FrontPageMagazine | Jamie Glazov | Nov. 7, 2007
So, un-belief works for liberal Democrats. Here’s a statistical fact: The greater the number of people who do not believe in God, the greater the number of votes for liberal Democrats. I suppose Al Gore might call that a triumph of reason.
The problem for most of these liberal politicians is that they run for office in America and not in France. They would do extremely well among the socialist, unbelieving populations of Europe. […]
FP: So what exactly does Hillary believe in?
Kengor: That brings me to the other reason why I wrote this book. She is a classic, textbook-case of a Religious Left politician. Through this book, I was eager to remind a theologically ignorant media and secular nation that not everyone who is a religious believer is a “fundamentalist.” In fact, anyone who bothers to take an honest look at George W. Bush’s statements on religion, and especially his ongoing remarks about how he and fellow Christians worship the same God as Muslims, would find that it is utterly ridiculous to categorize Bush as a fundamentalist.
Within the Christian faith, there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations. They range all over the place in their beliefs. There are liberal Christians; there are radical left Christians. There are leaderships among the mainline denominations that are to the left of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. Hillary’s denomination—the United Methodist Church—has moved so far to the left that millions of faithful Methodists have permanently parted ways with their church, despite a deep heritage of Methodism within their families. Hillary’s church is on-the-record as officially supporting legalized abortion, and has even joined the tragically misguided Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. It is for those reasons in particular that Hillary says she is “so comfortable in this church.”
Hillary is also part of a long tradition of “social justice” Christians. These are the folks who have concluded that when Jesus calls on them to help the poor—which he did quite clearly, of course—that he favored a system of collectivism and forced wealth redistribution, including 50-plus percent upper-income tax rates, an estate tax, a capital gains tax, sales taxes, taxes on fuel, taxes on cigarettes, property taxes, government-subsidized healthcare, daycare, $5,000-bonds for newborns, and so on; and that’s just a starter. They rightly understand that God wants all of us to be good stewards of the environment, but can be downright dogmatic in insisting that if the Almighty were here today he would cast into a lake of fire all those who don’t support the Kyoto Treaty.
They invoke the teachings of Christ not in a way that demands private charity—which, in my view, is really the mandate of Scripture—but in a way that leads to an explosion in government. Many of these folks turn Jesus Christ into a socialist.
. . . more
ChrisB – Do you intend to expose every candidate for President to this type of harsh scrutiny, or just Hillary Clinton?
For example, you do know that Rudy Guiliani is pro-abortion and on his third wife, don’t you? I would like to see some articles about him
DeanS, If you dislike the articles available here, you are more than welcome to start your own blog and post whatever editorials and topics that are near and dear to your heart. Better still, go visit Al Franken, AlGore, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand or Hillary Clinton’s blog, I am certain they will welcome you with open arms.
ChrisB – I appreciate the articles on religion and faith very much and have benefitted from them. Your articles on business ethics were very good as well.
I don’t agree that the viewpoint of Townhall.com neccesarily reflects the Orthodox Christian viewpoint on political and economic issues, however. What is the Orthodox Christian viewpoint on political and economic issues? We don’t always know, which is why we need to offer comment and debate and examine different points of view. We all benefit from that process.
There may be legitimate reasons for opposing Hillary Clinton. Why did she vote for the Iraq war Resolution and the Kyl-Leiberman amendment even though she objects to the military action her votes authorized? What is her relationship with the special interests who are donating so heavily to her campaign and how will they influence her policies? How does she plan to control spiraling health care costs as she extends health insurance to million more people and won’t this explode the federal budget? When exactly would she withdraw our troops from Iraq?
Those are the questions a serious examination of Hillary Clinton’s should include, and not silly remarks about Monica Lewinsky. I especially found offensive the veiled attack suggesting that people who support government action to help the poor are not really Christians, but “socialists”.
note #3
After all this time Dean, you still refuse to listen to those of us who have patiently tried to engage you on exactly these sorts of issues. This article reflects a much more “Orthodox” viewpoint than your socialist politics and Marxist view of mankind. Yes, almost all “people” who “support government action to help the poor” are really truly socialists. Socialism get’s man’s nature wrong, and in so doing it suggests wrong action (i.e. socialism) by the wrong agents (i.e. government).
You have never been an honest participant here Dean – you merely talk at us after all this time.
By the way, your suggestion that “why we need to offer comment and debate and examine different points of view. We all benefit from that process.” is in error. That is the “liberal round table” view of discussion, philosophy, politics, and knowledge. Check out the Stanley Fish and David Hart articles posted on the other thread – oh wait, you don’t actually discuss things at this level because it’s not democratic talking points, so ignore that suggestion 🙂
WARNING: several posts by Dean with long quotations from other (mostly liberal) websites soon to follow…
note # 4:
Our faith teaches us to help the poor, and I intepret that to mean that we should help them by the most expedient means possible.
