Showing posts with label religious left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious left. Show all posts

Sunday, December 5, 2010

The log in the left's eye: Why liberals can't see straight

Behold the hypocrisy of the "religious left"
*
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)
The "religious left" (now there's the mother of all oxymorons!) is now attacking Sarah Palin as "anti-Catholic." At Irish Central, Patrick Roberts shamelessly slammed Gov. Palin twice for criticizing two famous Catholics. Roberts went after her in his Nov. 27 column for her criticism in her new book America by Heart of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former president John F. Kennedy, and with his knickers still in a twist, he followed up a week later in his Dec. 4 column.

Gov. Palin used Pelosi as an example of liberal hypocrisy for invoking faith in the public square, but by their actions betraying that same faith:
"Witness House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisting that she will pursue public policies consistent with the 'Word" of the Gospel, even as she votes against banning partial birth abortion." (Page 216)
She commented about JFK's famous 1960 speech to a gathering of clergy in Houston:
"Unlike JFK, who essentially declared religion to be such a private matter that it was irrelevant to the kind of country we are, Romney declared that our religious liberty is 'fundamental to America's greatness.' And he spoke openly of 'how my faith would inform my presidency, if elected.'" (Page 185)
From this, Roberts hysterically concludes that Gov. Palin is "anti-Catholic":
"Attacking two prominent Catholics should send its own signal to Catholics everywhere what the real game is about here with the once-Catholic Ms Palin."
Roberts had already written in his November column:
"She has some cheek, given that Palin is a failed Catholic herself, having given up on the religion of her Irish forefathers and encompassed one of those hip born-again evangelical identities-- you know the ones where Jesus appears in your rear view mirror and converts you."
Your editor, as a Catholic, has a right to respond in defense of the governor. Unlike "cradle" Catholics who were raised in the faith, I am a convert to the Mother Church. Now this does not make me any more or less a Catholic than those who have been Catholics their entire lives. It simply means that I chose to be a Catholic.

And this leads to a very important point: Although Gov. Palin's mom, Sally Heath, had Sarah baptized by a Catholic Priest, she took her children with her when she began attending an Assembly of God church. Sarah was still a young girl at that time and had not been confirmed in the Catholic faith. How then, could she have "given up" on the Catholic Church, as Roberts asserts, when her initiation into the Catholic faith community had never been completed? It was Sally Heath who, for whatever reasons, left the Church of Rome. At the ripe old age of eight years, Sarah Palin can hardly be condemned by any Catholic of good conscience for her mother's decisions. Also, Roberts' mocking of evangelicals is way over the top and at odds with the ecumenical efforts of the Holy See to foster mutual respect and a fruitful dialog between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations.

Further, Gov. Palin was well within her rights to criticize Speaker Pelosi for her support of partial birth (and every other form of) abortion in defiance of the core beliefs of the Catholic Church. Rome has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of The Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder. It is apparent to all who "judge with righteous judgment," as we are taught to do in John 7:24, that it was not the child Sarah Palin who turned her back on the Catholic faith, but rather the adult Nancy Pelosi, who hypocritically professes that she's "a devout Catholic," yet acts contrary to one of the foundations of Catholic belief, i.e., reverence for, and defense of, innocent human life.

As to her criticism of JFK, it is relatively mild compared to what Gov. Palin had to say about Pelosi. As a man who cheated on his wife and cavorted with movie starlets and mob molls, Kennedy was anything but a shining example of living by the teachings of the Catholic Church. We are all sinners in the sight of God, but Roberts and others on the "religious left" are overreacting to what Gov. Palin wrote. She simply said, without making a value judgment of Catholicism itself, that Kennedy should have embraced his faith like Romney embraced his own. This was neither a dismissal of Catholicism, not an acclamation of Mormonism, as Roberts implies. Roberts also rather conveniently neglects to mention that elsewhere in her book, Gov. Palin actually offers words of praise for JFK -- many more words of praise, in fact, than her few words of criticism:
"I recently reread for the first time in a long time President John F. Kennedy's inspiring inauguration speech. When you read the speech, the fact that Kennedy believed America is a nation unlike any other jumps off the page at you. President Kennedy never uses the term American exceptionalism, but his view of America as a place with a meaning and a mission of redemption is unmistakable..." (Pages 70 & 71)
And again:
"How far our leaders have come in the past 110 years - and not always in a good way. when I was growing up, nothing demonstrated the American ethic of innovation, enterprise and striving - the "strenuous life" - more than the American space program. I wasn't yet born when President John F. Kennedy pledged in 1961 to land a man on the moon within the decade. But I have early memories of when that ambitious goal was accomplished in 1969... JFK's ambition to put a man on the moon captured a nation that feared neither hard work nor failure.

