There is No “Christian Left”
Category: Religion & Ethics
Via: donald-j-trump-fan-1 • 4 years ago • 155 commentsBy: Christine L. Smith
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There is No “Christian Left”
Despite liberals frequently referencing God, the Bible, and Jesus, there is no “Christian left.” It is an oxymoron because the two sets of belief systems are mutually exclusive.
The Bible speaks of such people, Paul wrote, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16 King James Version).
Christian conservatives must not be confused merely by a person’s quoting of Scripture, remember Satan himself quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation and frequently twists it in today’s society to deceive Christians who do not have a firm foundation in God’s word.
Today’s leftists stand for the opposite of what the Bible teaches on major issues:
1. Wealth redistribution – Throughout the Bible theft and stealing are sins that are prohibited. Yet the left’s position today is for exorbitant taxation and for unconstitutional purposes, which is legalized theft. The left’s focus on raising taxes to fund all manner of illegitimate programs is wrong any way you measure it. Jesus never taught to steal from those who work to give to the poor. He taught that charity is a private matter which individuals do – not the government. He never said that the poor have a right to use a middleman to steal from those who work. He taught in words and by example that Christian love is evinced by voluntary compassionate acts – not coercive stealing from some to give to others. Biblically speaking, all provisions a person requires should be worked for or received from those who choose to give to them willingly. Jesus taught us to help those in need; his teachings were instructions to individuals. Those in need were not to be politically exploited but voluntarily helped by Christians not government.
In Ephesians 4:28, KJV, we are told, “Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.”
2. Humanism – For the liberal of today, man is the measure on all matters – not God. Jesus said, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:7-9, KJV).
Leftists’ positions on abortion, self-defense/firearms, immigration, the pursuit of anti-family and anti-religious policies, and support of special rights for those engaging in sin are all examples of putting the mind of man above the word of God. The Bible does not teach situational ethics (where people try to figure out what is right without God), it teaches God’s ethics.
An authentic Christian evinces the values taught in the Bible in all areas of life – including politics.
Sadly, many churches have insidiously been infiltrated by Marxist ideology, craftily taking parts of the Bible they like to buttress a radical agenda while ignoring the bulk of Scripture and spirit of God’s law. They’ve intertwined secularism into their supposed Christian belief distorting it into an abominable evil.
The political left is far away from the teachings of Christianity; their reference to religious faith is as empty as their sorry destructive political policies.
To those who consider themselves members of the “Christian left,” I leave you with a question posed by Jesus Christ, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, KJV).
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
Leftists’ positions on abortion, self-defense/firearms, immigration, the pursuit of anti-family and anti-religious policies, and support of special rights for those engaging in sin are all examples of putting the mind of man above the word of God. The Bible does not teach situational ethics (where people try to figure out what is right without God), it teaches God’s ethics.
An authentic Christian evinces the values taught in the Bible in all areas of life – including politics.
Sadly, many churches have insidiously been infiltrated by Marxist ideology, craftily taking parts of the Bible they like to buttress a radical agenda while ignoring the bulk of Scripture and spirit of God’s law. They’ve intertwined secularism into their supposed Christian belief distorting it into an abominable evil.
The political left is far away from the teachings of Christianity; their reference to religious faith is as empty as their sorry destructive political policies.
If Franklin Graham was a true minister of God/Jesus, he would not have a net worth of $25 million.
He is just another self serving false prophet.
Franklin Graham and his ministries do great work helping man kind all over the world. His ministry is legitimate and has led millions to salvation in addition to bringing relief to those in need.
Judge not lest ye be judged. His money is only an issue if it comes between him and his relationship with God.
Old Frank could keep a million and use the other 24 million to do "god's work", feed a few million homeless people.
Jesus didn't like rich people...
... or hypocrites.
billy jr will be one long skinny meat noodle by the time he gets thru that needle eye.
Jesus had followers who were rich who didn’t let their wealth come between themselves and Him. Graham does help the poor. It is wrong to make a sweeping generalization about Jesus not liking rich people . That sounds like liberation theology to me.
That eye applies only to those who put their money ahead of their relationship with him. You have no evidence that Graham doesn’t have a good relationship with God. Social justice class envy is what’s really speaking
advice thumpers are apparently unable to heed...
bingo. hi frank, headed to the barbecue? don't forget to bring the cheese.
That is a lie. There are lots of Christians on both sides. And there are lots of mere CINO of both sides.
Only God knows how many Christians there are and how they vote, not you.
Did you have the same response when the left and the Lincoln project we’re questioning the Christianity of evangelicals and conservatives who are Christian? Did you tell them that there’s real Christians on both sides? I missed it if you did on those seeds.
I didn't read them. But, it does not change the fact that the statement is a lie.
