A_Plague_on_Both_Houses replied to comment from Alarmed Pig Farmer | February 26, 2010 1:17 PM | Reply
Moderate Unicorns
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few authoritative Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn hunting.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. Since Mohammed is 'The Perfect Example for Men in all times and places', ( Qur'an 33.21), moderates have no legitimacy when admonishing other Muslims to stop the extremist acts Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
That is why we must remain firm in talking about islam, so as to learn, and allow muslims to debate with in them selves, and if they want to leave Islam, then a people who in part will understand and support where the apostates come from
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
Zack Highstreet - A Plague on Both Houses
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Nothing became Everything
Kiwiblog
Scott (490) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am
The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything. For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand. For no particular reason intelligent life evolved, with thinking and morals. But thinking and morals is really all just a joke. We are the products of a heartless universe who does not care about us. The universe is one giant killing machine that allows only the fittest to survive. There is no moral code, love is but a figment of our imagination, there is no free will, no afterlife, nothing of any value whatsoever.
But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense. It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.
Neither can it be scientifically proved. How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged? How did nothing explode? Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.
Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy. The fantasy is we can escape from moral responsibility towards God by believing he isn’t there.
Genesis 1:31 God looked over all He had made and He saw that it was very good.
Scott (490) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am
The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything. For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand. For no particular reason intelligent life evolved, with thinking and morals. But thinking and morals is really all just a joke. We are the products of a heartless universe who does not care about us. The universe is one giant killing machine that allows only the fittest to survive. There is no moral code, love is but a figment of our imagination, there is no free will, no afterlife, nothing of any value whatsoever.
But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense. It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.
Neither can it be scientifically proved. How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged? How did nothing explode? Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.
Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy. The fantasy is we can escape from moral responsibility towards God by believing he isn’t there.
Genesis 1:31 God looked over all He had made and He saw that it was very good.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Social Gospel Redistrilbution
I Have Some Questions for Jim Wallis, the American Evangelical Community's Most Famous Promoter (There Are Very Few) of the Left-Wing Social Gospel Movement. He Never Answers These Questions. He Pretends I Do Not Exist. But I Do Exist, Unlike His Answers.
Gary North
"Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote." (Exodus 20:15, as modified by the Social Gospel)
Jim Wallis supports the economic conclusions of the Social Gospel. This is the #1 fact of his ministry and activism.
The Social Gospel is a theological defense of the welfare state. The welfare state relies on a system of compulsory taxation that is backed up by the threat of government violence against taxpaying residents within its jurisdiction.
The welfare state threatens residents and citizens with the following penalties for resisting the tax collector: (1) the confiscation of their assets, (2) fines, and (3) imprisonment. The welfare state's law-enforcement agents are armed and are empowered by law to shoot anyone who physically resists the tax collector.
The welfare state exists only because voters have authorized the confiscation of private property through violence by the state. In the name of helping the poor, middle-class voters extract most of the money: tax-funded education, Social Security, and Medicare. The welfare state is therefore the implementation of covetousness by politics.
Humorist P. J. O'Rourke has described the ethics of welfare state.
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
The Social Gospel defends this system of compulsory wealth-redistribution in the name of Jesus. It teaches that Jesus implicitly favored economic aid to the poor in the form of government policies that can be enforced only by the threat of systematic violence.
No New Testament account of Jesus offers evidence that He recommended such a view of Christian civil government. This inconvenient fact is regarded as a slight impediment by Social Gospelers, but nothing too serious. They insist that this is what Jesus really meant to say, even though He never actually said it, and despite the fact that the Old Testament adamantly denies such a view of civil justice. God through Moses warned:
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Leviticus 19:15)
When you hear the words Social Gospel, immediately think "Pastors' justification of armed government agents acting on behalf of certain special-interest voting blocs to take wealth away from other groups of citizens in order to benefit these special interests." This is exactly what the Social Gospel has always been. The central moral, judicial, and political issue of the Social Gospel is compulsion.
The Social Gospel movement is committed to guns and butter: the government's guns and your butter. The more guns the government has, the less butter you will have.
The Social Gospel's version of Jesus is a long-haired guy in sandals leading a mob of newly registered voters. He is packing a .44 magnum. His motto: "Go ahead, taxpayer. Make my day."
