Category Archives: current events

gary hart on c18 methodism

Posted on by

Gary Hart, ìWhen the Personal Shouldnít Be Political,î New York Times (November 8, 2004).

A neglected thread of [Nazarene] church doctrine was the social gospel of John and Charles Wesley, the great reformers of late 18th-century Methodism. The Wesley brothers preached salvation through grace but also preached the duty of Christians, based solidly on Jesusí teachings, to minister to those less fortunateÖ. Having claimed moral authority to achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind.

[via Blue (formerly Pink) Bunny of Battle]

Bonus link! John Wesley’s sermon on “The Danger of Riches“:

I ask, then, in the name of God, Who of you “desire to be rich?” Which of you (ask your own hearts in the sight of God) seriously and deliberately desire (and perhaps applaud yourselves for so doing, as no small instance of your prudence) to have more than food to eat, and raiment to put on, and a house to cover you? Who of you desires to have more than the plain necessaries and conveniences of life? Stop! Consider! What are you doing? Evil is before you! Will you rush upon the point of a sword? By the grace of God, turn and live!

Both George Bush and Dick Cheney are Methodists, by the way.

Extra Bonus Link! The international headquarters of the Church of the Nazarene is right here in Kansas City.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

no meaning no

Posted on by

The easiest and the hardest word to say is “no.”
Only got two letters. Only takes a second to say it.
–“No Meaning No” (mp3, 3.8M), Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia

I promise to exert just as much energy trying to understand your point of view as you exert trying to understand mine, but you better not get cocky, because I have a feeling that several million of my friends and I are going to say no an awful lot over the next four years. Don’t be offended; we’re just trying to “reach out to everyone who shares our goals.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

what bush supporters believe

Posted on by

The often vituperative rhetoric of public American discourse is counterproductive. It is unfair, however, to place the blame on only one party. I keep coming across references on blogs to the Democratic Party as out of touch with the mainstream, as elitist and condescending. Many of these references sound like (and are sometimes paired with) descriptions of academics like myself. And yet, when faced with millions of people who believe in a reality for which there is no evidence, what should the proper response be?

In recent months the American public has been presented reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the heads of the Iraq survey group David Kay and Charles Duelfer (chosen by the president), concluding that before the war Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor even a significant program for developing them. Nonetheless, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Only 26% of Kerry supporters hold such beliefs.

Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. 1 Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.

[Quotes taken from “The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters” (PDF), the report on a recent poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks.]

The goal for all of us should be communication and understanding.

Do Bush supporters believe these things because they are unaware of the facts? If so, then the proper response by those of us who opposed four more years of Bush should be to work on getting those facts out there. Or do Bush supporters instead believe those things because they want to believe them, regardless of what new information might come their way? Is this a result of cognitive dissonance, as L suggests? If so, then it doesn’t matter how hard we work to get the facts out there. What then?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

if i exorcise my devils

Posted on by

And I admit that I ain’t no angel
I admit that I ain’t no saint
I’m selfish and I’m cruel but you’re blind
If I exorcise my devils
Well my angels may leave too
When they leave they’re so hard to find
—Tom Waits

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

america: the prequel

Posted on by

“The Day the Enlightenment Went Out,” by Gary Wills (NY Times):

This [election] might be called Bryan’s revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan’s fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions – on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage.

“The Values-Vote Myth,” by David Brooks (NY Times):

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That’s policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

An interesting discussion is taking place on C18-L. Note that the second thread below leads to a blog: Timothy Burke’s Easily Distracted. Check out these threads:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email