Plenty of evangelicals and conservatives who pretend to be Christians are nothing more than false prophets, preaching hatred and discrimination. Such as the author of this ridiculous article. I do question the Christianity of a person who brags about being driven by a need to offend people he hates - and for good reason. Jesus wouldn't even know a person like that.
There are also plenty of decent ones out there.
Actually it is an opinion. One with considerable merit in my opinion.
There you go. This article gets it right and flips what you say on its head. The conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are theologically correct, It is the progressive left version that Jesus wouldn’t know. Though there are good people still in such places who are living up to the best light shown them to this point.
Such sanctimonious arrogance!
2 worthless opinions are still worthless.
Then why present it as a statement of fact instead of merely an opinion.
Because he seems to think his opinions (and/or beliefs) are facts.
I agree. I would be shamed, and rather fearful, to try to promote myself to others as being on the same level as his God, or being the voice of his God, as he seems to try and do.
I don't think the real God would be very happy about such an act.
Much agreed.
This whole seed is baloney...I know plenty of christians that are democrats including myself....just more of the same of faux christian persecution and trying to corner the market on christianity and claiming they are the only true christians and their brand of religion is the only true religion, along with the fact that they would love the US to become theocracy.
Your opening sentence says it all. Not to mention the whole thing also seems to be a No True Scotsman fallacy.
The author's issue is that the liberal democrats aren't generally assholes who try to force their religion into our laws, government and schools. And they're generally not false prophets as nutjobs like this author are.
Apparently the author thinks that if you actually have ethics and morals, and try to follow Jesus' example, you don't qualify as a Christian. Boy, won't he and his ilk be surprised when Jesus doesn't know them, as the bible makes it clear he will not.
This is so freaking ironic. People who preach hatred and discrimination, pretending it's other people who are not following their god.
For the liberal of today, man is the measure on all matters – not God. Jesus said, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:7-9, KJV).
Leftists’ positions on abortion, self-defense/firearms, immigration, the pursuit of anti-family and anti-religious policies, and support of special rights for those engaging in sin are all examples of putting the mind of man above the word of God. The Bible does not teach situational ethics (where people try to figure out what is right without God), it teaches God’s ethics.
An authentic Christian evinces the values taught in the Bible in all areas of life – including politics.
Sadly, many churches have insidiously been infiltrated by Marxist ideology, craftily taking parts of the Bible they like to buttress a radical agenda while ignoring the bulk of Scripture and spirit of God’s law. They’ve intertwined secularism into their supposed Christian belief distorting it into an abominable evil.
This isn't 2000 years ago. Society has grown and evolved overy the centuries. Such a theistic mindset has no place in modern society and belongs in the past. Some people have simply outgrown such quaint ways of thinking. It's a shame not everyone can keep up or change with the times.
There is No Christian Left ?
What happened to them ?
Did G-O-D swoop down and snatch them, like Trumpp, by their crotches ?
Was there a max exodus to Judaism ?
Did Muhammad pull an Alah Ali on them ?
Actually a lot of them have migrated to the “nones” and or have abandoned the faith altogether for secular versions of their political ideology. It is the old liberal mainline denominations that are hemorrhaging members. Some to more literal Biblically based denominations or that version of their own others to secularism and nones. It’s part of the great polarizing that will escalate to the end times
I've been hearing about the end times since the 70s...get into the 21st century.
You'd think these morons would realize that Jesus' comments actually meant the end times would come within a generation - not 2000 years later. But biblical interpretation is not their strong suit. End times is just a scare tactic they use to brainwash their followers.
And YOU know this for a fact how? Only God knows the number, and YOU are not God, no matter how much you try to present yourself as such.
One would think that after waiting 2000 years, one might begin to realize the whole 2nd coming thing is just a bunch of BS. It's like continuously waiting for the date that stood you up.
You know Kat, your post has me thinking that maybe I should write an article explaining why there is almost certainly no god/s. If there were, one would think scripture would be more straightforward and believers wouldn't be all over the place with regards to interpretation, practice, observance, ect..
It would be clearer if you picked a God. For example, the Abrahamic God. The argument against same can be based on the book that defines this God. If this God is defined as a contradiction then it cannot possible exist as defined.
It is possible that a sentient creator exists so I would recommend focusing on the contradicted definitions.
Thank you for the advice. But i was thinking of deities in a more generalized sense, as most cultures and societies worshipped a god or gods of some kind. So I didnt want to limit it to a specific god, but rather rationally (and hopefully logically) demonstrate how any god of choice is unlikely. But I do welcome any thoughts and input on the subject.
I was just thinking of how this forum works. In my view the case needs to be framed to minimize wiggle room. You know what I am saying. Even the most iron-clad arguments must deal with people literally redefining individual words and divining a ridiculous meaning which they then use as a strawman.
