“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:” Acts 2:17
Maybe this is the last days. Alberto Gonzales finally resigned.
I am not one prone to engage in conspiracy theories, but why now?
The second set of congressional hearings pretty much eliminated any possibility of him resuming an effective role at the Justice Department, but he hung tough and refused to resign. Then the domestic spy bill handed him and the White House everything they asked for and more.
So he badly fumbles his attempts to defend himself and the administration TWICE. He doesn’t get fired. He doesn’t get indicted for perjury. He weathers to public storm. Then Congress makes him the overseer of whether or not any particular domestic spy activity was appropriate. He gets a big win. He’s over the hump. The worst is behind him. Then on a quiet weekend when nothing is happening, Congress is in recess, and Bush is on vacation – he resigns.
All I can figure is that there is something else buried out there in records that involved both him and Rove in the first attempts to get the Patriot Act approved by the justice department or the clumsy Federal Prosecutor purge.
Someday we may find out.
In the meantime, it is more erosion of the neocon dream.
Bon Voyage Alberto, it’s been good to know you.
Good afternoon!
I’ve read some of your posts at your blog “Spriritual wickedness in high places. (recent ones) I’d be interested to know if you had considered naming it “Republican spiritual wickedness in high place.”
I find your use of scripture to be misplaced given your obvious predeposition on most issues. If you were to correctly use it you would be adding to the dialog in a positive way. Insead it seems your only intent is to somehow add creadiblity to the agruements you make. As Christians you and I are called to live in peace or as one of the body. We do not have to agree on issues. I totally disagree with your politics. However that takes a back seat to the greater good of keeping the unity of the fellowship. Your use of scirpture to underscore republican wickness is missplace my friend. Hopefully you spend as much time in prayer for “those in leadership” as you do in disecting their faults and failures.
Keith,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I hope that you keep reading and keep commenting.
First, by way of disclosure, the tag line on this blog does say politics from a progressive Christian perspective. So I do admit to a point of view in both religion and politics.
Your comment does raise an interesting issue, though, and one that I have been thinking about.
You have rightly pointed out that as Christians we are called to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. I like you believe that if every Christian worked to see God reflected in everyone, the world would change for the better. In a democracy, however, we have the responsibility to vote for individuals who will represent our point of view. That implies that it is also the responsibility of every citizen to have a point of view.
So do we vote for the candidate that we feel is the best Christian or the candidate who most closely represents our political point of view?
I have no doubt that George Bush is sincere in his claim to be a Christian. I also believe that Christianity has had a more profound affect on his life than either Al Gore or John Kerry. As far as results go, however, in my opinion the Bush tour of duty was the least Christian administration in recent memory.
Jimmy Carter is another deeply devout Christian who proved to be a fairly ineffective President.
So I think “character” voting has so far proved an poor way to govern in a democracy.
Instead I think that we need to bring our Christian values to the healthy public debate that should be part of any robust democracy.
That’s the sort of debate that I’m hoping to encourage in this blog.
I do apologize if sometimes I use scripture in a less than reverent way. That’s only because it is hard to be serious all the time. So those times when I’m trying to be clever or funny may not work for everyone.
As far as taking on only the Republicans, it just happens to be a target rich environment. When you try to do one of these every couple of days, you tend to take what is in front of you. I don’t believe that the democrats have a lot to be proud of over the last eight years either, but I do believe that we need to move away from the divisive politics that are at the core of the Rove-led Republicans. If the Dems try to emulate those politics, I’ll be just as demanding of them.
BTW I do take time out every day to support those in leadership and know that they are both reflecting their Creator as well as benefiting from His guidance.
Finally, I lay no claim to being “right”. I’m just a guy with a point of view and enough interest in expressing it that I’m willing to put some time into creating these posts. I appreciate your willingness to share your insights and opinions. My belief is these interactions are what will heal the wounds of wedge politics and bring us back to an inclusive democracy.
Jeff
Gee, thanks for your response. I will continue to respond. It appears you mostly got my point but not entirely. It’s not the issue I was responding to but your use of scripture. In many cases you post a verse or two then comment on an issue of the day which has nothing to do with the scripture…it leaves me wondering why the scipture was included in the first place. As to the politics we could probably have fun debating them….one obvisous target is you comment in your response about the “Rove-led divisive politics as though he started them….I don’t understand in the sightest bit what you mena.. take only day of the Clinton administration and you’ll find more divisiveness then you will in the entire Bush term…I could go on and on…and will in future reply’s…have a good day and I look forward to engaging your responses.
