http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/bring_it_on

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Ulterior Motives

Dennis K said...

"You can have God back when you Dems give up the culture of death that you so willingly embrace."

This is a pretty amazing statement -- in several directions. First it implies complicity in the actual Swiping of God. I think Dennis K never got past the header on this blog. His comment, drive by shooting style, is simple sand-box taunting. We've got God. Nyah, nyah nyah!

My basic problem with this is HOW you got God, Dennis K.

When talk radio allows statements such as "all Dems are Godless and immoral" to be expressed and pass unchallenged (whether by disconnecting callers who disagree, or never putting them on the air to begin with), perceptions are formed. Hearing something enough times slides that perception into the realm of public belief. Discussions with friends and family blur the libel into truth. The simple fact that the majority of Dems are religious has been buried. The real issue, that the basic Democratic liberal platform promotes tolerance for all faiths and for non-believers, never gets discussed because the point is to create and promote a stereotype that is slanderous and false.

What we have is stereotyping in order to control. It's classic manipulation. Ask any person of color in this nation for clarification on just how wrong this really is. Better yet, read your bible. (You can start with Romans 13:10, Mark 12:33, Luke 10:27, Mark 12:31, Mathew 22:39, Romans 13:8, Galatians 5:14, or James 2:8; it's all about the love, dude.)

Perhaps most telling is Zechariah 8:17. "Let no one have any evil thought in his heart against his neighbor; and have no love for false oaths: for all these things are hated by me, says the Lord."

HATED by me, says the Lord. Wow. This from a God who knows his way around a proper smite, thank you very much. Pharaoh who?

You see, Dennis K, you can't work against God's conduct requirements as an endgame to achieve personal power. Gloating about it puts the whole stinking mess right over the top.

Two words: NOT MORAL.

Another problem I have with your comment is the whole "culture of death" thing. That statement implies that all Dems actively seek non life embracing solutions. Are all convicted murderers Dems? How about nursing home abusers? Neo-nazi's? Members of the NRA and their fervent support for automatic weapon access? Perhaps all the pedophiles of the world are card-carrying Dems. Let's not forget those KKK idiots, surely they must be Dems. No?

I suspect the wildly flung culture of death taunt boils down to two things flogged excessively by talk radio: Abortion and Schiavo.

It's unfortunate that the manipulation of the abortion issue is so complete. Personally, I know NO one who loves abortion; I can't think of a single person desperate to get right out to the clinic and have one done. I believe that each individual's rights over their lives and bodies is granted constitutionally. I also believe that medical records are confidential documents. Legal medical procedures are just that, legal. If you don't support abortion, please don't have one. After all, it's YOUR body.

As for Terry Schiavo, I don't like the way her life is ending. I abhor the way her life has been artificially extended. When you attempt to play God and force life to continue well beyond the body's natural abilities to sustain itself, there is no platform of piety left to stand upon and pronounce your morality on the masses. You have taken it out of God's hands. Using this woman as a political pawn says a great deal about the scruples of the people exploiting her for personal motives.

Finally, here's a list of things I "willingly embrace".

Two sided discussions. (That's why I visited your site and welcomed you to return to God Dem.)

Tolerance of differences, and excitement over the possibilities each person adds to the mix.

Peaceful solutions.

Reaching out to the poor.

Caring for the elderly.

Protecting the earth.

Scientific study and exploration.

Clear thinking.

Truth.

So there you have it. I don't need to get God BACK, Dennis K. I just have to live clean and be liberal. The bible tells me so.

Nobody OWNS God. Using manipulation, slander and pressure to split the faithful apart in order to cement power is NOT of God. When I wrote in my header that Dems feel like republicans swiped God from them, I meant that (from the Christian standpoint) what was happening within the body of believers was politically driven, against the word of God, and designed to increase power base by playing people who believe in God against each other.

I wouldn't be particularly proud of that.

22 Comments:

At March 27, 2005 12:34 PM, Blogger ~Betsy said...

Outstanding post once again, Jet. You speak my mind. No one OWNS God, and to think they do is preposterous, the sort of thinking that comes from an immature mind and simplistic Us vs. Them mentality. Dennis K. needs to get out of the sandbox and get a real life. Maybe READ once in awhile, turn off FOX News, try something new.