Sometimes the most expedient means possible are personal action. Sometimes the most expedient means possible are through small, felexible, private charitable organizations. Lastly, sometimes the condition resulting in poverty is of such a scale and magnitude that the power and resources of government represent the most expedient means possible.
We should use the most appropriate tool for the job and should not limit our choice because of a political ideology. Having worked as a volunteer at a Homeless shelter and Food Bank I fully believe that small flexible, faith-based orgaizations are often more effective than large government agencies in dealing with the root causes of poverty. But not always. When the causes of poverty are structural and systemic the government may need to step in.
That may be the most shallow thing I have heard you say (well, excepting maybe the time you said the “poor” could not read food labels thus they are fat 😉
The MOST expedient way may be to cut off the heads of anyone making over $50,000 a year, and take all they have. There is nothing in our faith that calls you to be this unthinking…
The rest of your post is the usual talking points. Notice how you refuse to address the underlying philosophy of man that your Marxism and socialism assumes. You claim to be a Christian, then most everything else you say reveals you to hold anti-Christian theories of man. Of course, we have already been over this many times so really my words are in vain…
DeanS, Yes, and when the gov’t does step in 9 times out of 10 they make the problem worse! Rather than help people help themselves and act as a temporary cushion for tough times, the gov’t institutionalizes them and turns healthy and able bodied adults into wards of the state completely dependent on the gov’t. Instead of teaching them how to fish and teaching them self-reliance and self-respect, it demotivates, entraps, and enslaves them. How’s that for “Christian love.” Hence the term “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Despite such huge odds, fully 95% of the poor free themselves (thanks in large part to their own hard work, believing in the American dream, and relying on remnants of capitalist system that still survive despite the relenteless efforts by the radical leftists in this country to exterminate it) and in just 16 years escape their station and wind up in the middle class and 30% of them even make it in the top 20% income earners in the country. Now that’s the real miracle!
note 9
Despite such huge odds, fully 95% of the poor free themselves
Of course, but that assumes Dean has a heart for the facts. He’s not, he’s here to spread ideology. It would be great if he actually argued it, but he does not, he simply asserts it (over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…). When asked to discuss the philosophy behind it, he simply moves on to more assertions. Now, what word would describe such behavior I wonder?
Chris B. writes: “and when the gov’t does step in 9 times out of 10 they make the problem worse!”
I don’t see any evidence of that at all. Remember, many people who receive state or federal assistance of some kind are medically indigent, disabled, retarded, mentally ill, elderly, sometimes living in group homes, nursing homes, or skilled nursing facilities. “Helping the poor” goes far beyond traditional welfare programs.
Chris B.: ” Rather than help people help themselves and act as a temporary cushion for tough times, the gov’t institutionalizes them and turns healthy and able bodied adults into wards of the state completely dependent on the gov’t.”
I believe you are referring to the welfare programs of several decades ago. Thanks to welfare reforms passed in the 1990s states now have the ability to impose time limits on welfare recipients, including reduction or termination of benefits.
Chris B.: “Instead of teaching them how to fish and teaching them self-reliance and self-respect, it demotivates, entraps, and enslaves them.”
Again, modern welfare programs can provide educational benefits. I personally know a woman with three children who was on welfare for three years. During that time she got an associate degree at the local community college and went on to support herself and her children. She eventually completed a four-year degree. Welfare literally taught her how to fish.
Chris B.: “Despite such huge odds, fully 95% of the poor free themselves . . . and in just 16 years escape their station and wind up in the middle class and 30% of them even make it in the top 20% income earners in the country. Now that’s the real miracle!”
I think the miracle may be somewhat more mundane. Longitudinal studies such as the one to which I believe you refer typically do not distinguish between length of time in the work force. For example, I graduated from college during the worst recession in my state since the great depression. Coming from a family without any business connections, the only job I could find was a very low-paying clerical job. I don’t think I was technically below the poverty line, but I was about as close as you could get to it. At the end of the month I used to go around picking up discarded pop bottles and cans in order to buy peanut butter to have something to spread on bread. A movie was a great luxury. My car was a rusted-out Chevy Impala that I paid $200 for. This car had been in salt air at the coast for a number of years, and I could look at the street through holes in the floor. Cut to 25 years later, and I have money to burn, a paid-off house, and am about to retire at age 55.