Keith,
Good to hear from you again.
Sometimes the scriptural references are more obvious than in other cases. I believe that the Bible is a guide to life, so a lot of what I see that I choose to comment on brings a Bible verse to mind. Whether or not others see that same connection, is clearly in the mind of the reader – but I can assure you that each verse selection is intention, just not always serious.
With regard to Karl Rove, I agree that he didn’t invent wedge politics. He is widely recognized, however, as one of the most effective practitioners of the art in recent memory. For example, the “marriage” referendums that appeared on the ballots of 11 key states including Michigan and Ohio in the last persidential election were not coincidence. Karl Rove has taken credit for this strategy which energized the conservative voter base. The Federal Prosecutor scandal that ran Gonzoles out of office also involved Rove. The connection was that Rove wanted the Federal Prosecutors to agressively pursue voter fraud in their districts which generally reduces the votes cast by groups of people who tend to vote for democrats even though there has been precious little evidence that voter fraud is a problem.
Admittedly we may differ on what we view as divisive. Hopefully we can agree, however, that special interest politics, regardless of what those special interests are, has eroded our ability as a nation to engage in the sorts of respectful debates that are required to keep a democracy healthy.
Jeff
We can certianly agree on your final paragraph, so we have reached common ground on one point.
As to the use of marriage as a wedge issue, i can agree that it’s effect on the election was helpful though G.W. probably would still have won. How ever this issue didn’t just appear out of no where. It is a legitimate isuue and one you’ve choosen to call a wedge issue. 20 years, even 10, years ago i’d doubt this would have been considered a wedge issue. biblically i can’t imagine this being a wedge issue at all, morally it isn’t either. to have this on the ballot in states is not a far flung idea to win an election. states we’re letting same sex persons marry and a stand against this is called for. i believe that a stand against this is called for , both from a biblical perspective and for the health our contry.
wedge issues are not the product on just one side. they become wedge issue when the other doesn’t like them. liberal thought in this contry had been unapposed in the media for ssssooooo long that issues that have always been opposed are now wedge issues because the other half of the wedge is being heard (for the past 10 -12 years) abortion would be a great example of this…for years it was believed to be the overwelming majority of american were in favor of this as it turns out it is truely an 50 – 50 deal. gay marrige is not supported to the tune of something like 85 – 15. how that became a “wedge issue” is a fabrication of the media. (no offense intened there)
i’m more interested in not the issues devide us but rather the ones that unite us. we have far more in common then not, i’m sure you and i but as americans also. what caught my interest in your stuff is that your Christianity drew you to comment only on republican error and not all error. the rebulican error that you choose to comment on with the use of scripture may not be sin but, in your judgement, just bad policy or performance. (a great example of this is the Bush lied crowd. did he lied or was he, and everyone else in the wourld, just wrong? to use scripture to point out fault there is certinly misplaced)
i look forward to continuing this discussion.
i’ve reread my comments…as you have noticed i’m sure, i do not check for accuracy before sending….i do this in a hurry and basicly hit and run…
Keith,
I think that I’ve already posted something on this blog regarding homosexuality from Biblical perspective, so I’m not going to repeat it in this response – but suffice it to say that I don’t share your belief that it is either a moral or biblical given. Instead it has become one of those “everybody knows” assumptions, which isn’t supported by the facts.
There is plenty of fodder for discussion in opinion polls, however. I don’t recall that we’ve ever gotten to the point of 50-50 on the substantive pro-life/pro-choice issues. The last polls I’ve seen show that support for the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision establishing the right to an abortion has remained pretty constant (low-mid 60% range) for the past five years. That’s really the important measure. There are many reasonable Pro-life people who may not agree with abortion, but also don’t agree with the concept that their moral choice should be forced on others.
I’ve posted some thoughts on abortion too so you’re welcome to read that to figure out where I stand. In quick summary, the whole “life begins at conception” concept just isn’t logically consistent if you look at the associated biological facts. From a political point of view, I think that common ground exists in the desire to reduce demand for abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies – but both sides have to be willing to move away from their dug in positions to make that happen.