 
At March 27, 2005 4:52 PM, Blogger frstlymil said...

Bless you for writing this.

 
At March 27, 2005 4:58 PM, Blogger Pliny said...

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression with my cogent reply. We don't OWN God - rather, the Dems have given him up. Since nature abhors a vacuum, we Repubs have stepped into the breach.

When you say, "I just have to live clean and be liberal," you present two diametrically opposed statements. I can no more be a good nazi and Jewish, or a real communist and a land owner, than can someone "live clean and be liberal."

Liberalism values personal autonomy over all. My body, my choice, my feelings, my decision. No one can judge or evaluate ME, because I am the arbiter of all that is good or evil about me. ME - not you, not the laws, not society, not God.

Since you have taken such a stand (through your Liberal actions and beliefs), and we are of a different philosophical stand, it is easy to say (and logically believe) that you (as a political party)have abandoned God.

Therefore, expo facto - he/she/it -is ours. We don't claim him / her /it, we just view the phenomena and understand the reality of the situation. Its just as natural as water running downhill.

BTW, thanks for the reply Blog on my comment - I almost feel famous.

 
At March 27, 2005 7:46 PM, Blogger frstlymil said...

Actually Dennis, you apparently do not know what liberalism means, as defined both by the Democratic Party, AND the Bible. It means, and you're welcome to look it up yourself,

As a political theory,

Liberalism: The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

As a biblical ideology (as archived from previous):"The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." Isaiah 32:5-8

"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. Proverbs 11:25

so, ya see Dennis, us Christians that happen to believe in what the actual CHRISTIAN religion teaches, which is not to be confused with what you are talking about - because what you are speaking of has no basis in biblical ideology or fact of theological study...and please don't use Latin if you don't know what it means. There is no such term as "expo facto". An expo is something one goes to where collections are on display - like monster trucks... Site your sources with links, back up and research Dennis. If there is no back up, and you won't link it...don't say it, because it's crap.

Oh, and you might want to research how the Republican party traditionally felt about States Rights and how they too, felt about arbitrary authority.

 
At March 28, 2005 12:25 PM, Blogger Tom Harper said...

Excellent post. You've gotta admire the Right for their public relations success -- straight out of the Joseph Goebbels handbook -- in creating this mass stereotype that conservatives are upright decent Godfearing citizens, and liberals are just selfish heathens. It's a brilliant technique, and unfortunately millions of Americans have fallen for it.

I'm glad you posted some Biblical links. People need to be reminded that the Bible wasn't written just to condemn homosexuals. A lot of current conservative "values" -- corporate greed, usury, environmental destruction, wearing your religion on your sleeve -- are condemned by the Bible.

 
At March 28, 2005 7:42 PM, Blogger Jet said...

Dennis K, it not only is possible to live clean and be Liberal, it's the best choice. Liberal behavior supports the poor, embraces diversity and embodies free will, a great gift.

You reiterated once again that Dems are not religious, in fact have abandoned God to the point of creating a vaccuum. This is not true, and you are deepening an inaccurate stereotype when you persist in saying so. More Democrats are religious than not, but we are OK with Dems who choose to exercise their free will and turn from God. God doesn't force faith, it's a journey of one.

Manipulating faith for personal gain is wrong.

Frstlymil, you rock. Thanks for a great rebuttal comment.

Thhofpa22, I'm glad you liked the links. The Online Parallel Bible is a great resource. It's also a fascinating way to look at a verse -- they have 8 complete translations and several others that are not yet complete. Translation is certainly a factor in the word of the Lord. Very interesting stuff.

 
At March 28, 2005 8:22 PM, Blogger R said...

Oh my gosh. I've got steam coming out of my ears right now. Did I just hear a REFUCKINGPUBLICAN talk about LIBERALS having a culture of death? Is this from the same party that started a bloody war that has lost over 2000 American lives to date?!! Is this from the party that licks the ass of the drug companies so good that the elderly are dying for lack of medical care and being able to afford their prescriptions drugs? You want all these unborn babies around but no public services to support them. No Dennis. Let me tell you what you want. You want women out of the work place. You want us pregnant and poor so that we will stop showing up your fat lazy ass and taking your jobs. You want 1955 back. Where the only people getting killed were not white and as long as you waived a flag over the dead bodies you could sanction it. Your sick and stupid and evil. But most of all your just plain repulsive. Jet..you've got far more patience with ignorance than I do. This country is in a mess and last I checked abortion wasn't the reason. Corruption, greed, and corn holes like Bush were the reason. And last I checked he wasn't a liberal. The conservatives have had this country for five years now. Time to put the blame where it belongs.

