Comments on: Three Books

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:36:38 +0000

Mike,

What part of the bible talks about property rights and how they should be handled? Which part exlpains that Capitalism is the best way to organize a modern economy and that socialism is to be avoided at all costs?

I’m not saying that Socialism is better than Capitalism or vice versa, I’m saying that the bible is pretty much neutral on the topic.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:13:40 +0000

Grover Norquist says a lot of things. Grover Norquist is completely insane.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:51:18 +0000

How do we judge public policy against the measuring stick of love for god though Farris? surely you agree that something as personal and intangible as faith in an unseen, all-seeing creator cannot be empirically demonstrated, so what manner of policy could possibly be formed around such a concept?
Also, yes, it is the case that we should love our neighbor and not have the govt love them for us, but the trick is that we “love” the neighbor through the govt. And if, for instance, my neighbor is a veteran, and I supported a government that cut his VA benefits, that is precisely an example of me not living up to that standard. Likewise the working poor and supporting a freeze on the minimum wage. Would you not agree that such support would contradict neighborly love?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:45:58 +0000

Bob Edgar describes the so-called “religious right” as a group that “… condones poverty, condemns peace and contributes to the despoiling of God’s creation.”

A more honest description would be a group that spurns socialism, refuses to suck up to terrorists, and refuses to give private property rights to the government.

With respect to the last point, everyone should read this Washington Post article and its supporting documentation from the National Council of Evangelicals before embarassing yourselves further with regard to how evangelicals understand environmentalism.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:27:41 +0000

Grover Norquist predicted that if the Repugs won the 04 election it would mean the end of the Democratic party for a century.

Of course, he didn’t predict that the Republicans would fuck it up so badly in such a short amount of time.

By: Rheinhard

Rheinhard — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:10:47 +0000

As for Book #3, we’re fortunate that it’s not just W that’s unpopular, it’s the whole Republican machine. Grover Norquist predicted that if the Repugs won the 04 election it would mean the end of the Democratic party for a century. We’ll see how it plays out, but with every current prediction showing the D’s gaining a majority in at least 1 house chamber, and as you point out, a majority of state governorships, it seems the biggest obstacle to the Final Solution to Democrat Problem is the Repub tendency toward overweening arrogance and shooting themselves in the foot.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:07:17 +0000

Was Jesus for bombing the shit out of a country without provocation? I’m not up on the bible like I used to be.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:52:11 +0000

From Book #1:

He calls on the “middle church,” … to return to the central message of Jesus’ ministry—the imperative to love one’s neighbor—and judge public policy by that measuring stick.

First off, the “love one another” message was subservient to the Greatest Commandment: “Love the Lord Your God with all your heart/soul/mind.” Loving your neighbor without showing the proper deference to God (and his laws) is nothing but empty works.

Second, the commandment isn’t for the government to love your neighbor but for YOU to love your neighbor. Jesus was for faith-based initiatives.

But hey, if Edgar can sell a few copies, more power to him!