The Social Gospel asks this question: What Would Jesus Steal? Its answer: "As much as He can convince politicians to vote for."
The Social Gospel first began getting a hearing in the United States in the 1880s. It was adopted in 1908 by the newly created, Rockefeller-funded Federal Council of Churches. It came to prominence in the mainline churches in the 1920s, and it was adopted as gospel by most younger pastors of the mainline Protestant churches during the Great Depression of the 1930s. These denominations all began to lose members in the 1960s, a process that continues today.
The Social Gospel for decades was given lip-service by non-church attending politicians who sought support for their tax-and-spend policies. With the visible decline in membership of the mainline Protestant denominations after 1960, whose leadership and seminaries had gone modernist (anti-biblical) theologically, the secular humanists who dominate American politics began to ignore the (now-renamed) National Council of Churches. The Social Gospel lost influence politically and intellectually.
Fundamentalists' Adolescent Rebellion
After 1960, a small percentage of fundamentalist high school graduates who went off to college went through a late-teen rebellion against their parents. Their peers had begun this rebellion two years earlier, while they were still in high school. The late-comers rebelled, conveniently, at their parents' (and often taxpayers') expense. At numerous little denominational colleges, they were exposed to the Social Gospel. In large tax-funded universities, they were exposed to Keynesianism, Fabian socialism, and (after 1965) Marxism.
They wanted to discover a moral justification for their adolescent rebellion against their parents' social outlook. They soon decided that these new-found philosophies of coercive taxation and endless government expansion offered them what they perceived as the high moral ground. They absorbed, temporarily, the slogans of the political Left.
Ten years after graduation, most of them lived in the suburbs, worked for corporations, went to church in seeker-sensitive middle-class independent churches, and voted Republican.
Nevertheless, a few of them remained true to the ideals of their collegiate indoctrination. They announced as "morally Christian" the political demand that all levels of government send out revenue agents to put either a metaphorical or literal gun in your belly and tell you to hand over your wallet. The preachers advocate this in the name of the poor, but in fact they are acting on behalf of the careers of a growing army of college-educated, upper-middle-class bureaucrats, who administer every modern welfare state and extract close to half of the tax money allocated to the poor. This policy, pastors insist, is an inescapable implication of the teachings of Jesus.
There are very few of these people today. They rarely have enough adherents in any city to form even a single evangelical church whose pastor preaches the Social Gospel from the pulpit. They are distrusted in fundamentalist churches, regarded as eccentrics in evangelical churches, and almost the only members under age 60 in liberal churches.
A series of spokesmen have come forward to represent this tiny, politically impotent special-interest group. Ron Sider arrived in 1977 with Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. He faded rapidly in the mid-1980s, to be replaced by sociologist Tony Campolo. Campolo's close connection with President Clinton as one of his spiritual counselors backfired during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998. Campolo then rapidly disappeared from the evangelical scene. Today, Jim Wallis is the best-known representative.
Jim Wallis: Evangelist
In his book, God's Politics (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), he describes his adolescent rebellion against his parents' fundamentalism (pp. 34-35). He went to college and got involved in the civil rights movement. This transformed his thinking, as he readily admits. He says that he later returned to the faith of his youth. It would be far more accurate to say that he came back as a self-conscious agent of the Social Gospel radicals who created the civil rights movement, in order to do "evangelism" work among the still-alienated children of fundamentalism.
Wallis is a part-time instructor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (p. 21). Harper published his book -- one of the major mainstream media publishers. It is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Jim Wallis is in fact an Establishment insider who is playing the role of a prophetic outsider. He is to "prophetic Christianity" what Jimmy Carter was to "prophetic politics." A man can make a career of this if he is skilled at positional marketing. (For more information, click here.) Jim Wallis is a highly skilled practitioner of positional marketing.
Wallis is editor of Sojourners, a magazine of considerable prominence in liberal political circles. Don't get me wrong. Political liberals do not actually read Sojourners, but they know it is out there, softening up the hearts and minds of an ecclesiastically isolated and politically marginal group of evangelicals. To do what? To vote for the next Democratic candidate for President.