The whole “whose media is more macho” discussion isn’t worth spending a lot of time on. Both liberal and conservative views are widely represented. It just depends on which “eye” you look out of whether you perceive a liberal or conservative bias. In my humble opinion, any claim of bias is a red herring. The real discussion should be why we don’t have more open and honest debate, and not that there should be more media representing my particular point of view.
I admit a particular point of view, but as I’ve said before, most of what there is to talk about these days deals with Republicans because of where we are in the political cycle. I believe that the Democrats are currently at fault in their unwillingness to confront Bush regarding the war in Iraq. They perceive that it is to their political advantage for Bush to continue to pursue his quixotic mission at least through the next Presidential election. So the most we’re going to see out them is public posturing. This is a deeply cynical position which is all about power and has little to do with people.
In the meantime, you and I should continue to talk because we do need a change in the nature of dialog in this country. Who better for it to start with than us?
Jeff
We do completely disagree and I read some of your posts on abortion and same sex sexuality.
my fist response to you a few weeks ago was regarding the title of your blog, spiritual wickedness in high places. after reading more of your stuff i am more inclined to say your blog has nothing to do with spritual wickedness and only about political views as seen through your glasses. your post today, that i also responded to, is a perfect example. what’s the spiritual wickedness that you are pointing out? i only see political opinion
regarding your post to my response above;
paragraph #1) there is no biblical support for a same sex sexual lifestyle and only support against it. i will say this, it is clearly sin. however, it is no more a sin then gossip, adultry, lying ect. just part of the sinful nature of man which can be forgiven and should not mean we treat them any different than any other sinner, you and i included.
paragraph #2) there are polls and i use to keep them. after the 2000 election USA today did many polls and studies trying to find out exactly why ANYONE would vote for GW. this lead them to the Christian right..and they did survey’s. abortion was a 50/50 deal. as to the reasonable people portion of your comment, reasonable people can expect to impose their veiw on many issues such as not smoking in public, expecting someone to tell the truth under oath, etc.
paragraph #3) I’ve scanded your posts on abortion, two of them. I believe God is the creator of life GEN 1:1. this is foundational in any Christians belief or for the reading of the bible for that matter. if we don’t believe that then we should go no further in the reading of the bible as nothing else would make since, a flood? 3 guys being thrown in the fire and walking around and then out, unharmed? the parting of the red sea? a 13 year old getting pregent with the Son of God miraculuosly???? no way.
however if God “created the heavens and the earth” then the other items i just mentioned are footnotes… so if God created everything, and children are created by Him through the process he choose, then the taking of a child at any point after conception is really uncalled for….your comments about menstration and the like are really not logical as they are natural occurances which steam from the created, the woman, by the creator, God.
paragraph #4) are you kidding? equally represented???? other then fox there is NO conservitive point of view given on camera the i’m aware of to any extent. certianly not on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, ext. maybe in a round table of four guys there is one “differing” view giving but that’s usually 3 on 1 our 4 on one. fox has all commers at all time….
a note here to show how deeply partican the dem’s are….the presidential cadidated and the dem national party boycotted a debate on fox a few months ago. why??? the repub are left to debate on msnbc hosted by chris mattews with questioning along the lines of, who here believes in evolution and who thinks life begins at conception? talk radio is mostly conservitive but that’s because dem views are largely unsupported and simply can’t be argued or defended in the light of day…..also they can’t draw a following. (sorry my take)
paragraph #5) you aren’t watching the dems very closely or you would have posted a blog on the dems treatment of our general who testified last week in the report that had been due in sept. talk about wickedness. i’m still stunned over his treatment. first they confirm his appointment only a few months ago 84 – 0 then they treat the leader of our forces in the middle of a conflict with such disrespect and call him a lier is simply unexcusable. i could use several scriputers and write thoughts about that.
if you think repubs are the ones in the news then it’s because you’re only reading one side of the news.
hope you have a great week and i’ll continue to respond. i’m out again for a while so i don’t know when that will be. i had a few mins tonight waiting for a call. i am very interested in your spritual foundation as how it relates to your veiws. what role the bible plays and your relationship with Jesus….
again have a great week
Kieth,
I’ve been on the road for the past week, so I apologize for my tardy reply.