Indeed I do.
Somehow, no matter how strong of a case I make, even if I produced irrefutable proof that god/s do no exist with 100% certainty, no doubt there will be those who will argue against it, make excuses, redefining words, of just go with something along the lines of "nuh uh" or " believe it so that settles it."
It's an integral part of some Christians victimhood narrative. They have to imagine themselves suffering trials and tribulations while stroking their fantasy end times rhetoric, ever hopeful of coming to some divine climax where they wind up in endless bliss while their enemies are killed and tormented for all eternity.
... in a nutshell, truth.
Go ahead, prove it
'if'
Gordy is not saying he can prove it or that it is even possible to prove no gods exist.
Read my post again. I didn't say I could prove there is no god/s with absolute certainty
You think the end of the world and being transformed in the twinkling of an eye into perfect beings and going to heaven is a scary thing?
The demographics and statistics Bear this out. Evangelical ad non denominational churches are growing faster than mainline liberal Protestant churches are hemorrhaging members.
Scary, no. Delusional, yes!
There are many Christians around. There is a Christian Right. There is no Christian political left theology.
Oh good, then maybe these false persecution and religion inspired hate seeds will finally stop
The seeder has lately gone from posting non-sensical and laughable seeds, to truly evil articles like this one.
Out of curiosity I looked up the Bible passage at the top of this article
It has nothing to do with what the writer of this garbage infers it does. Titus 1 appears to be a criticism of Jews who the author of Titus thought were subverting the teachings of Jesus at the time.
What does this have to do with today's "leftist Christians" ?
Nothing , of course.
The Christian Left as it is now is in the same position as those rebuked then. There is no light in them
Of course whenever a group believes that that they alone are the arbiters of "true" Christianity, they have forfeited God's own judgement on the matter. And prove themselves false in the process.
Jesus warned us about people like this. It appears he was correct.
Despite liberals frequently referencing God, the Bible, and Jesus, there is no “Christian left.” It is an oxymoron because the two sets of belief systems are mutually exclusive.
The Bible speaks of such people, Paul wrote, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16 King James Version).
Christian conservatives must not be confused merely by a person’s quoting of Scripture, remember Satan himself quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation and frequently twists it in today’s society to deceive Christians who do not have a firm foundation in God’s word.
Are you aware that there are Christians who are on the left right here on NewsTalkers? Who are you to declare that these individuals are not Christians??
Hahahahaha!
You probably don't even get the irony of your comment.
Amazing ain't it.
Who were those Lincoln project Types to say that about us? As a denier of the Christian God of the Bible why get involved in a dispute among those who say we believe?
There was none. The Christian Left often side’s with secularists rather than other Christians on most every issue. They are becoming secular
Who are they to say we aren’t? Where were you all when liberal Christians /Lincoln project people were questioning our Christianity?
Apparently you are confused. I never said or even hinted that you were not a Christian. Indeed, you are very deeply a Christian.
Not sure. But you are clearly confused so figure out what you are complaining about and maybe ask a better question.
You question theirs all the time. One's faith has nothing to do with their politics.
Your whataboutism is noted Xx. Stop deflecting and take ownership for your own comments.
Secondly, if you want to address the Lincoln Project, post a seed about it. Your practice of piggybacking your animus takes your own seed off topic.
Oh and your still pretending to speak for others.
Because it's hypocritical. 'Secular progressives' have every right to point that out hypocrisy when they see it.
You are the only one that believes that.
The 'Christian left' supports the secular Constitution. The HORROR!
Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that our founders were secularist from the get go.
More and more there is a direct connection between ones faith or lack there of and their politics. Religious liberals and secular conservatives are both declining in numbers.
Another unfounded proclamation Xx. You have no evidence to support your claim about secular conservatives and the most recent studies [2014] refute your proclamation.
werent you just recently writing off major parts of the Christian religion as not true to our faith. Don’t you like your Lincoln project like medicine down your throat?
Isn't that the practice of ALL denominations Xx? Since each insist that their 'branch' is right, doesn't that mean that all of the other 'branches' are not 'true to the faith'?
Like Lincoln project sojourners types sitting in judgement over evangelical Christians?
Fine Xx, you insist on harping on the Lincoln Project so post a link that illustrates that they are 'sitting in judgement over evangelical Christians.
Those articles are already here on this site for your reading pleasure.
Link one Xx. Pick a good one.
He has mentioned this on other articles. He is the only one I have ever even heard mention it anywhere. I'm not sure why he is so fixated on something that for all intensive purposes is a non issue. It's kinda weird.
Well, I freely admit that I sit in judgment of evangelical Christians.