Sojourners was not always called Sojourners. It was called Post-American. For a detailed history of his extreme left wing activities in the 1970s, click here.
Jim Wallis still holds to Ron Sider's original vision, which Sider modified into a vague moralism in the 1997 edition of his book. (On Ron Sider, see David Chilton's book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, which is available free on-line.)
Jim Wallis totally misunderstands at least two things: economic theory and what the Bible specifically teaches about economics. I say this as someone who has published over 9,000 pages of verse-by-verse commentaries on the economics of the Bible. I have done my homework. Jim Wallis has not done his.
In God's Politics, Mr. Wallis says that he is getting invitations to be interviewed by evangelical radio talk show hosts, which he says is a new phenomenon for him (pp. 225-26). I have therefore prepared a series of questions for these talk show hosts to ask Mr. Wallis when they get the opportunity.
Jim Wallis lectures and teaches at Harvard, which appreciates his message in God's Politics. This is understandable. Mr. Wallis' politics and economics match the conclusions of the liberal political establishment. This is why he has great difficulty getting a hearing among Bible-believing Christians. No one can successfully play the role of John the Baptist for both Harvard and the Bible Belt, but he tries.
Christian economist William Anderson, once a big Jim Wallis fan, has exposed the fallacies of his economics and his ethical position on property rights: here and here.
In September, 2006, Jim Wallis began a blog dialog on his positions. His challenger? None other than Ralph Reed, a former $30,000 per month adviser for bankrupt Enron and a former co-lobbyist with convicted felon Jack Abramoff. How could anyone lose any debate with a political activist with Reed's reputation? The moral high ground is ten feet below sea level.
In February 2009, his ship finally came in: a boatload of taxpayers' money to hand out to the Democrats' constituents. He will be the guy in charge of the screening system. (It would be unfair to call him a bag man. Or would it?) The story is here.
You may not be a talk show host. Nevertheless, you may find these questions relevant. They will give you an introduction to the Social Gospel, as well as to what the Bible actually teaches about economics, which is radically opposed to the Social Gospel.
Why Is It God's Way to Allow the Government Control Over Health Care -- Life or Death -- by Taxing and Rationing?
Gary North
Here is Sojourners' proposed letter to be sent to Congressmen to get them to vote for Obama's health insurance bill. . . . keep reading
What Is the Common Ground Between Murdered Babies and Live Babies?
Gary North
When two things cannot both exist at the same time, we must choose. . . . keep reading
Why Is It Kingdom Work to Get Congress to Take Money from Other Groups and Give It to Your Group?
Gary North
There was a rally of pressure groups for wealth redistribution in Washington, D.C. in the first week of May. Jim Wallis was there. . . . keep reading
How Do You Determine What Is a Person's Fair Share of Taxes, Other Than by the Ballot Box and a Gun?
Gary North
Protestant evangelical Jim Wallis, the Social Gospel's #1 advocate today, says it's only fair that the rich should pay more -- as if they haven't since 1914. He is now advising Obama. . . . keep reading
Isn't It Risky to Become a Cheerleader for a New President Based on His First Major Speech?
Gary North
Aren't you making the same mistake that Reaganites made with Reagan in 1981? What if the same problems remain in 2012, the national debt rises by 50%, and double-digit price inflation returns? . . . keep reading
Why Is an Additional $787 Billion Federal Government Deficit the Christian Way of Helping the Poor?
Gary North
It comes as no surprise that Jim Wallis favors the proposed $787 billion economic stimulus law. It also comes as no surprise that he does not approve of the tax cuts in the bill. . . . keep reading
Why Are You, Rather Than James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, the Most Representative Spokesman for "The Religious Community"?
Gary North
Jim Wallis speaks of the "Religious Community" -- capitalized -- but he never defines it. There is a reason for this: What he calls "The Religious Community" is not the enormous group that is represented by Dobson and Falwell. It is a tiny Left-wing political action group. . . . keep reading
Why Is It Immoral for the Government to Cut Taxes for the Rich When the Rich Pay Most of the Taxes?
Gary North
Jim Wallis promotes the myth that tax cuts for the rich are unfair to the poor. The fact is, the poor pay almost no taxes. Cutting taxes for the rich does not hurt the poor. . . . keep reading
Why Is the Social Security Tax (FICA) a Biblical Requirement, When the Bible Speaks of Taking Care of Our Own Parents?