[...]

But fast-forward almost fifty years, and our national leaders seem to have lost all of Kennedy's confidence and brio..." (Pages 163 & 164)
Finally, Roberts should be ashamed of himself for going after Gov. Palin with one particular disingenuous slur. Citing her argument that Kennedy "seemed to run away from his religion," Roberts snarkily retorted:
"That is complete nonsense, right up there with her defense of our 'ally' North Korea."
Roberts knows full well that Gov. Palin did not defend North Korea, but rather made a slip of the tongue which she corrected only seconds later. But this is just a prime example of how the "religious left" always attacks Sarah Palin. For these "Cafeteria Christians," politics always trumps faith. Always.

Christianity, whether it be the Catholic faith or the Protestant, tries to teach us what our Savior taught: that we should love our brothers and sisters as ourselves. It is one of the two Great Commandments, upon which "depend the whole Law and the Prophets." And from the Old Testament, we were taught ten other great commandments, including one which admonishes us not to bear false witness.

Sarah Palin was in no way attacking the Catholic faith in her new book. On the contrary, she clearly stated her agreement with one of the foundational articles of the faith, the defense of the innocent unborn. For Roberts to lie about Gov. Palin and condemn her in the same two columns is to reach the rarefied air of high hypocrisy which, we have long argued, is a prerequisite for liberalism.

- JP

Monday, August 24, 2009

Sinless "religious left" casts more stones at Sarah

Last week, we reported on how the "religious left" -- led by Sojourners CEO Jim Wallis -- is not only bearing false witness against Sarah Palin, but is engaged in a campaign to destroy her politically.

Now Institute on Religion and Democracy president Mark Tooley, who provided much of the background material on Wallis' embrace of the neo-Marxist philosophy of Liberation Theology, has a new essay up at FrontPageMagazine.com titled "Religious Left Panics over Obamacare Troubles." It's well worth the read. Here's a brief preview:
"Jim Wallis has issued a virtual public imprecatory pray for Sarah Palin’s political destruction after her comments on Obamacare’s 'death panels.' And a United Methodist lobbyist is denouncing Obamacare’s opponents as racists. Meanwhile, the President himself appeared on an August 19 Religious Left conference call, to rally true believers to our "core ethical and moral obligation.'"

[...]

"For the statist mindset to which Wallis and the Religious Left passionately subscribe, government is simply a cornucopia of gifts and services, benignly bestowed, as an extension of, or even substitute for, God’s grace. But governments, unlike the private sector against whose “greed” the Religious Left perpetually warns, have coercive powers through taxation and law enforcement."

[...]

"Accelerating the angry rhetoric about Obamacare’s critics was chief United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler, whose United Methodist Board of Church and Society is part of the Religious Left coalition for Obamacare. With typical perception, Winkler discerned that 'Racism and fear is at the core of the anger' against government health care. Winkler helpfully recalled that after Obama’s election America suffered a 'spate' of racial outrages, including 'cross burnings, black figures hanged from nooses, schoolchildren chanting ‘assassinate Obama,’ and racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.'"

[...]

"Resorting to Wallis’ imprecatory tone against Palin, Winkler quoted Isaiah about the unrepentant: 'But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.' Wow, that’s violent language coming from a virtual pacifist. But evidently the vial of God’s judgment will be poured down upon all them with the temerity to question government run health care. For those, like Wallis and Winkler, who equate God’s Kingdom with Big Government, the punishment evidently cannot be soon enough."
All of which calls to mind Communist Goal #27:
"Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with 'social' religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a 'religious crutch.'"
Ravenous wolves, indeed.