Ya know what Katrix, I do to, and I am an Evangelical Christian. I find all this more than sickening ,,, rump is the antithesis of everything I grew up learning in the Church, everything Jesus stood for. It boggles the mind and the soul.
My apologies in that case. I should have clarified - those who don't seem to give a crap about Jesus' example, those who try to push their religion into our government and schools, and those who are just plain dicks
No apology needed Katrix.
:~)
Christians are supposed to know that we are being judged, not just by God, but by all. That it is why the endeavor must be beyond reproach.
From what I see on their website, it's a group of conservatives that actually support the Constitution. I didn't see a word on their site about religion.
But hey, I'm sure the seeder has a 'reliable source' that proves his allegations. /s
Try explaining that to DJTf1
Well this is nothing new. Religious people have been fighting each other for all of recorded history. Those who do not believe exactly as you do are 'them'. In result, history has shown brutal bloodshed and torture as religious factions sought to wipe out those with different beliefs. Imagine going on a crusade to wipe out Protestants because they dare read the Bible and not go through the Catholic church for their religious information?
The many denominations of Christianity alone show that religious beliefs are all over the map. Every faction thinks it has the handle on truth. The truth, however, is that religions have no evidence suggesting they are anything more than man-made constructs based on human imagination. All these religions proclaim divine truth and none of them can back that up.
Yeah, sure, liberal Christians are ' no true Christians '. How ridiculous people are.
I don't give two shits whether there are left Christians or right Christians. I do however like to point out the hypocrisy of the group that professes there is war on Christianity starts telling other Christians who and what they are or are not. It's very telling.
As TiG pointed out, religious people have been fighting each other for all of recorded history. It's the literalists, the fundies, the evangelists who seem to be most likely to hate other Christians these days. I guess because most other Christians actually are logical and rational people, which offends literalists.
If they got along then they couldn't claim everyone was out to get 'em.
Look . . . there's a lot wrong here. I could never hit it all. I think fundamentally, there's this conceit that if someone disagrees with you, they are in league with the devil. Truthfully, you don't know that. You can't know that. It's a sanctimonious assertion in a religion that values humility. That conflict alone should shock people out of this kind of thinking. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
If it's legalized, it cannot be theft. Theft is the wrongful, unlawful taking of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. By contrast, taxes are enacted by legislatures lawfully elected by the people. You might think taxes are a bad idea, but under our system of government, they are not - and can not be - "theft."
Again, we have a representative government, democratically elected by the people. Our legal representatives design and implement the programs. They are then subjected to judicial review. If the people still don't like the programs, they have the authority and opportunity to elect new representatives to change or eliminate the programs. They, therefore, can not be "illegitimate."
I think most people don't have a problem with Christians volunteering their charity. However, Jesus did not say that government couldn't be involved as well. In fact, all this stuff related to government presented as "Jesus didn't say . . . " is disingenuous. As far as we know, Jesus didn't about preach about government at all except to say the bit about rendering unto Caesar that which is already his. And really that comment wasn't about God's plan for government. Jesus's ministry pretty clearly wasn't at all about what good government should look like. He wasn't trying to be a political scientist.
Feel free to disagree with a liberal policy, but your disagreement doesn't make it "anti-family" or "anti-religious." There is probably some debate term I don't know for this kind disingenuous hyperbole. Just consider all the legislators with families who enact these policies. How can they be "anti-family" when they have families? Most of our representatives are also pretty religious people. How can they be "anti-religion?"
This is a misrepresentation of what "situational ethics" is. As I understand it (and I'm no professional philosopher, so don't just take me at my word), situational ethics takes its cues from the fact that God prioritizes love.
So it's wrong to say that people are trying to figure out what is right "without God." They, are in fact, thinking of God and determining the course of action that comes from love. They aren't just making it up as they go.
I'm feeling your rainbow today, tacos.
This has been an interminable debate within christendom since the beginning. As Raven Wing stated, only your god is the one who will sort it out.
To those who consider themselves members of the “Christian left,” I leave you with a question posed by Jesus Christ, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, KJV). I would also ask this of the "Christian right". After all, it was and still is the right that still fills the KKK. It was the right that fought and still fights desegregation. It was the right that passed Jim Crow.
Not only does this article show why christians must never rule, it shows why no religion should rule.
Indeed. History has shown, often with bloody results, what happens when religion does rule.
All one has to do is look at England and Henry VIII and his offspring
He leaves the Catholic faith and becomes the head of the Church of England all so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn who he then beheads because she didn't give him a male heir.
Prior to leaving the Catholic faith he had heretics non-Catholics burned at the stake
After leaving the Catholic faith he had heretics non-Anglicans burned at the stake
Then you had Queen Mary burn heretics non-Catholics
Then you had Queen Elizabeth burn heretics non-Anglicans
That's only one family.