Thanks for your responses.
I too look forward to an ongoing dialog.
The tag line for this blog is “Politics from a Progressive Christian Perspective”. That’s what I’m writing about. The Bible does inform my life. I read it and depend on it every day. I could write another blog that is exclusively a discussion of spirituality in daily life, but I barely have time to keep this one going. Besides I have a lot of fun exploring that boundary between politics and religion.
We are really pretty close on the subject of homosexuality. In fact, we are probably further apart in our views about sin. For example, I know this would be a sinful act for me because I promised God and my wife that I would be faithful to her. But I can’t say that monogamous loving consensual adult same-sex relationships would be a sinful act for anyone else. That’s between them and God. He didn’t ask me to be their judge, nor do I want to be. I’ve got my hands full keeping my own life on the straight and narrow. In fact if I’ve learning anything in my studies, it’s that about the time I feel so much pride that I should be telling others how to live, I’m just about to have my own fall. I have to humbly ask God to direct my life every day, but for some reason when my prayers are answered and things are going well, the gratitude I show is trying to grab back the wheel.
I agree with everything that you’ve said about God creating all in his image and likeness. We are both starting at the same point in the Bible – the beginning. Suggesting that the Bible says anywhere that life begins at conception, however, is really a stretch and in my opinion presuming to take the place of the Creator.
Besides, it’s not the beginning that the Bible is particularly concerned about. What Jesus came to prove is that there is no ending. That’s the big new of the New Testament. Life is eternal and our time on earth should be spent figuring out how to prepare ourselves for the rest of our life with God.
I was blessed to witness the birth of my two children. Every terminated pregnancy is a tragedy because birth is such a hopeful miracle. Ultimately, though it not my place to dictate this choice for a woman. It is between her and God.
A far greater waste though, is a misguided myopic life focused on condemning those whom the Bible clearly instructs us that we had to learn to love – those who disagree with us.
So I love it that you take the time to write.
Thanks,
Jeff
hey jeff,
NEVER wouldi presume to condem another, however i will stabd up for and in given circimstances, instruct others on the way they should go. that is very much biblical. i would never presume someones destiny as thinking they are condemed to hell, but i will if given opportunity point out right for wrong as i understand the bbile to show.same sex relationsships are clearly contrary to the biblies teachings. i can point to a host of scripute that i draw this conclusion from.
your comments lead me to conclude that sin for you may not be sin for another…..you simply can comment or point it out in another. this is primarily an arguement for these kinds of issues. stealing and murder on then other hand have no such view yet are clearly sin as the bible leads us to that conclusion.
i am not inthe business of telling other how to live their lives as if Jesve were only concerned about sin He would have gone to the areas of sin and stopped them from doing so. that’s my example. He ate with the sinners and was amoung them as “it is not the well that need the doctor.”
what i have a problem with is those things that are sin are not sin. this is where you and i are alike in or faith. we sin and acknowledge it as sin and understand the need for a savior from our sin, JESES!!!! those who accept the sinful way as not sinful are the ones playing God. they are not accepting His wya and teaching as writing thier own gospel which is preverse.
we are to love everyone as you have mentioned and as Jeses taught. never would i want to condem anyone as i would then stand condemed as”for by the same measure you judge you shall be judged.” i believe we are not to judge the sinner but we are to judge the sin. i beggggggggg for grace daily for my sin and ask for forgiveness for my error and also have a few close “promisekeeper friends” who are invited to correct my way. i do not expect them or want them to say my sin is ok. i want to hear the truth as we understand the scriptures…..
have a good one and God Bless you and you family this evening
Kieth,
I’m familiar with all of the scriptural citations that you reference.
The Old Testament references are generally warning the Jews not to adopt some of the ritual practices of their neighbors. Viewed in the context of the whole Old Testament, homosexuality is just an afterthought when compared with other “sexual” crimes like adultery or incest. Yet somehow religious conservatives have decided to elevate this particular “sin” to a unique position of prominence above all others.
What I think is more telling is the Jesus didn’t deal with homosexuality at all in the Gospels and when confronted with the opportunity to stone the adulteress, he refused.