But my progress was simply due to the fact that at one point I was young and starting out, and at the later point I had managed to crawl up the ladder. But that was no miracle; it was just what happens as someone with a college education makes progress in life. But on a census report, I’m going to look like someone who made this great progress. But the progress wasn’t a miracle; it was natural, and as long as I showed up for work, predictable. And I’m happy to pay taxes in order to help those who have not been as fortunate as I.
Christopher writes: “That may be the most shallow thing I have heard you say . . . Of course, but that assumes Dean has a heart for the facts. He’s not, he’s here to spread ideology.”
Some time it would be interesting to read one of your posts that wasn’t a slam against someone who posts here, or against the “liberals,” or the “materialists.” You typically use the content of the blog as a weapon against those whom you perceive as opponents. You also use Orthodoxy in that way. I’m sure that Orthodoxy is a very profound religion, but it makes for an unattractive weapon.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/
DeanS, Right back at you:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_failed_party.html
BTW, Please stop spamming this blog with so much intellectually thin ideological quotes and generalizations. Please submit mostly your “own” on-topic ideas, comments and observations or don’t bother. We’ve all heard the propaganda and the liberal-leftist party line. We don’t need more of it here. If you still feel the need to post there are countless liberal-left sites out there where they would welcome this stuff.
ChrisB – In the next few years we are going to hear a lot of ideas regarding the future of the Conservative movement in the post-Bush era, and I look forward to the essays and thoughts you are going to provide on the subject. Obviously todays’ Conservative movement combines different strands, traditional conservatism, social and faith-based conservatism, fiscal conservatism and supply-side conservatism. As the Conservatives chart their future course they will need to decide which of these elements has value and which have been failures or diversions from authentic conservatism.
The nation faces some real challenges in the next decade that require a proactive national response: for example, the need for energy independence, the unsustainable rising cost of heath care, our nation’s perilously rising debt and low savings rate.
In this environment, the conservative movement has to represent more than just reactionary rejectionism. It can’t just keep saying “No. No. No. No”. It has to offer positive ideas of it’s own to meet these challenges and it has, to some extent, to utilize government to implement policy. So the government is important to Conservatism.
As our government becomes ever more dysfunctional and corrupt, the captive of special interests and entrenched bureaucracies, I see a great opportunity for a conservative movement that could come in and clean things up and restore integrity. That is a movement I would support. But a prerequisite for restoration of government integrity is first taking the concept of government seriously.
If you want me to leave here is all you have to do. Change the name of the Web site to “Right-Wing Conservative OrthodoxNet”. Then you will have honestly labeled your intentions and I will leave you and your little echo chamber alone.
But as long as your using the name of my faith, a faith I was baptized into as an infant, the faith of my Great-Grandfather – an Orthodox Priest, the faith of my ancestors in Greece stretching back more than a millenia, I will not allow you to misuse that name. Wolves in sheeps clothing will not be allowed to be associate the name of Othodoxy Christianity by with a political ideology of greed, selfishness, intolerance and hate without challenge. The Orthodox Church is Our Heavenly Father’s House and not a den for political opportunists.
DeanS: Government is made up of people, sinful people. All government power comes ultimately from its ability to use deadly force or at least to coerce. Democratic government will always sink to the lowest common denominator over time and tend to a sophisticated form of mob rule.
A given populace will always have the type and form of government it wants ,i.e., the character and psychological state of the people being governed determines how much tryanny they accept, even welcome or conversely how much freedom they wish to be responsible for.
A free society requires a people who are willing to accept the consequences of their own actions and are not constantly looking for someone else to do it for them, but that we have a responsibility to help others as we can. In free societies there is the realization that human problems are not mass problems, but personal problems, sometimes multiplied to large numbers. Liberal policies tend to steal our ability to exercise such freedom as they always seems to assume that human problems are mass problems. Such an idea is not compatible with Christianity, IMO because it tends to support tyranny “for the greater good”, and misunderstands the nature of man. Libertarianism tends to assume that all people can shoulder such responsibilities without help at all and is equally a denial of the the nature of man. We are unique persons (not individuals) in community.
The 20th century saw the rise of secular utopianism, with its core fallacy of the perfectability of man (the right, the left, the center or the periphery). Such utopianism attempts to replace the resposibility we have toward God for our own soul and for our fellow creatures with varying degrees of allegiance to or reliance upon the state. Unfortunately, many Orthodox have fallen into error in this regard by either individually or corporately identifying with the state. It is always wrong.
Sergianism is considered a heresy. Certainly countless marytrs have refused allegiance to the state or a central ruler to the glory of God. While the problem is not limited to we Orthodox, as the posters here who are frightened by the prospect of theocracy can attest, we have fallen into the error of excessive identification with the state often in our past, to our sorrow.