Actually it was democrats who founded and filled the kkk and created Jim Crow laws. It was national socialists who created other white supremacy groups. It was anti capitalist democrats who defended slavery and fought a war to preserve it.
I don't give a damn about the party. What was democrat then is republican now. The parties mean nothing. The truth is still they were and are the christian right.
The party names don't matter one bit as hundreds of American political parties throughout our history have used the words "democrat" and "Republican".
What hasn't change are that those who founded the KKK and created the Jim Crow laws considered themselves Christian religious conservatives. That is the true vein that runs through virtually every vile practice and law that progressives and liberals fought to defeat. Slavery, bans on women voting, bans on black Americans voting, Jim Crow laws, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, bans on gay marriage, all supported and defended by those who considered themselves Christian religious conservatives. Were there Christians who fought against slavery, the bans on voting, the bans on interracial marriage and even the bans on gay marriage? Of course, but few considered themselves "conservatives" at the time and accepted that by bucking the status quo that made them "progressive" or "liberal".
Conservative: adjective - holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion
Liberal: adjective - open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
Slavery was once the status quo, a tradition passed on from one generation of Christian religious conservatives to the next, until Christian liberals and progressives fought to discard it as the evil it was.
Bans on women and black Americans voting were once the status quo, traditions passed on from one generation of Christian religious conservatives to the next, until Christian liberals and progressives fought to discard them as the evil they were.
Bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage were once the status quo, traditions passed on from one generation of Christian religious conservatives to the next, until Christian liberals and progressives fought to discard them as the evil they were.
Quite right, and I believe I have said these things before. Just not this post.
The Real Origins of the Religious Right They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
If you are going to call yourself an evangelical or christian conservative or whatever, you need to learn your own history.
Nonsene. Many segregationsists were far left progressives. Conservatives, for instance, opposed the nomination of the progressive KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court by Roosevelt, becuase of his racist views. Many of the Dixiecrats supported LBJ's Great Society. There are countless examples of left wing racists, including the firstr progressive Presidcent, Woodrow Wilson, who actually resegregated the federal governent. Luckily, the conservative Warren Harding reversed Wilson's racist policy.
You should read a history book that isn't propaganda that panders to such a simplistic worldview like "progressives aweseme, Conservatives bad."
Like whom?
"Roosevelt wanted the replacement to be a "thumping, evangelical New Dealer" ".
Hugo Black was neither a conservative nor a liberal, he was at that time and still today considered a "textualist". It just turns out that the text of the constitution is very liberal in nature so Justice Black ended up supporting many liberal positions taken by the constitution.
"As a textualist, his rulings favored First Amendment freedoms and opposed segregation — he voted with the unanimous majority in Brown v. Board of Education —yet at the same time, he insisted the Constitution did not assert a right to privacy, allowing the state to legislate against birth control or tap civilian phones."
“I did join the Klan,” (Justice Black) admitted. “I later resigned. I never rejoined.” Of the grand passport that suggested extended if not lifelong affiliation, he said, “I never used it. I did not even keep it … Before becoming a senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing whatever to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so.”
I've read many and looked at it from many perspectives, you might try reading one that doesn't lie to you about conservatism and its long muddy history in America. Do you also believe the civil war wasn't about slavery? I hear that a lot now from modern day know nothings.
You can start with Woodrow Wilson.
as neither a conservative nor a liberal,
Now you are redefining progressivism to exclude new dealers. Of course Black was liberal. That's how this game get played by the left, they just redefine words to get the result they want.
Here's how he was described in a PBS documentrary: "an intellectual, leftist liberal from the South." He was, as you so helpfully point out an "evangelical" New Dealer, which was the epitome of liberalism. He was also a former Klansman. There was no tension between the Klan and progressivism. In fact, the Klan was a progressive movement. At the Klanbake Democratic Presidential Convention of 1924, the Klan rallied behind the progressive canidate William McAdoo.
I've read many and looked at it from many perspectives,
I doubt that. If you believe simplisitc dogma like believing segreagation was somehow a conservative movement, you've been mislead. You are peddling propaganda that ignores whole swaths of the history of American liberals/progreessives history.
Here's leftwing icon Ta-Nahisi Coates on the issue:
"There is some sense that when we talk about the period leading up to the New Deal and beyond, that we are talking about progressives in the North making a tragic, yet necessary, bargain with white racists conservatives in the South. In fact what Ira Katznelson shows in Fear Itself is something a little more complicated. The white supremacists in his book are, indeed, for the most part, Southern. But they also are very much married to to the prospect of progressive liberal reform. It may break our brains a bit to imagine, say, a Southern white supremacist backing railroad unions. But that’s actual history.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman and Tom Watson were populist and (ultimately in the case of Watson) white supremacists. The division goes back to the days of pre-slavery politics when the South was somewhat divided between planters and yeoman farmers. I say “somewhat” because on the issue of White Supremacy, there was no division.