Gary North
Jim Wallis takes the commandment regarding taking care of our parents and turns it into a moral justification for taxing strangers to take care of our parents. Paul even forbids the church to care for widows who have relatives to pay for them. The State has no legitimate role here. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Invoke the Jubilee Year Law, When That Law Rested on Israel's Genocide of Canaan?
Gary North
Of all Mosaic economic laws for a liberal not to invoke, it is the Jubilee law. Not only did it rest judicially on genocide, it authorized inter-generational slavery. It was annulled by Jesus. Yet the evangelical Social Gospel crowd always invokes the Jubilee Year to defend wealth-redistribution. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Keep Hoping that Federal Money Won't Undermine the Independence of Every Private Agency That Takes It?
Gary North
There is no more reliable slogan than this one: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Welfare State liberals have never believed this. They always believe that their constituents can take taxpayers' money and not be called to dance to the government's tune. . . . keep reading
Why Don't You Trust the Poor and Private Charities to Provide an Escape Hatch from Poverty Without Government Money?
Gary North
Welfare State liberals do not trust the poor to find solutions on their own without the helping hand of a government bureaucrat, preferably Federal. They define "family" as "a parent, a child, and a government bureaucrat." . . . keep reading
Why Didn't Clinton's 1997 Reductions in Federal Welfare Funding Cause the Predicted "Hurricane" for the Poor?
Gary North
In 1997, Jim Wallis warned of a "hurricane": a looming reduction of Federal welfare money. The sky was about to fall. Of course, it didn't. Poor people are resourceful, contrary to welfare State liberals. They adjusted. Welfare State liberals have yet to adjust. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Confuse the State, an Agency of Violence, With Society, the Product of Voluntary Activities and Liberty?
Gary North
Jim Wallis, like all Social Gospel welfare statists, confuses the State with society. He calls on the State to improve society by taking money from the rich and give it to the poor (minus 50% for handling). . . . keep reading
Which Evangelical Leaders Have Joined With You in Your Social Gospel Crusades?
Gary North
Jim Wallis lives in a fantasy world. He actually believes that American evangelicals are showing moral leadership in the fight against global poverty, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking, and sustainability of God's earth. Has he ever watched Trinity Broadcasting Network? . . . keep reading
If You Are Opposed to War, Why Did You Call on the United Nations to Invade Iraq?
Gary North
Basic to Jim Wallis's positional marketing strategy is to identify himself as a peace-loving man who is opposed to war. But his commitment to economic coercion always trumps his position as a peace activist. The man is committed to organized violence. . . . keep reading
More Headlines
Gary North
"Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote." (Exodus 20:15, as modified by the Social Gospel)
Jim Wallis supports the economic conclusions of the Social Gospel. This is the #1 fact of his ministry and activism.
The Social Gospel is a theological defense of the welfare state. The welfare state relies on a system of compulsory taxation that is backed up by the threat of government violence against taxpaying residents within its jurisdiction.
The welfare state threatens residents and citizens with the following penalties for resisting the tax collector: (1) the confiscation of their assets, (2) fines, and (3) imprisonment. The welfare state's law-enforcement agents are armed and are empowered by law to shoot anyone who physically resists the tax collector.
The welfare state exists only because voters have authorized the confiscation of private property through violence by the state. In the name of helping the poor, middle-class voters extract most of the money: tax-funded education, Social Security, and Medicare. The welfare state is therefore the implementation of covetousness by politics.
Humorist P. J. O'Rourke has described the ethics of welfare state.
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
The Social Gospel defends this system of compulsory wealth-redistribution in the name of Jesus. It teaches that Jesus implicitly favored economic aid to the poor in the form of government policies that can be enforced only by the threat of systematic violence.
No New Testament account of Jesus offers evidence that He recommended such a view of Christian civil government. This inconvenient fact is regarded as a slight impediment by Social Gospelers, but nothing too serious. They insist that this is what Jesus really meant to say, even though He never actually said it, and despite the fact that the Old Testament adamantly denies such a view of civil justice. God through Moses warned:
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Leviticus 19:15)
When you hear the words Social Gospel, immediately think "Pastors' justification of armed government agents acting on behalf of certain special-interest voting blocs to take wealth away from other groups of citizens in order to benefit these special interests." This is exactly what the Social Gospel has always been. The central moral, judicial, and political issue of the Social Gospel is compulsion.