Equally, to equate the freedom from sin and death which Jesus Christ has won and offers to us with political freedom can also be a problem. The freedom Christ offers is not dependent upon political or social freedom. Although Christ’s freedom can and has resulted in the expansion of such earthly freedoms, they are not identical. It is a grave mistake to think they are. The mere existence of hierarchy does not mean lack of essential freedom nor does the lack of earthly freedom mean that Christ’s freedom cannot be experienced.
All in all, prophetic evangelism seems to be a more effective method to me than governmental or political activism. At the very least a healthy and profound skepticism about the “good” of govenment should be maintained. As T.S. Eliot had St. Thomas Becket say: “To do the right deed for the wrong reason is surely the greatest treason.”
DeanS. Governement is much better at de-forming character than it is at forming character. That is because government is first and foremost about power: the poltics of how to acquire it and how to use it.
In some hands even sensible laws, say for instance against murder, are gradually transmogrified into attempting to punish every possible emotional and mental state or belief that might result in murder at some point. So we have “hate crimes”. Making it a crime to even think something (that something is always determined by those in power as a way of maintaining their power)
On the other side of the coin in an orgy of moral relativism, children, for instance, are left without any effective legal protection from pedophiles and other perverts because it is not up to “us” to judge the perpatrators. We must be “fair”. When anybody can get away with anything, those in power are free to develop their own tax gobbling programs to support virtually any type of behavior except genuine virtue. All politicians are profoundly guilty such perverse activities.
To expect any type of genuine solution to any human problem from any government is just plain stupid. At best government can help to lessen the worst behavior and provide a few bandages for those who are damaged.
As it is today, government, primarily through “public education”, i.e. indoctrination and pig trough programs encourages all types of venality and self-indulgence in all classes, races, genders, sub-genders, etc.,etc. All the while putting out the siren song that if you will just vote for (fill in the blank) all will be well, because we will take care of everything. All we need is your money (if you have any), your children, and your soul. Nothing to worry about at all, is there?
Or the libertarian equivalent: “Hey man, do your own thing as long as you can afford it, why not, nothing you do has any consequence for anybody else anyway, man.”
DeanS, This is the last time you will be allowed to hurl wholesale smears and unjustified insults at all the conservative and conservative Orthodox visitors and contributors to this site. I am glad you have, yet again, shown your bias and intolerance of thought and proven that indeed you are a TROLL in the truest sense of the word.
As much as I disagree with Christopher’s somewhat strong personal attacks, this time he is 100% right. In just the last couple of weeks you have managed to again and again unjustifiably attack and insult all of us, inflame the debates, and toss around a great deal of leftist-liberal and communist propaganda in the name of “Orthodoxy”. It is truly disgusting to witness a fellow Christian behave like Al Franken and embrace the deadly communist ideology that has done the greatest harm to our Holy Orthood Church and enslaved, tortured and killed tens of millions of Orthodox Christians over the last 90+ years.
It is people just like you in the West who enabled and cheered on the communist ideals and tolerated the leftist propaganda machine who hid the horror and evil perpetrated by the communists who imprisoned, tortured, and killed members of my own family. I escaped to the US to flee the communist holocaust and gulags only to encounter free men like you who continue to promote and push the same demonic ideology and help enslave yet another society with the deadly lies of communism. And you do this all the while claiming that communism and Orthodox Christianity share the same values.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/jan-feb/scharlemann.html
Wolves in sheeps clothing will not be allowed to be associate the name of Othodoxy Christianity by with a political ideology of greed, selfishness, intolerance and hate without challenge. The Orthodox Church is Our Heavenly Father’s House and not a den for political opportunists.
LOL!! Dean is good for the laughs. As we have said before many times, Dean is the most ideological person here.
Dean, here is a tip: get serious about understanding the Orthodox view of man, the Fall, and God.
Only then will you see it is in fact your marxist/socialist ideology that is “a political ideology of greed, selfishness, intolerance and hate”.
OR, let’s all simply be honest and admit (in the open, in plain terms) that Dean is not an honest participant at all – he has always simply been here to post propaganda over and over and over and over…
DeanS, if you would show some acutal familiarity with the tenets and teachings of the Orthodox faith rather than continually mis-identifying the democrat party political ideolgy with the tenets and teachings of the Orthodox Church using quotes from liberal protestants and the Pope of Rome as support (if you have any at all).
From my perspective you have continually shown yourself captive to political ideology at the expense of the reality of Orthodox faith. While it is obvious that Chris has his own political ax to grind, I have yet to see anything from him that remotely paralells your sycophancy to non-Christian ideology.
