Christian Disagreements

Frank Pastore's latest article, "Should Christians Argue Politics?" successful knocks down the straw man he has set up for himself. He and I agree that Christians have a responsibility to discus political issues, in a respectful manner.

Perhaps many Christians think arguing is bad because they can’t distinguish between a person and their ideas. Even for themselves, they can take it personally when someone is arguing against their ideas. But not arguing does make me a nice person. And the fact that I do argue about consequential things does not make me unloving. Nice people can be wrong, and mean people can be right. I can criticize a person’s ideas without criticizing the person. The challenge is to communicate my disagreement—to argue—in such a way that the person understands I disagree with their ideas, not them personally.

So there it is. And I whole heartedly agree with Pastore here.

But what Pastore skips happily over is the fact that many of his colleagues in conservative punditry do not believe that a person could be a believing Christian and a Liberal. They don't believe that someone could be a good person and a Liberal (best they can offer is a wrongheaded and uninformed, if good hearted). And they have said so repeatedly (I was thinking of hunting up some choice quotes by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, but I'm depressed enough already). It is difficult to have a discussion of politics with someone who believes that by virtue of your political affiliation or political philosophy you are intrinsically a bad person.

For discussion or debate to be meaningful, both parties have to acknowledge that the other side might be right; otherwise what you are engaged in is either a sales-pitch or a sermon.

Dobson's Choice

Frank Pastore is not a great interviewer. Comes of being a radio guy, I suppose. Too used to hearing the sound of his own voice. But he recently interviewed James Dobson, big man in the Christian Right, on why he won't vote for Rudy Giuliani. The standard reasons were given (including his appearing in drag on Saturday Night Live), and then Pastore made this interesting comment (in the form of a question).

Dr. Dobson, if Hillary were to win the presidency then that just means that the pro-life movement continues to fight another day, it would rally and mobilize the base, it would also send a message to the conservatives in America that without the pro-life movement, without the evangelical conservative Christian vote, you’re not going to win. If Rudy Giuliani wins it could be the end of the pro-family, pro-life movement because if he were to have four years in the White House the support for the pro-family movement could easily dry up. Why would the Republican Party support anything other than a pro-life candidate? Of course, that might be popular in a general election, but we sacrifice our soul at the altar of political expediency.

Dobson: That’ absolutely true, Frank.

It's heartening that a certain section of the Conservative base sees more value in Hillary Clinton being president than Rudy Giuliani. It's nice to know they are preparing to lose.

I don't get this

Frank Pastore's latest article is very carefully written. It gives the illusion of an argument without the actual substance of said argument.

Basically it's this.

Liberal believers claim to be inspired by the Bible when they propose fighting poverty and not worrying so much about abortion/homosexuality.

Liberal believers do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. For those who don't know what inerrancy, Pastore provides a handy explanation.

Inerrancy is the view that God is the author of every single word of the original autographs of both the Old and New Testaments, and that He superintended the human authors to compose and record without error exactly what He wanted, even down to the specific words that were used.

Somehow this proves that Conservative Christians are right and Liberal Christians are wrong.

I don't get it myself - but I think if you are the sort of person who believes in inerrancy you are probably also the sort of person who rejects the theory that any interpretation of the Holy Word but your own might be correct. So maybe the argument doesn't have to be all that effective.

Osama Bin Ladin favors Liberal Christianity

This is according to Frank Pastore's latest article.

The emergent church is an ally in the war against radical Islam–al Qaeda’s ally. Not in the sense they are supplying bullets and bombs to Osama, of course, but in the sense they are weakening our conviction to fight.

If those in the emergent “we’re-a-missional-not-an-institutional” church had their way, American church buildings would be just like European church buildings – empty. And the church, the people themselves, would be so intellectually, morally, emotionally, and spiritually lost, confused and uncertain, that they would be incapable of doing hardly anything more than inviting their Muslim oppressors in for a cappuccino and a good conversation about the sociology of knowledge, the absurdity of propositional truth, and the misplaced certitude of the Muslim metanarrative. All the while, no doubt, nodding in agreement that America probably deserved to die and mumbling something about carbon footprints.

The term “emergent church” refers to a loose association of people who share common values and attitudes toward, well, everything. It’s Christianity for postmoderns who don’t like truth, knowledge, science, authority, doctrine, institutions, or religion.

I'm not sure what to say about this one, except it does seem like Conservatives really want to hold on to Religious Conservatives.

Atheism on Trial

Surprisingly there are several articles on Atheism up at Townhall today. Unsurprisingly they are all pretty negative towards it.

I was going to print quotes from them, but I've decided it's not worth it. If you are curious

Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs by Frank Pastore, in which he explains that since Science can't completely explain certain transitions (from non-life to life for example) it doesn't make sense.

Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great by Kevin McCullough in which he explains that Christopher Hitchens, despite providing intellectual support for the Iraq war and general war in the middle east, is in fact an angry soul. And that's why he rejects God. Also Christians opposition to condom distribution in Africa is sensible and logical.

Taking aim at God, and missing by Dinesh D'Souza is also about Hitchens. D'Souza laments that Hitchens didn't just write a book pissing on Islam, because that would be totally acceptable. But by critiquing Christianity as well, he misses the boat.

I don't really have much to say on this subject; I'd just point out that saying "Hooray for God" at Townhall is pretty much a guaranteed crowd pleaser.

