of the church, by churchmen.
The best thing that ever happened to the church was when it lost all that earthly power, which corrupted it.
So I’m suspicious of The Family NOT because of any beliefs they have or do not have, but for the same reason I’m suspicious of the Club for Growth. It’s like a variant on the Groucho Marx joke — I’m suspicious of any club that would have Mark Sanford as a member…
Speaking of angry white guys, Joe Wilson popped up again on “The Daily Show” last night. Had to do with the Repub’s “Internet Freedom Act” which would turn control of the Internet over to AT&T and Verizon.
Kathryn, the book was written in 2008 and received a little attention during the presidential primaries when Ms Clinton’s involvement made the news. It probably would have gone away quietly had not our illustrious LuvGov mentioned C Street as being part of his marriage counseling team during his June confessional press conference.
Herb, I might be a backrow Baptist but I find NOTHING Christian about this outfit. So I don’t think the evangelical set is being picked on. This group is creepy and I would have to question the integrity of anyone who looks to this outfit as a source for moral and religious authority. Below are a few comments the author, Jeff Sharlet, gave in a July interview w/ the Las Vegas Sun:
“The Family began with this idea that God does not work through churches but rather through those whom The Family calls the “New Chosen.” They believe they’re chosen by God. They can’t be expected to pray with the rest of us. They need to pray in private with people of equal status.When you join one of these prayer groups, you give these men veto power over your life, over every aspect of your life. Wives involved with The Family have said, “In my husband’s life, his brothers come first, I come second.””
“…he(Sen Ensign-NV) is turning to a group that regularly invokes as leadership models Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whom Doug Coe said are three men who understood the New Testament best in the 20th century. … what they understood is that the New Testament is not about love, mercy, justice, forgiveness. It’s about power.”
And, Martin, you are spot on with your concern about their involvement w/ foreign relations and I would love for DeMint to tell us who paid for his trip to Honduras.
Libb, if you’re right, then I would concur, but having been out of the country for awhile, and out of the discussion here for a long time, I’ll have to do my own research. And if Doug Coe has done an about face, or if the little info I had on him was erroneous, then I’ll freely admit it, for what my admission is worth.
I can always ask my brother in Washington; he’s usually got a finger on the pulse there. Hopefully there’s still a pulse.
Okay–
@Herb–As Libb says, C Street is NOT your basic evangelical outfit–I respect and deeply admire true Christian evangelicals–many of the finest people I know are Bible-believing religious conservatives who act a lot like I’d like to think Jesus did–they welcome the outcasts into their churches (divorce ministries, for example, and prison ministries), feed the homeless,and generally live their faith.
I have a real problem with people who parade their “faith” as a means to gain political office but do not seem to live it in any visible way otherwise (Sanford, Ensign, Vitter).
The C Street bunch are not, as far as I have read,Jesus-like.They believe they are better than every one else; the rules don’t apply to them because they are God’s chosen ones–and we are not. That’s not a miracle. That’s what I call magical thinking– “if *I* want something enough, I can get it.I just have to believe that I’m worth it.” I don’t believe God (or the universe–if you are New Age) exists to fulfill our wishes. I certainly don’t believe God created Mark Sanford better than me.
@Brad–I believe you started it with the Anne Boleyn reference—
The modern Episcopal Church, however dubious its beginnings, is, to my way of looking at things, a very Jesus-like place that opens its doors to the outcasts of our times and includes all God’s children as equal participants. It even has been ahead of the more “originally pure” Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in terms of ordaining women and gays.
The Catholic Church has many very wonderful people in it and a rich tradition and culture, but I cannot get past its institutional misogyny, homophobia, hypocrisy about celibacy (it admits that approximately 20% of its priests are in ongoing sexual relationships)–how it closes parishes that mean so much to its parishioners (Boston, for example), so it can recoup funds paid to settle pedophile priest cases, while sitting on some of the most valuable art in the world. It’s stuff like that that really bothers me–sitting on the outside. Not that any church or faith is free of hypocrisy, or that I am. It’s just that this Pope seems especially out there, to me, but as I said, it’s really none of my business.
Far be it from me to judge whatever gets anyone through the long dark night of the soul, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
I’m not sure that can be said of the C Street bunch, for sure.
“Far be it from me to judge whatever gets anyone through the long dark night of the soul, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
I’m not sure that can be said of the C Street bunch, for sure.”