As far as your Orthodox lineage is concerned it would be wise to remember that Jesus can raise up stones to praise who He is when the Sons of Abraham have forgotten their calling.
Michael writes: “From my perspective you have continually shown yourself captive to political ideology at the expense of the reality of Orthodox faith.”
I find discussions such as this baffling. This blog is highly political and ideological. I mean that in a purely descriptive, non-critical way. There is a definite viewpoint here, and that’s fine. But in that context, it seems odd to me to assert that Dean is too ideological. To the extent that Dean is perceived is overly enthusiastic about the Democrats, I think that is due to the continual flow of anti-Democratic (big “D”) and anti-liberal articles. The blog definitely has a right to its own viewpoint, but one consequence of that is an imbalance in the point of view. The sins of Democrats and liberals are extolled in detail while the sins of Republicans and conservatives are often ignored. On the day that Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Guliani what’s posted here? A piece on Hillary Clinton. Senator Larry Craig? He doesn’t exist here.
While Dean’s feet are held to the fire, other things pass by without comment. A quotation that Chris posted recently said that “It is conservative ideas in practice that have reinvigorated and sustained our economy for two decades, reduced welfare dependency and put criminals behind bars, for example. And it is the conservative embrace of American greatness that permits the nation to confront and defeat its enemies.”
Well, eight years of those two decades had a Democratic president. A Republican congress and Democratic president worked together to enforce fiscal responsibility. A Republican congress and Democratic president worked together to bring about welfare reform. And portraying the disastrous Iraq war as a consequence of embracing “American greatness” is beyond belief.
And speaking of welfare reform, it seems that the home team is not aware of that. Due to bipartisan reforms in the late 1990s states now have the opportunity to limit the time spent on welfare. Many states have taken advantage of that opportunity. But for the home team we’re still back in the 1960s, and welfare reform never happened.
And speaking of “the poor,” as I pointed out in a previous post, much of the money spent on the poor is spent on people who are elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and so on. And as I mentioned, many state welfare programs now have time limits. What’s interesting to me is that I have never been able to get anyone here to define who should be helped and who should not. So I say “great, let’s reduce income redistribution by cutting off Medicaid for elderly patients in nursing homes. We’ll just let them die in the street.” The response is “oh no, we’re not talking about that.” So I say “great, what are you talking about.” The answer is silence. How easy it is to diss the “liberals” and how hard it is for people on the right to explain what they are actually in favor of. It’s easier to tear down a building than to construct one.
Jim you keep confusing Republicans with conservatism, big difference. Also, for the last time, not one conservative who posts on this blog, despite the lies and smears by Dean and occasional digs by you, has any issues with the gov’t taking care of the sick, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, etc.. Not sure where this is coming from except from the ideological blinders that consider any criticism of “big gov’t providing solutions to everything” (ie: nanny state) as being “right wing.” That’s intellectually dishonest and not where I see this blog heading.
Chris B. writes: “Jim you keep confusing Republicans with conservatism, big difference.”
It’s not that I’m confusing the difference, but that the difference is confused. Who is a conservative? Republican Barry Goldwater, who disliked the religious right and was pro-choice, or Pat Robertson who is the face of the religious right, opposes abortion, but endorses a pro-choice candidate? The thrice-married Rush Limbaugh, who packs Viagra on international trips? Republican George Bush, who supported the Iraq war and big government, or Republican Ron Paul, who opposes both? I don’t know who is a conservative any more.
Chris B.: “Also, for the last time, not one conservative who posts on this blog, despite the lies and smears by Dean and occasional digs by you, has any issues with the gov’t taking care of the sick, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, etc.. Not sure where this is coming from except from the ideological blinders that consider any criticism of “big gov’t providing solutions to everything” (ie: nanny state) as being “right wing.” That’s intellectually dishonest and not where I see this blog heading.”
That’s all well and good, but I have never been able to extract an answer here on what the role of government actually should be. People denounce welfare as enabling lifetime dependence on the State, while seemingly ignoring the bipartisan welfare reforms that place strict time limits on welfare eligibility. So if people here are in favor of welfare time limits, and they want to support the sick, elderly, disabled, etc., what exactly is the complaint? What’s the beef? What’s the disagreement with me? I’m certainly not in favor of confiscating all the possessions of the “rich,” and air-dropping bags of money on the poor.
I have never said that government can provide solutions to “everything.” I have said that targeted and well-run government programs can be of great help in specific instances.
You don’t want me to confuse issues? Great. Please don’t confuse what I say with positions that I do not hold. Fair enough?