No character in Katznelson’s book troubles the waters like Mississippi’s governor, and then senator, Theodore Bilbo. Here is a man who, in one breath, can be hailed as “a liberal fire-eater” and then in another dubbed “a bulldog for protecting traditions of the South.” Bilbo was a Klansman who stumped for Al Smith. But black equality was a bridge too far."
And of course crickets here from the progressive left...
see Sean’s posts here. You will find that you are quite wrong
Sean,
Dixicrats are a political animal to themselves. They do not represent the current state of affairs, and they were very different from the rest of the liberal movement, even in their times.
Since this is a debate of the history of liberalism and we are talking about 70 years ago, I'm not claiming this represents the current state of affairs. Many dixiecrats were otherwise liberal democrats who broke with the party temporarily over the racism issue, not because the party was "too liberal." As I said, many Dixiecrats ultimately supported one of the the most liberal projects ever attempted by government, Johnson's great society. To characterize Great society voters as conservative is to remove all meaning from the word.
Some liberals were racist. Some were not. Just like some conservatives were racist, and some were not. Modern liberals should stop distorting history with their made up narrative about their history.
Bingo! Again.
Conservatives, for instance, opposed the nomination of the progressive KKK member Hugo Black
Hugo Black and the KKK
" The opposition to the nomination was lead by Senators Burke and Copeland, Democrats, and Austin, a Republican."
So you're saying the Democrats are conservatives?
I don't know what history books you read, but I believe your interpretation of that history is somewhat suspect.
Despite the initial concern over Black's troubling history as a Klan member, his service as Justice proved he was the antithesis of a bigot. He rejected the attempts of states to impede federal legislation in labor relations, racial segregation, and wartime peace. His service proved that he was, in fact, a champion of minority rights, further dispelling the notion that he was, even if just for a moment, a Klansman. Black retired in 1971 after a long and impressive career as a United States Supreme Court Justice, indeed a great mind after all.
ISo you're saying the Democrats are conservatives?
Some were. Copeland attacked Black as a bigot and was also anti-New Deal Democrat. Are you now claiming those who opposed the new deal were the progressives?
don't know what history books you read, but I believe your interpretation of that history is somewhat suspect.
I don't think you understand what's being argued. I said Black was a liberal, that's why he was nominated. Pointing out that he was a liberal only confirms my point. You should have directed this to the poster making the outrageous claim that Black wasn't a liberal.
All you've done is backed up my point that Black was a KKK member, and also a liberal. He was hardly alone.
don't know what history books you read, but I believe your interpretation of that history is somewhat suspect.
It'd be nice if you could actually contradict what I wrote before claiming I'm wrong. Is the excerpt from Coates wrong? Was President Wilson not a racist and a progressive? Did the KKK not support the progressive McAdoo at the 1924 Klanbake convention?
Then why keep saying Democrats are liberal? Some are, some aren't. Same with Republicans. I'll say this again. I don't give a damn about the parties. It isn't the parties that are liberal or conservative, wrong or right, it is the individual. Parties mean nothing to me.
You should have directed this to the poster making the outrageous claim that Black wasn't a liberal.
I directed it towards you because you were saying that it was conservatives that oppose him, and equating conservatism with being Republican. You are/were wrong on that point. I would ask this of you, did you actually read the link? I doubt it, else you would have noted this: Even the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan clarified that Black was neither a Klansman nor a sympathizer.
As for Wilson, he was an elitist, pure and simple. Party affiliation made no difference. Yet you, XXX (or whatever he is today) and others, try to make it all about party. Yet if you understood anything about history, you would be able to come to no other conclusion than that the parties have essentially switched platforms over the years. They each have become what the other was.
What the hell are you talking about? I never claimed that Democrats are liberal. The discussion started with the false claim that conservatives,and conservatives alones, were responsible for segreagation and the KKK. I've been poiting out that liberals and progressives were also responsible. I'll say it again, there werre liberal and progressive racists and KKK members. I've pointed out some examples. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans.
saying that it was conservatives that oppose him
I said that to point out that the objections towards Black, a KKK member, came from conservatrives, not liberals, simply to show that Black was a liberal in good standing.
equating conservatism with being Republica
I never said that either.
oubt it, else you would have noted this: Even the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan clarified that Black was neither a Klansman
Did you know Black admitted being a KKK member? Are you now claiming Black lied about his membership?
et you, XXX (or whatever he is today) and others, try to make it all about party.
I've said he was a progessive, which he obviously was. I never even identifed Wilson as Democrat. Where do you get this stuff?