Mormonism Redux

As Mitt Romney's campaign continues we can expect to read two articles over and over again. The first is the expose by a Democrat or a supporter of one of the other Republican Nominees. In this one we will find out about all the goofy things Mormon's believe, along with a reference to the hierarchical nature of the church and the question of whether or not Romney will serve the American people or the Mormon Church.

Frank Pastore has the other kind; the one about how as a good Christian he can still vote for Romney even though Romney and Mormons in general aren't Christians.

. . . many Mormons in recent years have taken to calling themselves Christians, and a grow-ing number of Christians are willing to speak of Mormonism as something akin to another Chris-tian denomination. But, Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, nor is it merely "a non-Christian religion." To be theologically precise, though perhaps politically incorrect, Mormonism is a cult of Christianity (www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a01.html) – a group that claims to Chris-tian while denying one or more central doctrines of the Christian faith.

I don't know why Pastore feels the need to hyphe-nate so many words; perhaps that's another facet of Christianity that I, being Mormon, don't hold to.

At an rate his over all point is that he would vote for Romney over Clinton or Obama; but that doesn't mean he thinks that Mormons are Christians. Or to be more precise, by his narrow definition of Christian (which he labels the historic Christian Faith), Mormons aren't Christians. This definition does seem to boil down to "Belongs to the true Christian faith," however. And using that narrow definition Mormons would be forced to conclude that Pastore is not a real Christian either. Following such a definition to it's logical conclusion, you end up with thousands of "true Christian faith" and nobody is really a Christian.

I prefer a broad definition myself; if a person believes in Christ, he's a Christian.

Are we at War with Islam?

There are two answers to that if you are a Conservative. Answer #1 is "Of course we are, and it's only naivete and political correctness that forces us to pretend that we aren't." Answer #2 is "Of course we aren't - suggesting that conservatives think that we are is just another way of calling us racist hicks!"

Well there's an editorial over at Townhall by Frank Pastore in which he acknowledges that a lot of conservatives believe that we are at war with Islam, but argues that we really aren't. He points to many America loving Muslims, and asks a very salient question.

If "we are at war with Islam,” then what would victory look like? The "defeat" of Islam? Would this mean every Muslim would be given the option to "convert or die?" Now who’s the radical?

Good point. I heartily approve of this article, and am glad to see some Conservatives speaking out against the madness of some of them.

But let's see what the reader response has been like.

Thank you Mr. Pastore
Amen. Finally, one of the commentators on this site has got it right. Thank you Mr. Pastore. Maybe this can be the breakthrough to get people to realize we are not at war with all Muslims. This is long overdue, but welcome just the same.

Now, maybe, the real debate on how to move forward can commence and people will realize that JUST blowing things up is not the answer to the Iraq problem.

Killing the radicals is necessary, but declaring war with the entire population is a huge mistake.

ISLAM FOLLOWING THE KORAN IS TOTAL EVIL
YOU ARE EXACTLY WRONG - ISLAM IS AN INHERENTLY ANTI-HUMAN RELIGION AND IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS YOU HAVE NOT BEEN KEEPING UP WITH THE REQUIRED READING IN THE KORAN TO BE QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT. ANY RELIGION THAT BELIEVES THAT EVERY WORD OF THE KORAN IS EXACTLY PERFECT AND THE UNCHANGABLE WORD OF GOD, IS A SICK AND EVIL RELIGION WHICH IS TOTALLY UNREFORMABLE! GREG AT JIHAD WATCH WROTE ABOUT HOW TOTALLY WRONG YOU ARE --
Brovo Greg! Rare insight for this site!(JIHAD WATCH) I rarely say I agree, but, today, for you, I say, I AGREE. Everything you said was Religiously Incorrect, and just exactly true. Thank you for saying it - clear light at last! Bless you oxoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxo Love, from jud

Most Rational Article I've read at TH
Don't let the anti-Muslim bigots get you down....you can't hate an entire religion and wish to wipe it out. Those who desire to do that are in very bad historical company indeed.

Dangerous delusions.
Mr. Pastore,

Your opinion is without historical substance, present day observation or logical support and appears to be based on the intimidated and falsified history of the west taught by self loathing left and a Pollyannaish detachment from reality and otherworldly optimism.

Islam is Christendom’s perennial enemy which submerged the Christian Middle East, North Africa and Asia under a wave of unremitting, widespread ignorance and fraud in its perpetual offensive against its neighbors. It is the most elaborate criminal conspiracy ever conceived for the benefit of it rulers which has absorbed the most criminal and homicidal racial groups and nations of each epoch to be its vanguard and aggressor against the west. . . .

The fruit of a tree.
You know a tree by the fruit it bears. The fruit of Islam since its creation by the slave-owning rapist Muhammad has been one of mass murder and pillage. Islam spread mainly through extreme violence against Christians. I, for one, choose not to be a dhimmi.

Islam is not the enemy?
Don't be so sure Considering that those tens of millions of "radical" Muslims take their direction from the Qur'an and hadith(Muslim Holy books),I would suggest that it IS Islam and its teachings that are the threat.

Largely a negative response I have to say and many of the positive responses are from Liberals pleased to see some sense at Townhall. Most Conservatives at Townhall would apparently rather believe themselves at war with Islam.