 
At March 29, 2005 12:16 AM, Blogger R said...

And last I checked I used the phrase "and last I checked" too many times. ha ha Let me just add to that..his fearless leader put more people to death as the govenor of Texas than anyone in it's history. More than all the other states COMBINED. And some of those were deemed mentally disabled or retarded. Way to have a "culture of life"

 
At March 29, 2005 5:23 AM, Blogger Matthew61 said...

I just discovered your blog, and I love what I've read! Keep it up! I'll keep reading...

 
At March 29, 2005 5:15 PM, Blogger Jet said...

Thanks, Matthew61. I'll be sure to check out your blog.

You're right, Rhonda. Abortion isn't the reason this country is a mess, but it sure does rally the troops. It boggles how people are willing to be swayed. It's like it's easier not to think about it, just let somebody else tell you what is important to you. What an anthill mentality.

 
At March 29, 2005 6:48 PM, Blogger Pliny said...

Frstlymil, let me try to ease your confusion. When I wrote “expo facto” to summarize an end to a series of events, I wrote it as it is most commonly heard and spoken. I didn’t realize that the colloquial expression would cause you such problems. The phrase is actually “ex post facto,” and it is a legal term that generally refers to retroactive laws or events. The translation would be “from a thing done afterward.” Here is a link, since you apparently need one. http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm

So, when I said the Republicans “expo facto” I meant that after you Dems abandoned God (Christian or otherwise), we Republicans became the “keeper of the keys.” We didn’t claim him; he became ours “ex post facto.”

Also, I defined liberalism as a devotion to personal autonomy, and you ask where are my links, and then offered your definition of liberalism: you say it is a political theory “…founded on the autonomy of the individual…” Of course you add some more to the definition, but how can you say I’m wrong when you just quoted my statement back to me? That’s what I said - personal autonomy.

As for your Biblical “evidence.” I’m not sure how the Bible got into this conversation, but since you brought it up, lets address it.

Firstly (actually, secondly, and thirdly) your attempt to equate the word “liberal” in the Bible with ANYTHING political that is occurring in the U.S. leaves me sitting in front of my computer slack-jawed, with my mouth agape. To say that what you did is intellectually dishonest would be an understatement.

The Old Testament was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and a few other languages, it was translated into the Greek Septuagint, which was then translated into the Latin Vulgate, which was then translated into English. To imply (let alone state) that “liberal” in Proverbs 11:25 means what you are saying is nonsense. That passage has always dealt with (at least in my Bible study class) generosity. Namely, a generous man shall prosper. It has nothing to do with a political philosophy.

Likewise, Isaiah: 32, 5-8 deals with similar uses of the word “Nadiyb,” which can be translated as voluntary, generous, magnanimous, or noble – or liberal if you like (http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm125_20.htm).

I may choose “generous,” but I’m not going to use that choice to validate some political argument. In fact, there are over 10,000 translational errors in the Bible that have been documented (please don't ask for a link). The most famous is in the Lord’s Prayer, when you ask the Lord “to lead us not into temptation.” Ever ask yourself what kind of God would want to lead you into temptation? Well the translation of that phrase could have been, protect us from temptation, lead us not into tribulation, protect us from the trial, etc., etc. – but the early Church picked “lead us not into temptation.” Please don’t drag out the Bible to back up your specious political claims.

As for state’s right – to quote Colin Powell, “You don’t want to go there.” From the Civil War to 1972, the Democratic Party, and their goon enforcers in the Ku Klux Klan fought tooth and nail for State Rights. Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, George Wallace and a host of other Democrats fought against anything that smacked of “Negro Equality.” If it weren’t for Republicans, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments never would have gone into law. Let me know if you need a “link” for these historical facts.

Oh – Rhonda, keep taking your medication and see a health care provider asap. I fear you’re head is about to explode.