Yet if you understood anything about history, you would be able to come to no other conclusion than that the parties have essentially switched platforms over the years.
Given haven't understood anytghing in this thread and keep falesly attribnuting arguments to me that I haven't made, forgive if I don't think much of your opinion. This disucssion wasn't even about parties, for fuck's sakes, but rather the historical ties of liberalsim and racists. Why don't you read what I wrote again and then try to refute what's actually being discussed, namely that some liberals were also racists and segregationists.
One can only infer from your point of attack, and I don't mean just this one article, that you are coming from a certain viewpoint. I don't mind having a debate, I rather yearn for it. (1) But we must define our terms, otherwise, we are only talking past each other.
Define the terms, the first rule of debate.
I would also remind you, that the thread following from my initial comment, has absolutely nothing to do with the article as posted.
As for Black, he was liberal in some viewpoints, conservative in others. Rather a Libertarian viewpoint don't you think?
Painting with a broad brush is good for houses, barns and fences, not so much with portraits.Just really muddies the thing up, and people might mistake you for Picasso.
I paint broads with fine sandpaper to smooth out their rough edges with a soapstone so as not dirty, in the mind of the brain washed with humor till dry
Is that a card you really want to play? You are one of the more predictably partisan posters on this site. The only difference is you seem to go out of your way to deny that fact more than anyone else. If you have to keep telling people that you are "independent" you probably aren't.
True, but I think the terms I used speak for themselves. I explicitly didn't make it about parties, but rather the conservative/liberal idealogical divide and how liberals have basically rewritten history to exclude inconvenient truths about their past.
Rather a libertarian
Black was nominated because Roosevelt saw him as a fellow liberal. I don't think that can be contested. Nor can it be can contested that support for the new deal was the defining characteristic of a liberal at the time. That's when his politics mattered the most and why I brought him up. He was confirmed with liberal support because he was a liberal, with KKK ties. He was specifically nominated to help break up the conservative block that had thrown out early new deal legislation. IT was precisely because he wasn't a conservative or libertarian that Roosevelt nominated him.
Painting with a broad bush
Which is why I'm not. I've been writing at length how wrong it for liberals to claim they are blameless on racial issues. It's not me who has been talking In absolutes. Meanwhile you keep trying to make it about Parties and trying to put words in my mouth. Empty Platitudes about broad brushes are fine if that's what makes you happy, but I'd rather deal with substance. And substantively my point that some liberals were in fact racists who supported segregation and the KKK remains unrebutted. I even used a very liberal source to support my point and it's been completely ignored.
Your posts on this thread are right on and a welcome relief to the progressive drivel about conservatives being responsible for slavery and Jim Crow. Well done! 👍🇺🇸👏
Anyone actually reading history knows that's true, "liberals" were not pushing segregation. You try and use the example of Justice Black to claim "liberals" were in the KKK, but the fact is that Justice Black had left the KKK long before he became a Justice and his record as a Justice of unanimous support for minority rights and voting to end school segregation in Brown v Board. So his record, for which he was considered by some to be "liberal", shows his actual actions that defined him which was his support for minority rights. It doesn't matter a whit what he started out as, what mattered is what he did. If he had voted against minority rights and voted to keep the status quo, then he would have been considered a conservative justice. It's just that simple.
Even Robert Byrd, who also was a member of the KKK, apologized for his previously held racist beliefs, and then spent the last several decades of his life fighting for minority rights that led the NAACP to release a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".
So slavery, segregation, bans on women and blacks voting, bans on interracial marriage, bans on gay marriage, supporting those things proved one a conservative. By opposing them it proved one a liberal, one who wanted to get rid of the status quo, to buck tradition. Have there been conservatives who became liberals? Of course! And we welcome them with open arms regardless of their past. If they are willing to support liberal causes and fight for equal rights, then why should liberals turn them away? Both Byrd and Black started out as racist conservatives, but changed their views as they gained more knowledge and experience and left a legacy of support for minority rights and thus became liberals.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." - Benjamin Franklin
Then you should be right at home with Bernie Sanders and his view of taxation, government, and lack of religion.
Nope. Sander is a fraud just like Bloomberg and the rest of them. As far as the religion side, it's an even larger fraud.
Jeremy,
Now your comment has left me confused. And how does anyone know what is in the heart of a person? I am sure that there are nominees that do practice their faith.
What is at a person's heart has absolutely nothing to do with a religion. People don't need a religion to do the right thing. Religion has been a parasite on society for centuries. But then again, my experience with religion has given me a very good example of what not to do.
The reference to political hacks really has nothing to do with my original comment.
True. But there are those who would have you believe differently. How many times have we seen some people say one cannot be a moral person without religion or god?
