Regarding “local politics”…

So what you’re saying is that you don’t care if your vote helps save lives in another part of the country, you only care about your city or state and how it is affected? I think that is incredibly near-sighted; I don’t care that my state (Minnesota) is likely to keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I care that at least some lives somewhere in this country will be saved. Whether a human life is saved or improved in Minnesota, Illinois, or Morocco, I don’t base my vote at all on how it will affect me or my city or state.

Many points here.

First, the comment that I really take issue with…

“Furthermore, I’ve found that USUALLY (not always) political liberalism keeps close company with weak theology (Greg Boyd anyone?).”

Darius, we simply travel in vastly different circles then. I go to a church that prides itself on its theological conservatism AND its social progressivism. My wife’s friends from college, while politically further to the left than me (I know, I know), are even more to the right than me theologically (I honestly never thought that I’d meet a young earth proponent that also made it to anti-war protests). I guess your exceptions to the rule are my rule.

But that gets me to the second half of that quote…

“This is not always the case since sometimes people just don’t think through the ramifications of their political views yet love God and understand His qualities and our calling perfectly.”

Not so fast, sir. Most of those lefties that get it right that I mentioned above HAVE thought through their ideas. Insofar as the social justice aspect of their liberalism, they tend to think the same way that I do: yes, it’d sure be nice if everyone was the nicest person on the planet and helped to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, heal the sick and care for the elderly. However, that’s not the case, but that stuff still must be done. No matter how it gets done, it MUST get done.

A lot of us are pro-life, but to say that a vote for a pro-choice liberal is a sin is a half truth, at best. What you say would be absolutely correct if either:

(a) the republicans ran Huckabee as their candidate,

or:

(b) there were 9 major party candidates that all had a shot at winning, and at least one was essentially an evangelical lefty.

However, when it comes down to someone who I share one or two political stances with or someone that I share 20 or 30 political stances with, it’s unfair to tell me that I have to vote for the guy with the one good stance. Especially considering that I live in a state that will NOT criminalize abortion in the unlikely event of an overturn of Roe v. Wade. And given the fact that there will never be a constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion, why would I utilize my vote the same way that you would in a state where abortion laws have a good chance of being rewritten?

Face it, Darius, that line about all politics being local is very, very, very true. And to tell me that my vote is a sin when I live in a very different part of the country than you do doesn’t take that into account, at all.

Let the flaming begin…

enough already.

My tone at the top of this thread started off as nice enough, until Darius started off with massive attitude (both posts deleted, so it seems).

Insofar as “attacking” you, fine, I see where I was wrong. I apologize.

As for engaging in rational discussion, how is that possible with either you or Darius? You absolutely refuse to acknowledge American missteps or failures where they have clearly occured, and instead of owning up to those missteps, call me a blame America first liberal (you’ve done it before, don’t say you haven’t).

Insofar as personal attacks on Denny, the only two I found were one in the blatant “Paul’s a jerk and should apologize” category (the comparison to Constantine)…

So, Denny, here it is…

DENNY BURK, I, PAUL, APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT WAS CLEARLY (A) AN OVERSTEPPING OF BOUNDS AND (B) AN UNNECESSARY ATTACK. PLEASE FORGIVE ME.

(typed in caps so that it is eye-catching to Denny and others)

and the other one that could be labeled a personal attack, though, I stand by.

I hardly think it’s unfair to call Denny dangerous for a wholesale disregard for the evangelical left. A one by one picking off of guys like Shane Claiborne? I’m all for it and will join him in the attack against that idiot. His words and many of his actions are empty, and therefore meaningless. But guys like Jim Wallis, many of the people at Sojourners, and many others have completely orthodox theology, and yet they get thrown under the bus by Denny because they don’t share his political views. I don’t know if his views on the evangelical left make it into his classroom, but if they do, those views are bound to turn at least some of his students against people who, in the end, have the same goal that he does: to spread the word of God throughout the nations. What good does it do to trash their good names because he doesn’t agree with their political stances? We’re supposed to keep each other on the right track spiritually, but I don’t see how trashing someone’s politics is good for God or Christianity in general. And with that in mind, without making it personal, I have to call Denny a dangerous person for causing division where none need be. And, quite humbly, I ask for Denny to rethink his position on those of us who find ourselves leaning quite far to the right theologically, but lean to the left politically.

Mark, I’m willing to throw an olive branch out there. So, here it is. Fair?

There is no longer any point in calling out Paul on personal attacks. It doesn’t matter to him. Look back at my first post(#19) then compare Scott’s response(#20) to Paul’s(#21). Scott is debating, while Paul is attacking.

When frustrated, he resorts to attacks like he does in #41 and #49. It doesn’t matter to him that it is a logical fallacy. He scored a 98 on an aptitude test. I guess he forgot that the military is also interested in physical fitness.

We should debate him when he is debating, and we should ignore him when he is attacking. It doesn’t seem to bother Denny. Why let it bother us?

Perhaps a better example would have been the Rev. Barry Lynn, but that’s a bit too extreme and obvious.