The Social Gospel movement is committed to guns and butter: the government's guns and your butter. The more guns the government has, the less butter you will have.
The Social Gospel's version of Jesus is a long-haired guy in sandals leading a mob of newly registered voters. He is packing a .44 magnum. His motto: "Go ahead, taxpayer. Make my day."
The Social Gospel asks this question: What Would Jesus Steal? Its answer: "As much as He can convince politicians to vote for."
The Social Gospel first began getting a hearing in the United States in the 1880s. It was adopted in 1908 by the newly created, Rockefeller-funded Federal Council of Churches. It came to prominence in the mainline churches in the 1920s, and it was adopted as gospel by most younger pastors of the mainline Protestant churches during the Great Depression of the 1930s. These denominations all began to lose members in the 1960s, a process that continues today.
The Social Gospel for decades was given lip-service by non-church attending politicians who sought support for their tax-and-spend policies. With the visible decline in membership of the mainline Protestant denominations after 1960, whose leadership and seminaries had gone modernist (anti-biblical) theologically, the secular humanists who dominate American politics began to ignore the (now-renamed) National Council of Churches. The Social Gospel lost influence politically and intellectually.
Fundamentalists' Adolescent Rebellion
After 1960, a small percentage of fundamentalist high school graduates who went off to college went through a late-teen rebellion against their parents. Their peers had begun this rebellion two years earlier, while they were still in high school. The late-comers rebelled, conveniently, at their parents' (and often taxpayers') expense. At numerous little denominational colleges, they were exposed to the Social Gospel. In large tax-funded universities, they were exposed to Keynesianism, Fabian socialism, and (after 1965) Marxism.
They wanted to discover a moral justification for their adolescent rebellion against their parents' social outlook. They soon decided that these new-found philosophies of coercive taxation and endless government expansion offered them what they perceived as the high moral ground. They absorbed, temporarily, the slogans of the political Left.
Ten years after graduation, most of them lived in the suburbs, worked for corporations, went to church in seeker-sensitive middle-class independent churches, and voted Republican.
Nevertheless, a few of them remained true to the ideals of their collegiate indoctrination. They announced as "morally Christian" the political demand that all levels of government send out revenue agents to put either a metaphorical or literal gun in your belly and tell you to hand over your wallet. The preachers advocate this in the name of the poor, but in fact they are acting on behalf of the careers of a growing army of college-educated, upper-middle-class bureaucrats, who administer every modern welfare state and extract close to half of the tax money allocated to the poor. This policy, pastors insist, is an inescapable implication of the teachings of Jesus.
There are very few of these people today. They rarely have enough adherents in any city to form even a single evangelical church whose pastor preaches the Social Gospel from the pulpit. They are distrusted in fundamentalist churches, regarded as eccentrics in evangelical churches, and almost the only members under age 60 in liberal churches.
A series of spokesmen have come forward to represent this tiny, politically impotent special-interest group. Ron Sider arrived in 1977 with Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. He faded rapidly in the mid-1980s, to be replaced by sociologist Tony Campolo. Campolo's close connection with President Clinton as one of his spiritual counselors backfired during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998. Campolo then rapidly disappeared from the evangelical scene. Today, Jim Wallis is the best-known representative.
Jim Wallis: Evangelist
In his book, God's Politics (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), he describes his adolescent rebellion against his parents' fundamentalism (pp. 34-35). He went to college and got involved in the civil rights movement. This transformed his thinking, as he readily admits. He says that he later returned to the faith of his youth. It would be far more accurate to say that he came back as a self-conscious agent of the Social Gospel radicals who created the civil rights movement, in order to do "evangelism" work among the still-alienated children of fundamentalism.
Wallis is a part-time instructor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (p. 21). Harper published his book -- one of the major mainstream media publishers. It is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Jim Wallis is in fact an Establishment insider who is playing the role of a prophetic outsider. He is to "prophetic Christianity" what Jimmy Carter was to "prophetic politics." A man can make a career of this if he is skilled at positional marketing. (For more information, click here.) Jim Wallis is a highly skilled practitioner of positional marketing.