Amen, Sister!
“Far be it from me to judge whatever gets anyone through the long dark night of the soul, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
I’m not sure that can be said of the C Street bunch, for sure.”
Well, I agree on both points, but I doubt that the leaders and members of any Christian denomination would like to believe that they have no impact on the world around them. In reality, most do have such an impact, and the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints in particular work very hard to have such an impact through political measures. Is that impact helpful or hurtful? To the extent that a church chooses to support (financially and otherwise) political efforts to limit the rights of gays and lesbians, it is harmful. No one is forcing their members to sing Kumbaya at a same-sex couple blessing, so if non-Catholic gays and lesbians choose to marry, that should be their business. Similarly, political efforts to limit access to everything but their own stringent definitions of acceptable contraception is a violation of the “as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” principle.
Well, my research so far shows me what I feared. You guys, i.e. Brad, Kathryn, Libb and co don’t really understand what the evangelical world is all about, and it doesn’t surprise me, because I don’t think Brad ever has. I do know that what Sharlet wrote about the “Fellowship” is a bunch of bunk, for the most part. A serious reviewer (Columbia University professor) has made mincemeat of Sharlet’s book on the subject. What I know of Mother Jones is that nothing in that magazine can be trusted, especially on religious topics. I was in a class at Columbia International University a few years ago, when a Mother Jones reporter, under subterfuge, posing as a “seeker” after truth, came in the class and in the process of the week, interviewed several students. What he wrote about what they said had almost nothing to do with reality; 90% of it was fabricated for Mother Jones’ purposes.
Similar things have happened to our organization in Germany. A major German TV producer interviewed one of our people with a hidden camera and produced a program that was aired on ZDF, the 2nd German TV. Fortunately we could turn it over to the EKD, the Protestant Church in Germany, which is largely very “liberal” in it’s theology, but could see the writing on the wall as far as this kind of reporting is concerned.
Basically what is happening here is a defamation of Doug Coe and the people with him. His group is probably over-funded and cliquish, but does some good in bringing together people from both sides of the political spectrum in Christian fellowship and Bible study, reaching out to leaders on both sides of the aisle. To accuse it of being an arm of the Christian right is as far from the truth as one can get. Unfortunately it is too typical of the MSM, as I’ve noticed again and again while reading Terry Mattingly’s stuff on getreligion.org.
I had hoped that Brad would be above this kind of stuff, but it looks like I’m to be disappointed.
Herb, what did I do? What did I say? I certainly didn’t mean to say anything inappropriate about anyone’s faith.
By the way, I was baptized at Thomas Memorial Baptist Church in Bennettsville, so I know something about evangelicalism. That said, I don’t think I have said anything about evangelicals one way or the other. And I certainly didn’t mean to disappoint you in any way.
Forgot to mention that, in my Germany days, I used to be invited every year to participate in a forum for youth leaders and international students that was held every year in Bonn, and later in Berlin. I was in youth ministry, so it made sense to go, but I only made it once. The few days were well spent, though. The discussions in small groups on Biblical subjects, ethics, and application to political topics and life needs were helpful and very worthwhile. There was no push in any particular political direction, and the group was addressed by political leaders in the German capital, including members of the German Bundestag on any side of the aisle that would participate. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and only wished I could have attended every year, but time didn’t permit.
The organizer? Doug Coe, among others.
Brad, you didn’t attack my faith; that’s not what I meant. What you did was to give credence to Mother Jones and Sharlet’s (I don’t know Kathryn Joyce) evaluation of C Street. Sharlet is the one who comes up with the “Hitler, Mao etc.” charge that Libb quotes.
Sharlet is a charlatan, as far as I can see, so I see your charge as baseless that C-Street is primarily about politics. I can’t see that it is. You are getting your information from the wrong source. The ironic thing is that this all reminds me of the way the religious right gets its information from Rush and co.
Sorry if I came on too strong above, I didn’t mean to. I guess your view of the Reformation has always bugged me. I suspect that religion always tends to rigidify into power structures over time, and each new generation has to break out of that mold and search for it’s own expression, based on New Testament Christianity, and not on traditions that have built up over centuries.
But mainly I was reacting against the defamation of Doug Coe and his followers. I’m not trying to defend Mark Sanford, either.
Prove me wrong, please, but don’t use Sharlet, or Mother Jones.
