Re: Spiritual Covenant

Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 08:52 PM 5/21/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> Janice Matchett wrote:
>
>> *Pim: */"....As far as doing everything they can to see that they
>> are imposed upon us, *is that not what the religious right is trying
>> to do*? ..."/
>
>
> *@@@ * Unlike their counterparts in the radical left, there are only a
> few fringe zealots (the Dominionist / Reconstructionist movement) who
> also dream of circumventing our Constitution so as to be able to
> impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us --- for our own good,
> of course. As a "non-living document", the Constitution stands in
> their way, too.

Funny, Dawkins stated how religious faith undermines one's ability to
think critically and independently. Seems that to Janice the world is
black and white, on the one hand those radical left on the other hand
the religious right. And yet when comparing the two, the former seems to
insist on equality, peace, freedom, justice, environment, and the latter
seems to strongly insist on taking away freedom, justice etc.
If Janice cannot see the irony of her comments... In addition she still
fails to address the issue she raised and to which I responded

**/"....As far as doing everything they can to see that they are imposed
upon us, *is that not what the religious right is trying to do*? ..."/

Janice somehow 'translated this' into her view of the consitution,
implicitly answering my question in the affirmative.

>
> The extreme left and the extreme right are succinctly described by C.
> S. Lewis here:
>
> /"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
> victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
> live robber barons than under *omnipotent moral busibodies. *The
> robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some
> point be satiated; *but those who torment us for our own good, will
> torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own
> conscience."
>
> */Here's the latest example of the radical left attempting to use the
> arm of the state to impose their personal "moral values" on others:

Read it and chuckle once again at the irony which may have escaped Janice:

"An incredibly important piece of legislation threatens Christian
freedom to act with integrity according to the Bible."

or

"Firstly, we must stress that Christians are commanded to love all their
neighbours (including homosexuals) equally. Christians would never want
to be homophobic or discriminate against homosexuals out of bigotry or
prejudice. Christians of course earnestly desire the repentance and
salvation of homosexuals."

And yet, denial of rights and justice to homosexuals seems to be quite
prevalent. If churches want to have privileges (such as tax exemption)
then they should also be held to common sense legislation.
The article referenced by Janice shows the difference between
"Christian" 'love' and the equality and justice promoted by those
'radicals'....

>
> *
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1636077/posts>*
>
>> *Pim:* "...The Soujorners' magazine and the Spiritual Progressives
>> seem to be excellent resources and as a Christian I see many good
>> things in what they have to offer. Certainly hope, peace, prosperity
>> for all, healthcare should appeal to any and all citizen, especially
>> Christians.
>
>
> *@@@ * Here are some more things you might consider to be "good", too:
>
> "...Under the sway of leftist evangelical movements like liberation
> theology
> <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13586>,
> Wallis invited the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
> Salvador (CISPES) - the public relations arm of the El Salvadoran
> terrorist group the FMLN - to take part in a number of initiatives
> with /Sojourners/. ..." `More:
> http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1833
>
El Salvador is an interesting example where US policy caused a lot of
damage to the country and where the FMLN is being trivialized by calling
it a terrorist group. Such lack of critical and independent thought
easily leads to black and white thinking. Look what damage these
policies did in central america...
As with Marxism, these claims lack in understanding of the circumstances
surrounding Nicaragua, El Salvador and other countries around the world,
still suffering from the failed US policies.

But since Janice likes snippets, let's look at the contras

<quote>When /Newsweek/ ran an eyewitness account, complete with color
photographs, of an extrajudicial execution carried out by the
Contras--in which the victim was forced to dig his own grave before
being knifed in the throat--officials like Reich were indignant and
ideologically unfazed. "I saw that picture," Ronald Reagan reportedly
said to a member of Congress, "and I'm told that after it was taken, the
so-called victim got up and walked away."

In fact, Grandin tells us, as evidence of atrocities mounted, the New
Right escalated its moral offensive. Reagan famously described the
Contras as "the moral equivalents of our founding fathers." Members of
the religious Right, like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, were also
enlisted to praise such "freedom fighters" and condemn liberation
theology.</quote>

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/05/empires_workshop.html

And people wonder why the new leaders of for instance Venezuala seem to
distrust the US...

So perhaps we should make an effort to understand rather than paint a
black and white picture? And while progressives are hardly free from
'sins', they have one advantage namely the goal to achieve peace,
justice and equality for all.

> <http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1833>
>
>> *Pim: */".But perhaps I am a bit naive here."/
>
>
> @@@ A bit??? If I were a gambler, I'd bet the farm that you'd have
> swallowed this hook line and sinker:
>
> **

*I see... Again, Janice seems to be unaware of the irony in her
comments. She uncritically cuts and paste random snippets, fails to
support her original claims about Marxism.
So once again let me ask Janice, the question: On the one hand we have
the progressives who support equal rights and justice for all, support
peace, support economic and social equality, etc. How does this compare
to the 'religious right'? What policies does the religious right have in
these areas?
Bush's policies in these areas, which seem to reflect much of the
religious right's thinking, have been disastrous and divisive. After
9/11 Bush had the opportunity to make a difference, he wasted all the
world's good-will however. And for what?...
Bush had the unique opportunity to bring together this country as well
as become a true leader in the world international politics, bringing
together countries in peace, economic and social justice and more. And
he wasted it all...
And that, as a Christian, makes me quite sad...

*
Received on Mon May 22 13:38:49 2006