Wallis is editor of Sojourners, a magazine of considerable prominence in liberal political circles. Don't get me wrong. Political liberals do not actually read Sojourners, but they know it is out there, softening up the hearts and minds of an ecclesiastically isolated and politically marginal group of evangelicals. To do what? To vote for the next Democratic candidate for President.
Sojourners was not always called Sojourners. It was called Post-American. For a detailed history of his extreme left wing activities in the 1970s, click here.
Jim Wallis still holds to Ron Sider's original vision, which Sider modified into a vague moralism in the 1997 edition of his book. (On Ron Sider, see David Chilton's book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, which is available free on-line.)
Jim Wallis totally misunderstands at least two things: economic theory and what the Bible specifically teaches about economics. I say this as someone who has published over 9,000 pages of verse-by-verse commentaries on the economics of the Bible. I have done my homework. Jim Wallis has not done his.
In God's Politics, Mr. Wallis says that he is getting invitations to be interviewed by evangelical radio talk show hosts, which he says is a new phenomenon for him (pp. 225-26). I have therefore prepared a series of questions for these talk show hosts to ask Mr. Wallis when they get the opportunity.
Jim Wallis lectures and teaches at Harvard, which appreciates his message in God's Politics. This is understandable. Mr. Wallis' politics and economics match the conclusions of the liberal political establishment. This is why he has great difficulty getting a hearing among Bible-believing Christians. No one can successfully play the role of John the Baptist for both Harvard and the Bible Belt, but he tries.
Christian economist William Anderson, once a big Jim Wallis fan, has exposed the fallacies of his economics and his ethical position on property rights: here and here.
In September, 2006, Jim Wallis began a blog dialog on his positions. His challenger? None other than Ralph Reed, a former $30,000 per month adviser for bankrupt Enron and a former co-lobbyist with convicted felon Jack Abramoff. How could anyone lose any debate with a political activist with Reed's reputation? The moral high ground is ten feet below sea level.
In February 2009, his ship finally came in: a boatload of taxpayers' money to hand out to the Democrats' constituents. He will be the guy in charge of the screening system. (It would be unfair to call him a bag man. Or would it?) The story is here.
You may not be a talk show host. Nevertheless, you may find these questions relevant. They will give you an introduction to the Social Gospel, as well as to what the Bible actually teaches about economics, which is radically opposed to the Social Gospel.
Why Is It God's Way to Allow the Government Control Over Health Care -- Life or Death -- by Taxing and Rationing?
Gary North
Here is Sojourners' proposed letter to be sent to Congressmen to get them to vote for Obama's health insurance bill. . . . keep reading
What Is the Common Ground Between Murdered Babies and Live Babies?
Gary North
When two things cannot both exist at the same time, we must choose. . . . keep reading
Why Is It Kingdom Work to Get Congress to Take Money from Other Groups and Give It to Your Group?
Gary North
There was a rally of pressure groups for wealth redistribution in Washington, D.C. in the first week of May. Jim Wallis was there. . . . keep reading
How Do You Determine What Is a Person's Fair Share of Taxes, Other Than by the Ballot Box and a Gun?
Gary North
Protestant evangelical Jim Wallis, the Social Gospel's #1 advocate today, says it's only fair that the rich should pay more -- as if they haven't since 1914. He is now advising Obama. . . . keep reading
Isn't It Risky to Become a Cheerleader for a New President Based on His First Major Speech?
Gary North
Aren't you making the same mistake that Reaganites made with Reagan in 1981? What if the same problems remain in 2012, the national debt rises by 50%, and double-digit price inflation returns? . . . keep reading
Why Is an Additional $787 Billion Federal Government Deficit the Christian Way of Helping the Poor?
Gary North
It comes as no surprise that Jim Wallis favors the proposed $787 billion economic stimulus law. It also comes as no surprise that he does not approve of the tax cuts in the bill. . . . keep reading
Why Are You, Rather Than James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, the Most Representative Spokesman for "The Religious Community"?