Organized religion is no different than any other big entity. They are built on the foundation of power and money. Power corrupts. Money corrupts.
Just remember – whatever religion you choose only represents a small minority of the world’s population. Funny how each one KNOWS it is the right one.
Doug, I’m not sure that each religion does know that it is the “right one.” I haven’t met too many people who can really, directly, say that they have assurance about what will happen at their moment of death.
That is the real test of being right, I think. Not the disagreements that we have on the periphery.
Oh, and it is worthwhile to have life before death, as well, but as I say, the acid test is when my time comes.
Another question: “small minority” what is that? How about 2 billion at least nominal Christians. Is 33% a small minority?
I’m writing too much, but it occurred to me that one of the reasons for Luther and Calvin’s concern for maintaining a lid on things politically (and Luther’s reliance on earthly princes) was that they did not have the advantage of democratic and secular power structures in place. Once the lid came off of Roman control, some kind of order had to be maintained, as the peasant revolt showed. Both Luther and Calvin went too far, but that’s easy for us to say in hindsight.
Herb,
2 billion Christians split into how many different denominations?
The differences between Catholicism and the Baptist church are so great that it would be difficult to claim that one is right.
It’s like saying Clemson and Gamecock fans are the same because their teams both play football.
I”m sorry if I failed to pass whatever test you posed to me about “what the evangelical world is all about.” I was an active particpant in Young Life when I was in high school,and have lived in South Carolina or Georgia about 75% of my life, so I am quite familiar with evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and so on. I read Martin Marty’s book back 20 years or so ago–perhaps that would not also satisfy your test.
You suggested that I was not tolerant of evangelicals, or as tolerant as I was of others. I responded to that, not to a full bore exposition of my comprehension of evangelicalism. I believe in being reciprocally tolerant, I suppose. To the extent someone is willing to live and let live, I am likewise inclined toward them,and I support evangelicals right to exercise their religion freely.Lynn makes an excellent point, though, that when religious people seek to impose their beliefs on the lives on those who do not share them, by withholding the right to marry or to adopt, say, I draw the line.
A long time ago Brad and I had a correspondence wherein I said that I respected the hard line he took w/r/t abortion, b/c if indeed one believes it is murder of a human being with the same rights as any fully born person,opposing abortion in ALL circumstances was the only ethical stance. It’s when people start to make exceptions for rape and incest–as if somehow those supposedly full-rights humans don’t count because of the circumstances of their conception, that I start to suspect a different agenda.
For the record, I do not believe that a fetus is a human being with full rights, and thus I do not believe abortion is murder. I do respect those who do.
But stopping murder is about the only moral imperative I will grant religious people. Stopping people from eternal perdition is not appropriate grounds for legislation. If you don’t believe that same sex couples should marry, don’t marry some one of the same sex. I don’t personally believe that divorce is moral in any but the most extreme circumstances, so I don’t get one, but I do not judge what goes on in other peoples’ marriages–I’m not in them. I have very high standards for who should be a parent, and I did not feel that I met them, so I did not become a parent, and so on.
Kathryn,
This thread is probably dead, but where did I take up the abortion issue?
My point was that the MSM has villanized C-Street on the basis of erroneous sources, ganging up on it the same way some of the evangelical right gangs up with Rush and co, who are not evangelicals, anyway.
Can’t help but write again in the wish to apologize to everyone for coming on too strong yesterday.
I didn’t wish to pose any test to anyone on evangelicalism, but I have just seen fellow evangelicals vilified a few times too many in the MSM lately. I do not see any basis for the attacks on C-Street here. Brad makes C-Street guilty by association (i.e., he’s against anything that Mark Sanford belongs to–which is about the worse type of categorizing there is).
And I do not understand why anyone would consider Sharlet as a truthful source; he clearly has an agenda. Having watched what happens when such “journalists” move in under subterfuge with their agenda, I’m severely allergic to it, I guess.
My plea is that, on whatever issue we deal with, we evaluate our sources carefully.
Does anyone understand what I am trying to write, or am I still being understood as attacking someone’s religious position, or posing some kind of lithmus test?
Or does anyone really want to understand? Or is anyone still reading this thread?
