f9b904f192fb9282176f…

This is why there is no hope in politics, and why I think Lipscomb was dead-on. There should be no “religious right” and “religious left”. It’s just too divisive. The only identifying mark I need is Christian.

Let me try my point again. The religious left can get themselves all in a tizzy when Ann Coulter says something outrageous. However, Bill Maher can make extremely vulgar and offensive statements and I hear nothing from the religious left about it. Why is that? Mike said that he was against Ann Coulter speaking at Harding because she was a “purveyor of hatred.” Now, I know Maher has not been invited to speak at Harding, but I nevertheless decided to ask the simple question if Maher was a purveyor of hatred. I got zilch response to the question. Was it because Maher has not been invited to Harding as was Coulter and thus everyone thought the question irrelevant or was it because no one from the religious left commenting on the blog could bring themselves to say Maher was a purveyor of hatred?

I guess I would be a little more sympathetic to the religious left’s problems with “hate speech” on the right if they showed a bit more concern about what comes from their side of the proverbial aisle.

Of course, a lot of it depends upon how we define hate speech, doesn’t it? For instance, support of any attempt to insure marriage remains between a man and a woman is often defined as hate. When hate starts being defined in such ways, it makes any meaningful conversation pretty tough for those of more “traditional values.” (Of course anyone who would be for such legislation regarding marriage is an ignorant and unenlightened pawn who cannot think for themselves and is easily duped by politicians who merely use the rhetoric of the religious right to get elected — correct?)
I really need to get some work done. I do, however, greatly enjoy these conversations with all of you — even those of you who are hopelessly incorrect.

Note to Greg: You are correct in that I was not excluding the non-Christian allies. My reasoning is that the most vocal groups on both extremes tend to be the religious right and the secular left. That was why I was arguing as I was (plus I like trying to make you guys defend your non-Christian political allies).

Our actions should not depend on whether or not others agree with us or not. Our actions (and words) should be like the Christ no matter what, and expecting outrage when our enemies hate us isn’t the right response. Acting like Jesus doesn’t come with the stipulation that we can do it only when people agree with us. This post of Mike’s isn’t calling us to be outraged at a certain position or group, it’s calling us to act like Jesus.

Thanks for making me clarify though. Sometimes we all need to in order to not be misunderstood.

I haven’t really heard a lot of hate here for any politicians that I can quote. It seems both sides sort of want each other to hold their “side” accountable. That is reasonable I guess if we weren’t all supposed to be on the side of Christ first and foremost. This puts me back to my original argument that any political loyalty, no matter how slight can divide me from my true family.

I do think it is necessary to distinguish what individuals say (both here and in our lives) and what Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore say. I also think it is necessary to distinguish between political discourse and hateful insults.

The gray area to me might be accusations. When someone calls President Bush a “liar”, only they can know whether they truly believe that or if they are just saying it to be mean. Likewise, with some of the stuff I have seen about the Clintons. Sen. Clinton and President Bush have both given their enemies plenty of ammunition to attack their character and the potential consequences for America that they carry. But this seems to be reasonable items for discussion. (How well you can follow Christ in this discussion may be another question.) Even good humor about political personalities or celebrities seems somewhat bearable. But again I don’t think Jesus would go very far down that path. I can’t imagine him thinking that the toilet paper gag was OK. Just like each of us, remember that George Bush and Hillary Clinton are his children too and I think he would be very defensive if you take a low blow.

Greg, if you want to compare comments from the religious right and comments from the left on a vulgarity scale, I’m willing to do it, but it probably should not be done on this blog. Again, I don’t think I am saying what you are trying to attribute here.

My point is that the Christian left likes to point to the religious right’s outrageous statements. I’m not saying it doesn’t come from both sides; I’m just saying I am amazed at how often the Christian left ignores the outrageous comments of their political allies when condemning the Christian right.

Many on the left would make the statement of the right.

“The rhetoric that comes from the right is not only hateful; it is often extremely vulgar and very anti-Christian.”

This is equally true - I’ve heard it, as have many others.

Many on the left have been longing for this “balanced outrage” from the right for a very long time - far longer than those on the right have been looking for it from the left.

It comes from both sides and it’s a shame. But for either side to pretend it’s “the others” who need to change their ways is pretty ridiculous.

Roland
Apr 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm

So, when someone disagrees politicaly with someone else it’s called “hate”?

Mike, I’m waiting for your thread chastising folks like Greg Kendall-Ball or Mr. Mark Elrod and their constant, non-stop insulting, ridicule and utter contempt of the GOP and, specifically, of George W. Bush. Their discussions and comments could be seen as “hate” as well.

It’s all about what jersey you have on if it is “hate” or not.

Jim
Apr 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I would just like to see a little more balanced outrage. The rhetoric that comes from the left is not only hateful; it is often extremely vulgar and very anti-Christian. Yet, I find it curious that some Christians only conjure up any outrage toward those who might be said to be part of the religious right. I find that very interesting.

I’m just saying that the love of Christ must be shown to friends and enemies alike, even when they hate us.

It is imperative that Christians be active participants in the political process. Not so an agenda can be achieved, but so the political process can be commenced with integrity and so the light of Jesus can shine in a dark place.

I have been an elected office holder for more than 14 years. The harshest conversations I have had related to issues facing me in my elected capacity have been held in the church foyer between Bible Class and worship services. I have learned over the years how to delay those conversations. However, the time delay of the conversation does not delay the fervor of their passion.

Bottom line: Christians should be passionately involved in the political process as voters, candidates and office holders. Yet, their passion should not be such that their Christian light and influence is obscured by their obstinate opinions.

Tim, who made such an argument?