That’s enough for me. I’m not going to “stone” adulterers or homosexuals, nor am I going to judge any adult relationship that appears to be based on love and mutual respect.
Clearly there is another class of acts that don’t reflect love or respect. I have no problem with laws intended to protect society from those who seek to harm others. But where there is no harm and no victim, I have a difficult time with laws whose only value is to support a particular view of morality. BTW, I don’t include prostitution in the category of “victimless”crime.
I think that we both agree that it is a full-time job to keep our own ship sailing in the right direction. I try my best to see God reflected in all those around me, but as you can see from some of the things that I’ve written, it’s easier for me with some than others. I recognize that as a weakness and I’m working on it. But I also have to be true to myself and express my thoughts as they are today.
Thanks for the blessing. I will keep you in my prayers as well.
Jeff
Hey Jeff,
Away again sorry…. for the delay.
The gay issue is not set above all the rest by conservetives, and certianly not me. It is just another sin….but one which many do not want to recognize as such. It is very clear in the old testiment and just as clear in the new, see ROMS 1, that it is unnatural behavior. I think where we may be at odds is over the issue of sin. Simply, in my view, sin is what brings us to God. A set of “rules/laws/commands that point us to a Holy God and shows us our unablity to be holy as He is Holy. So it’s through our sin that we are saved by Christ. If we don’t acknowledge our sin then we have no need for Jesus…my only issue with “gay issue” is their wanting to say it isn’t sin and thus making it legitimate….is clearly isn’t and I will not agree that it is nor will I help in making it mainstream, just as I wouldn’t stealing, gossip, etc andy other sin of the flesh…..but make no mistake I have NOTHING against the person, they should be treated as any other .but they should have no speacial rights.
Not much time as i could have been much more detailed and would provide much clearity .. but i think you get my point….i think we need to clearify for one another what sin is and our use of scripture.
Blessing
Hey Jeff,
Away again sorry…. for the delay.
The gay issue is not set above all the rest by conservetives, and certianly not me. it’s their response to things like “gay marrige that makes it an issue.
In my veiw it’s is just another sin….but one which many do not want to recognize as such. It is very clear in the old testiment and just as clear in the new, see ROMS 1, that it is unnatural behavior. I think where we may be at odds is over the issue of sin. Simply, in my view, sin is what brings us to God. A set of “rules/laws/commands that point us to a Holy God and shows us our unablity to be holy as He is Holy. So it’s through our sin that we are saved by Christ. If we don’t acknowledge our sin then we have no need for Jesus…my only issue with “gay issue” is their wanting to say it isn’t sin and thus making it legitimate….is clearly isn’t and I will not agree that it is nor will I help in making it mainstream, just as I wouldn’t stealing, gossip, etc any other sin of the flesh…..but make no mistake I have NOTHING against the person, they should be treated as any other,,, .but they should have no special rights.
Not much time as i could have been much more detailed and would provide much clearity .. but i think you get my point….i think we need to clearify for one another what sin is and our use of scripture.
Blessing
Keith,
Thanks for the response.
I have no problem with belief or morality as long as there is no attempt to use law to enforce the same. There is certainly need for laws to protect citizens from each other. There are even need for laws to protect those who can’t protect themselves from those who might try to take advantage of that vulnerability. Laws to enforce sexual behavior between consenting adults, however, impose one view of morality on everyone else. That goes well beyond the discussion of sin and DOES brand the person a criminal as well as a sinner.
The Bible has strong language regarding intercourse during a woman’s menstrual cycle, for example. Yet that is not illegal in this country and is in fact promoted by some religions as an effective means of birth control. There are many more passages in the Bible dealing with adultery, but there is no law in that country that says those who want to marry have to prove that they have never committed adultery.
There are a whole set of special rights that we as a society provide married couples because we recognize that stable unions build stable communities. We also have a whole set of special rights that we provide to families for much the same reason. When you deny those rights to homosexual couples who have demonstrated the same stability, then you are discriminating against them in the same way as our laws prohibited interracial marriage in years past.
Gay folks aren’t asking for special rights. They are just asking for the same rights that everyone else has.
What is the problem with that?
Jeff
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Living the Dream, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.