Herb, I mean no disrespect, but using a 2008 book review by an evangelical professor (who has been the most vocal critic of Sharlet’s work thus far) as proof positive falls a tad short. I read Prof Balmer’s review and while he had issues with Sharlet’s historical accuracy on the Family’s origins and political dalliances he did not dismiss Sharlet’s basic story on the Family’s elitism(ie chosen ones) and its political operations. I submit Randall’s own words: “Are there reasons to be wary of an organization that seeks to insinuate its members into the highest echelons of government? Yes, perhaps so…”. Also, much more of the story evolved this year thanks to C St’ers Ensign, Pickering, Sanford and DeMint to back up Sharlet’s account of “how they roll”.
For the record I have not read Mother Jones. My sources have included but not limited to: NPR, LA Times, Wash Post(source of your book review as well),various interviews of Sharlet, and NBC news (which included a “sermon” clip of Doug Coe and I’ll include his own words: “I’ve seen pictures of the young men in the Red Guard(Chairman Mao)…they would bring in this young man’s mother…he would take an axe and cut her head off. They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of father, mother, brother sister and their own life. That was a covenant, a pledge. That’s what Jesus said.”
That’s not my take on “what Jesus said” or intended, and, quite frankly, I find his “metaphor” disturbing, reprehensible, and morally indefensible.
I deeply and completely respect your right to religious freedom. But extremism of this ilk (as in under the guise of religion) really offends my spiritual sensibilities.
Herb, I’m still reading. And we’re all glad to have you here — we missed you while you were out of the country.
By the way, I should point out that Libb’s most recent comment, above, is NOT a response to Herb’s most recent comment right in front of it — I approve them both at the same time.
Libb,
Thanks for writing. I’ll pursue the Sharlet thing further, but I’m not just relying on that, but on further personal links in Washington that I can’t put into here. I’m just pretty certain of my ground, partly because of personal experience with some of the members of this group. I would never belong to it myself, and they wouldn’t want me. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to villify it on that basis alone.
Your quote of Coe is interesting, but taken out it’s context doesn’t prove anything to me, yet. I think what he was saying was that the commitment of Mao’s people to the cause should illustrate the commitment that a Christian should have to Christ.
I don’t know about you, but I just don’t hear very many sermons on passages like this. Coe’s attempt may not be the best, but at least he tried.
Herb, appreciate and respect your willingness to agree to disagree on this topic.
“Coe’s attempt may not be the best, but at least he tried.”
Your attempt to justify Coe’s morally bankrupt “sermon” seems to resonate with the C Street tenet of it’s the means, not the ends.
The New Testament is full of hyperboles and I don’t believe that Jesus was talking about a literal hatred of family in Luke 14:25-27. Nor do I think he would have approved of his metaphor for commitment being used as an “endorsement” for a maniacal despot who promoted genocide.
Ok, in retrospect, “morally bankrupt sermon” was extreme, my apologies. Please replace with “inapproriate sermon”
Since today is Reformation Day, I post an answer
to Brad’s misunderstanding concerning the importance of Luther’s 95 theses.
And Libb, if you are still reading this, I suspect that Coe was guilty of using an inappropriate illustration, not preaching an inappropriate sermon (I don’t have the time to go back and search for it and listen to it, I’ve got too many other things to do). Unfortunately we tend to tone down, or downright eliminate, any biblical preaching that meddles with our current practice. We want Scripture for comfort, and not for challenging us. Luther’s intent, like Bonhoeffer’s attack on “cheap grace,” is as important today as it ever was.
Herb–
With my abortion discussion, I was suggesting that there are limits to tolerance–that I can respect when someone else’s religious beliefs differ from mine to the extent that they believe that a now-legal act is murder. If so, they have every right to ethically try to change that law, without being called intolerant. I believe that mere belief that others will rot in hell is not sufficient cause in a religion-neutral country such as ours to impose your beliefs by law. Feel free to try to convert me, but do not compel me.
—and Bonhoeffer is a personal hero of mine.
Happy Reformation Day!
Kathryn, I’m baffled that you keep bringing up the abortion issue to me, when I never mentioned it.
I don’t disagree with you on abortion, I don’t think. Why do you keep bringing this up to me?
I guess the link to the CT page doesn’t work. Here’s the text of it, in case anybody’s interested:
Herb–
I thought I explained it. I was discussing the limits of tolerance and using abortion as an example. I believe in being tolerant of other religious points of view, except insofar as they cross certain lines. I can understand lack of tolerance from others when they believe certain lines have been crossed, such as when they believe that murder is occurring, even if I do not.