I think that most people who are in politics are political hacks. I mean really, look at all our choices and they are all doing what is in their own self-interests. The best that we can hope for, is that we agree with some of their views and vote for that person. Sad state of affairs but that is the way it is.
So how do you expect to get your secular conservative agenda on national defense, taxes, the economy, capitalism, conservative judges, etc. without the support of other conservatives who are religious and even motivated by religion primarily? How do you co exist with us wen you consider our religion a bigger fraud than the oppositions tax and economic policies? There are some secular conservatives who don’t attack Christian conservatives beliefs knowing we are a part of coalition conservatives can’t win without.
Ever notice they threaten you when you believe differently?
Then when you call them out about the violent history of their religion and god they, again, go right to the threats.
It is.
You mean the "love of Jesus" that spread the religion by bloodshed?
I'm calling out the violence in the religion. Not only by the followers but also the violence the bible calls for.
Yes, I have noticed many times. Including the implied threats. And when I call them out on their claims, logical inconsistencies, ect., I either get the threats, ignored, or excuses.
i agree with you. You are correct.
You feel threatened by your fellow conservatives here? How?
Really? Reinterpreting a statement to mean something it obviously didn't, pathetic. Gods it's like you're not even trying anymore.
“Then when you call them out about the violent history of their religion and god they, again, go right to the threats.” How exactly did I reinterpret that?
Well?
I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened.
Patience there's no need to get your panties in a twist
LMAO that was pathetic, like I said earlier you're not even trying anymore.
I’m glad that you liked Trump praying.
LMAO there you go assigning your own conclusions to others, like that gives you a win. Sorry still pathetic
PS: It's no skin off my nose if people pray
Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe that Trump is a Christian, or that he believes in any gods.
Trump thinks he is a demi-god, and worships only himself.
Trump praying is a pile of BS. He never attended church when he was just another New Yorker. He didn't just find god now. George Bush was a true Christian, Obama was a Christian (not a fan of his minister), but not Trump.
It's not just about not attending church. Trump has never been religious, and never even pretended to be until he wanted to fool the American people.
I can absolutely question his adherence to any set of religious ideology, because it's very clear that he has none.
There is nothing "misguided" and I'm well in touch with reality (I'm not pushing the invisible friend state of mind). The reality is, the followers are cherry picking all the nice things out and ignoring all the violence their texts call for as well as the violent history of the religion.
One thing that I have noticed over time is that once somebody speaks out with a differing perspective they are chastised and threatened. Kind of like is evident just on here.
Nobody Katrix? Apparently, there are those that are stupid enough to believe that.
A few hundred years ago, hell even in the right locations TODAY, those threats would be actions. We'd be murdered for not sharing as they do.
Why are you trying to make this political? Reality of it is, NOBODY on NT is a threat to me. NOBODY. But apparently to many here on this seed alone I'm a threat to them. Don't know how. If something I say shakes a person's religious beliefs then those beliefs weren't that strong to begin with.
It speaks volumes that I do receive more threats from Christians than any other religion.
How dare some question or challenge the status quo, right?
Remind me again, what authoritative position to you hold that allows you to make the determination who is a christian and who isn't?
Even the like of Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian and the BTK Killer was a member of Christ Lutheran Church and had been elected president of the church council.
Considering the fact that there is at least one person commenting here that claims there aren't even any Christians on the left (I notice you didn't make this same point at his comment or in the entire recent seed he posted on that subject), one should understand any claim that Trump isn't Christian is just that individuals opinion. It's a very inciteful opinion, and is likely accurate unlike the claims from some about there being no Christian Democrats. It's likely accurate because if you've ever listened to Trump talk about faith he's a complete failure and only ends up talking about himself. He spent the entirety of the recent prayer breakfast talking about impeachment and himself as well as doubting the faith of others claiming Romney and Nancy were liars about their own personal faiths. Pieces of shit like dishonest Donald always try to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.
"As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people," Trump said at the outset of his speech. "They have done everything possible to destroy us, and by so doing, very badly hurt our nation. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they put themselves far ahead of our great country." - dirty Donald 2/6/2020 National Prayer Breakfast
Not one mention of faith or prayer in his opening, just straight into whining about his enemies like a paranoid Stalin nearing the end of his reign, comparing any attack on himself as an attack on the nation. Not a whiff of humility or any other Christian morals to be found.
Three paragraphs and STILL didn't answer the question quoted. Just went off on a political rant.
It is a political seed. About the religious beliefs of many in varying political ideologies. I neither threaten nor feel threatened by those who oppose religious belief or talk negatively about what others believe in.
This seed marginalized Christians.
I have to agree with you Sandy. Who is anyone to judge people's faith and love of country?
Indeed! 👏👍