- JP

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Is the "religious left" an oxymoron?

It tries the soul to believe otherwise when we read the following:
"Sarah, you’re the one who is acting in an "evil" way."

[...]

"Politics for people like you is really all about you, your fame and power, and your taste of it during the last election has revealed what kind of politician you truly are."

[...]

"Please don’t invoke your 'Christian faith' anymore and embarrass the people of God even further. May your efforts to scare Americans during this important debate fail. May your political future also fail, and may your star fall as fast as it rose just a few months ago — because we now know who you really are."
Those words of Christian charity are from Jim Wallis, the CEO of Sojourners, commenting on former Governor Sarah Palin's recent Facebook statements on ObamaCare. And just what exactly is Sojourners, some may ask? It is an evangelical Christian ministry that preaches radical leftwing politics:
As one of its first acts, Sojourners formed a commune in the Washington, D.C. neighborhood of Southern Columbia Heights. Members shared their finances, participated in various activist campaigns, and organized events at both the neighborhood and national levels.
Ah, community organizers. That explains a lot.
The themes of these campaigns, echoed monthly in the pages of the group's in-house publication Sojourners, centered on attacking U.S. foreign policy, denouncing American "imperialism," and extolling Marxist revolutionary movements in the Third World.
Holy Sandinista, Batman!
In the 1980s the Sojourners community actively embraced "liberation theology," rallying to the cause of communist regimes that had seized power especially in Latin America, with the promise of bringing about the revolutionary restructuring of society.
So it is somehow "Christian" to embrace those who reject God in favor of Karl Marx? Now that's what we call a world-class feat of rationalization.
The ministry also reviled welfare reform as a "mean-spirited Republican agenda" characterized by "hatred toward the poor" and mounted a defense of affirmative action.
We guess some only get out of scripture what they bring to it. We've studied the Good Book quite extensively, and we can find no evidence that Jesus put his trust in Caesar to feed the hungry or to heal the sick. In fact, He showed a stubborn determination to just do it Himself.
Sojourners is a member organization of the Win Without War and United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalitions. It condemns the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where several hundred terrorist suspects are being held by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile the colleagues of those detainees are treating Christians in their home lands in much the same manner as the pre-Constantine Romans did. No lions, mind you, but plenty of beheadings, hackings, burnings, stonings, etc. But it's not the terrorists' fault, according to what passes for Sojourner thought. Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, explains:
Jim Wallis' Sojourners is not usually very anxious to spotlight the plight of persecuted Christians around the world, tormented by Islamist or communist regimes. But in its few references to problems for Christians, it will evade blaming the actual tormentors and inevitably fault the ultimate culprits: the U.S., Israel, the West, and their allies.
Returning to those pesky scriptures again, we learn that Jesus rejected the efforts of the zealots to recruit him for their political cause. The Savior constantly had to remind his apostles that He was not of this world, and it was the Next World which was His concern.

Posting on the Wesley Report, Shane Raynor:
Imagine what would happen if a prominent Christian conservative issued a written "prophetic" proclamation cursing the political future of a top Democratic politician. Such an action would be widely ridiculed and the incident would find a place in the headlines of every national newscast. But suppose a Christian leader pronounced a curse on a Republican's political career? Well, if it's Jim Wallis cursing Sarah Palin, apparently no one cares and Wallis gets a pass.
Raynor poses a question that the so-called Progressive Left cannot answer:
Where's the Christian charity (and civility) in his proclamation to Sarah Palin?
That's because there is none there to be found. "Christian progressives" are too wrapped up in the cares of this world, embracing such heresy as Marxist Liberation Theology to have time for bourgeois notions like Christian charity, be it for Sarah Palin or any other Christian who does not follow their trek down the radical path of false prophesy.

Leftist evengelicals are determined to fuse the matter of Marxism with the anti-matter of Christianity, forgetting what the result is when the two come in contact.

- JP