Gary North
Jim Wallis speaks of the "Religious Community" -- capitalized -- but he never defines it. There is a reason for this: What he calls "The Religious Community" is not the enormous group that is represented by Dobson and Falwell. It is a tiny Left-wing political action group. . . . keep reading
Why Is It Immoral for the Government to Cut Taxes for the Rich When the Rich Pay Most of the Taxes?
Gary North
Jim Wallis promotes the myth that tax cuts for the rich are unfair to the poor. The fact is, the poor pay almost no taxes. Cutting taxes for the rich does not hurt the poor. . . . keep reading
Why Is the Social Security Tax (FICA) a Biblical Requirement, When the Bible Speaks of Taking Care of Our Own Parents?
Gary North
Jim Wallis takes the commandment regarding taking care of our parents and turns it into a moral justification for taxing strangers to take care of our parents. Paul even forbids the church to care for widows who have relatives to pay for them. The State has no legitimate role here. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Invoke the Jubilee Year Law, When That Law Rested on Israel's Genocide of Canaan?
Gary North
Of all Mosaic economic laws for a liberal not to invoke, it is the Jubilee law. Not only did it rest judicially on genocide, it authorized inter-generational slavery. It was annulled by Jesus. Yet the evangelical Social Gospel crowd always invokes the Jubilee Year to defend wealth-redistribution. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Keep Hoping that Federal Money Won't Undermine the Independence of Every Private Agency That Takes It?
Gary North
There is no more reliable slogan than this one: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Welfare State liberals have never believed this. They always believe that their constituents can take taxpayers' money and not be called to dance to the government's tune. . . . keep reading
Why Don't You Trust the Poor and Private Charities to Provide an Escape Hatch from Poverty Without Government Money?
Gary North
Welfare State liberals do not trust the poor to find solutions on their own without the helping hand of a government bureaucrat, preferably Federal. They define "family" as "a parent, a child, and a government bureaucrat." . . . keep reading
Why Didn't Clinton's 1997 Reductions in Federal Welfare Funding Cause the Predicted "Hurricane" for the Poor?
Gary North
In 1997, Jim Wallis warned of a "hurricane": a looming reduction of Federal welfare money. The sky was about to fall. Of course, it didn't. Poor people are resourceful, contrary to welfare State liberals. They adjusted. Welfare State liberals have yet to adjust. . . . keep reading
Why Do You Confuse the State, an Agency of Violence, With Society, the Product of Voluntary Activities and Liberty?
Gary North
Jim Wallis, like all Social Gospel welfare statists, confuses the State with society. He calls on the State to improve society by taking money from the rich and give it to the poor (minus 50% for handling). . . . keep reading
Which Evangelical Leaders Have Joined With You in Your Social Gospel Crusades?
Gary North
Jim Wallis lives in a fantasy world. He actually believes that American evangelicals are showing moral leadership in the fight against global poverty, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking, and sustainability of God's earth. Has he ever watched Trinity Broadcasting Network? . . . keep reading
If You Are Opposed to War, Why Did You Call on the United Nations to Invade Iraq?
Gary North
Basic to Jim Wallis's positional marketing strategy is to identify himself as a peace-loving man who is opposed to war. But his commitment to economic coercion always trumps his position as a peace activist. The man is committed to organized violence. . . . keep reading
More Headlines
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Truth or Dare ?
Zenster said...
As I noted in GoV’s “The Would-Be Witnesses” article:
If the truth can't be told, then it's not much of a defense now, is it?.
Pat Condell takes this idea and rips away any pretense or obfuscation.
Condell, in his usual succinct manner sums it up even more tersely when he says, “… let’s be clear, this is a heresy trial by any other name.”
Just how pathetic is it when the vanguards of supposedly “progressive”, post-modern idealists instead fall back upon the weakest elements found in the sort of religious traditions they have so vigorously sought to vilify and belittle?
The Dutch judges and most modern Liberals all display a pseudo-religious belief in their most sacred cow of cows, Multiculturalism. Even as this warped ideology demands that their children be slain upon the blood-stained altar of Politically Correctness, they grimly march forth, determined to act like the most superstitious and barely post-pagan believers that they presume to mock.