 
At March 29, 2005 7:08 PM, Blogger R said...

And YOU Dennis K can keep thinking out of your ass. I noticed you didn't address one thing I said. Don't you hate it when you step in something you can't get yourself out of? Idiot.

 
At March 29, 2005 10:10 PM, Blogger frstlymil said...

Wow, Dennis, you do read selectively and defensively. Yeah, I actually am more than familiar with what ex post facto means, since I work for a law firm, though I appreciate your offering the definition. And the term "Lead us not into temptation" means exactly that - to lead us through God's teachings - away from temptations (sin, straying, etc.... Not sure why you claimed it was a translation error and meant the opposite. Tribulation means suffering, and that's a nice thought as well - to lead us not into suffering. Temptation makes a little more sense in context with what comes after...Is the concept of treating others the way you yourself would wish to be treated also a translation error? "forgive us our trespasses (sins) as we forgive those who trespass (sin) against us (ooooh, could this possibly be the origin of the golden rule? I'm sorry you need to cling with white knuckles to the concept that anyone who actually DOES believe in God, love for other people, tolerance, respect for other people in the world, of other faiths, ideologies, born to different orientations, colors, etc. and who would like to see the elderly cared for, children have services so as to have decent lives (not just make it safely through the birth canal) - that it burns you so much that we actually exist while you cling to the Old Testament vengefulness of about 7 or so verses repeated over and over by fundamentalists, that you can't bring yourself to accept that you might need to re-think that hatred you have going on there that would make you say the things that you do. I see this a lot with people who preach hate and attack others who believe in tolerance, community building and social services for the needy with words like "Communist" or, how try as they might to say the word "Liberal" with a negative tone of voice - they still can't change the actual meaning of the word, which just seems to make them madder. How that can be twisted around to being about Death and immoral behavior, etc is beyond irrational. I think if you actually did research a bit more and not get defensive about people asking you to back up your claims...if you have actual proof of your claims, we're simply asking you to back them up with credible references. JET sited several passages in the bible and is well versed in theology...look up what she sited as back up...I sited a direct cut and paste from the dictionary on the word liberalism and did not add commentary at all...look it up yourself at dictionary.com - you might find that there is much to be said for those of us who can look other people directly in the eye and know our side of the street is clean. There's an old expression - Religion is for people who are afraid to go to Hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there and don't want to go back. It's hard work to not point the finger at others - It's hard to pull that splinter out of other people's eyes when there's an entire log in your own (now that's complete paraphrasing of the biblical quote from the beatitudes, but I think you get the idea.) Hang in there Dennis - one of these days you'll have a moment of clarity and come to that realization on your own.

 
At March 29, 2005 10:12 PM, Blogger Pliny said...

Gee Rhonda, I wonder why I didn’t address your ranting? Maybe the “licks the ass of the drug companies” so the elderly can die without prescription drugs is so ludicrous as to not warrant a reply. I guess that multi-billion dollar prescription drug bill the Administration passed for senior citizens doesn’t count (which is it going to be – not enough, or the money is going to the eeeevil drug companies?).

No public services? Not sure what world you’re living in, but we’ve got more public services (which normally is a State function) than you can shake a stick at.

Lets see, we want women out of the work force, pregnant (you forgot barefoot) so my lazy ass can get a job? If I were that lazy, I would think I would want you to work – for me.

However, you’re right about 1955 though; Democrats were killing a lot of non-white people – just ask Grand Kleagle Robert F. Byrd how many of them uppity Negroes he lynched in West Virginia. You’re also right about the Republicans having things their way for the last 5 years. We’ve just got to make it 60 years in order to erase the damage the Dems have done from 1940 - 2000.

Yeah, I know the war is a terrible thing (Bush probably did it for oil). It must be driving you absolutely nuts knowing that just about EVERYBODY is now saying, “hmmmm, maybe Bush was right.”

I retract what I said about staying on your medication – change it, quickly.

 
At March 30, 2005 2:02 PM, Blogger kieran said...

Thanks for the post Jet. Good work.

I'm tired of seeing both sides trying trying to use God as a wedge issue. He's bigger than that.

I honestly think that if God weren't merciful he would have smoted half of congress by now. Stinkin' Pharisees, the lot of 'em! Jeeze...

 
At March 30, 2005 6:12 PM, Blogger Jet said...

Dennis, you stated again that "Dems abandoned God". This in not true. While I appreciate you emphasizing the point of my post, which is that using repetitive misrepresentation in order to manipulate for personal gain is against what God asks from us, it's disappointing that you continue to attempt to persuade by bearing false witness. If you can show me where in the Bible God asks us to misrepresent him in order to gain earthly power and goods, I would be interested in reading it.

The Bible is in the conversation because verses of it were linked to in the original post. Liberal, or generous if you will, as written in the Bible, is a concept that pre-dates (considerably) the creation of the Democratic Party. It pertains to sharing assets with the poor, providing protection for the weak and building better communities. Republicans favor building individual wealth, societal situations of "haves and have-nots", and tiered communities rewarding "haves" and punishing those who don't.

The Democratic Party is not perfect, but basic Democratic precepts of tolerance, reform, giving and protection are simply closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than values based on personal gain at the expense of the very people God asks us to care for and protect.

 
At March 31, 2005 11:57 AM, Blogger R said...

Seriously..you guys are wasting too much time on this loser. Smart people jumped off the Bush band wagon back when the lies about WMD's were uncovered. If that didn't convert him to sanity nothing will. You go ahead and use your new drug discount for YOUR medication. To stay that devoted to the old drunk (Bush) must cost you a fortune. And seriously Jet. I am not going to be able to read you any more until you go and get God back. How could you lose him? He's omnipresent! ha ha

 
At March 31, 2005 3:28 PM, Blogger kieran said...

The Democratic Party is not perfect, but basic Democratic precepts of tolerance, reform, giving and protection are simply closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than values based on personal gain at the expense of the very people God asks us to care for and protect.

Jet, I loved your first post, but now you're sounding like a Republican with a leftie slant.

The first thing to get across is that neither party has a corner on God. Where the Dem's succeed, the GOP fails and VISE-VERSA. Not to mention that no man/political party can truly discern God's will outside of the Bible, and through history we've sucked at even doing that.

It's just who's doing a better PR job in self-righteousness. Right now, the Repubs. are winning. To say that the Dems. best represent Jesus is to simply lower yourself to their level. Besides, I think Jesus is best represented by himself.

I kind of feel sorry for the guy (Jesus,) getting stuck in the middle of a tug of war like this. If he weren't God, I'd worry about how he's handling all that pressure.

 
At April 01, 2005 12:02 PM, Blogger Jet said...

Kieran; I did not say Dems best represent Jesus. That's pretty arrogant. What I said was that traditional Democratic platform values of tolerance, reform, giving and protection are in line with the teachings of Christ whereas values based on personal gain are not.

I am not interested in being righteous. To me, that word implies there is nothing left to learn. I read, write and think about God because I feel empty inside, and want to find my way. It's personal, as any faith based journey should be.

And Kieran, NEVER call me a republican again. I wouldn't dream of visiting your blog and insulting you. I welcome your input, but please, park the names at the door. Besides, I've been a registered Democrat longer than you've been topside, kiddo.

 
At April 01, 2005 2:11 PM, Blogger TrueJerseyGirl said...

WOW, I just found your blog and its AMAZING. You put into words all the things that us average liberals need to be saying. Thanks, and I am going to link to you.

 
At April 01, 2005 4:50 PM, Blogger kieran said...

Whoa, didn't know the word Republican offended you so much, otherwise I wouldn't have used it at all.

Obviously, the internet has a bad way of translating intended meaning. That post wasn't meant as an insult or as to question your personal faith.

I just think you have to be very careful when you say something like "my party (the democrats) is best in line with the teachings of Christ.

 
At April 01, 2005 7:02 PM, Blogger Jet said...

Thank you, truejerseygirl. Finding a kindred spirit is kickin'.

Kieran, we're fine. I agree that words are powerful and need to be wielded wisely. In the super charged atmosphere of today's political clime, I think that the initial instinct is to read absolutes into any statement. Solutions are found in the nuances. Writing in that vein is tricky at best, impossible to do perfectly, but definitly worth the effort. :D

 

Post a Comment

<< Home