In such a milieu, Wilders is quite the heretic, his words are the very worst sort of blasphemy and the truth a long-forgotten echo of the reality they have unanimously resolved to ignore. For a moment, let’s forget this sort of willful blindness and examine the disconnection from reality required to achieve the pseudo-religious mentality displayed by these Dutch judges.
Their behavior consists of Magical Thinking™. As if, through acceptance and appeasement, all Muslims will suddenly abandon their jihadist imperative and somehow disregard the ease with which such a contemptible foe could be subjugated. These budding social engineers delude themselves into thinking that modern technological society can uplift even the most barbaric savages. All the while neglecting how it is an enlightened and civilized culture that gave birth to the very tools they think these Neanderthals will abruptly wield with deft precision. For fear of denying this basic fact, they are prepared to commit actual suicide by falling upon Islam’s sword of their own volition.
They’re like somebody who’s prepared to chop off their own hand to avoid being seen scratching their @ss in public.
2/05/2010 3:25 PM
As I noted in GoV’s “The Would-Be Witnesses” article:
If the truth can't be told, then it's not much of a defense now, is it?.
Pat Condell takes this idea and rips away any pretense or obfuscation.
[00:44] They’ve accused him [Wilders] of being divisive and inflammatory and, yes, sometimes the truth can be divisive and inflammatory if its been suppressed for long enough and has become sufficiently taboo as it clearly has in the Netherlands.
Because according to the prosecution, it doesn’t even matter that what he says is true what matters is that it’s illegal. Well, when the truth is against the law then there’s something seriously wrong with the law.
Because when the truth is no defense then there is no defense and the law has no anchor so it will drift wherever the wind of political expedience blows and this week it blew straight into a crooked courtroom in Amsterdam where justice will now be made to fight for its life, starved of the oxygen of truth that gives it life.
Condell, in his usual succinct manner sums it up even more tersely when he says, “… let’s be clear, this is a heresy trial by any other name.”
Just how pathetic is it when the vanguards of supposedly “progressive”, post-modern idealists instead fall back upon the weakest elements found in the sort of religious traditions they have so vigorously sought to vilify and belittle?
The Dutch judges and most modern Liberals all display a pseudo-religious belief in their most sacred cow of cows, Multiculturalism. Even as this warped ideology demands that their children be slain upon the blood-stained altar of Politically Correctness, they grimly march forth, determined to act like the most superstitious and barely post-pagan believers that they presume to mock.
In such a milieu, Wilders is quite the heretic, his words are the very worst sort of blasphemy and the truth a long-forgotten echo of the reality they have unanimously resolved to ignore. For a moment, let’s forget this sort of willful blindness and examine the disconnection from reality required to achieve the pseudo-religious mentality displayed by these Dutch judges.
Their behavior consists of Magical Thinking™. As if, through acceptance and appeasement, all Muslims will suddenly abandon their jihadist imperative and somehow disregard the ease with which such a contemptible foe could be subjugated. These budding social engineers delude themselves into thinking that modern technological society can uplift even the most barbaric savages. All the while neglecting how it is an enlightened and civilized culture that gave birth to the very tools they think these Neanderthals will abruptly wield with deft precision. For fear of denying this basic fact, they are prepared to commit actual suicide by falling upon Islam’s sword of their own volition.
They’re like somebody who’s prepared to chop off their own hand to avoid being seen scratching their @ss in public.
2/05/2010 3:25 PM
Monday, February 1, 2010
cult of indiscriminateness
Why is discrimination bad?
Have you watched
Evan Sayet's “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals “Think”"?
Here is a brief snippet from Sayet's enormously entertaining lecture which captures the essence of this issue :
What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a “cult of indiscriminateness.” The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your great-great-great-great-great grandfather’s birth; that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought. There’s a brilliant book out there called The Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recognition, that they’d been raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. I paraphrase this in my own works: “In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”
Have you watched
Evan Sayet's “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals “Think”"?
Here is a brief snippet from Sayet's enormously entertaining lecture which captures the essence of this issue :
What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a “cult of indiscriminateness.” The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your great-great-great-great-great grandfather’s birth; that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought. There’s a brilliant book out there called The Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recognition, that they’d been raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. I paraphrase this in my own works: “In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
