Comments on: Glenn Beck and the Young Conservatives

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:31:12 +0000

Ken: I read your disclaimer that you “did not mean to call into question the sincerity of anyone’s faith.” Fair enough, but you clearly meant to imply that a certain class of people (including, presumably, Palin) is not authentically Christian, and this on the sole ground that they mock or insult political figures on the left. I took your disclaimer to mean that, while such people may be foolish enough to think they’re Christian, they are in reality nothing of the sort. That is where I wanted to introduce a distinction between what someone says in the heat of political argument versus the whole tenor of their lives, which may (for all we know) be authentically Christian. For example, in regards to Palin, her decision to love and raise a Down Syndrome child speaks far more eloquently than any allegedly rancorous speech she made against a political opponent. In other words, I think we differ, not in blaming political rancor, but in evaluating its relative importance in the Christian life.

The distinction I was trying to make was made much better by C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. The demon Screwtape speaks of how disappointing political hatred can be (how, for instance, certain Englishmen shout that torture is too good for their enemies, only to give tea and biscuits to the first wounded German that turns up at their door). Similarly, I think we should give hot-headed people (on the right and the left) the benefit of the doubt that their unkind expressions may be only skin-deep. Perhaps this distinction is meaningless or irrelevant to you, but I do think it needs to be made.

Let us also not forget that identity politics in 21st century America touches on so many fundamental cultural issues, it is no wonder if people lose their cool.

Overall, I agree with you that good ends don’t justify degraded means. The Christian right needs to work on that. But, even conceding that the means used by the Christian left are better, what are its ends? I would be grateful for a summary of their party platform. Obviously, if any of their ends are intrinsically evil, as I believe many of the political left’s ends are, then they remain evil, even if they are pursued with social grace.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:47:38 +0000

Gary:

1) People can believe one party to be morally bankrupt without thinking well of the opposition party or holding its views.

2) People with open minds don’t presume people who disagree with them have closed minds or are brain dead.

3) People who can defend their views don’t need to characterize their opponents as rats.

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:45:37 +0000

John – If you think conservatives are morally bankrupt, take a look at the democRATS (if you have an open mind that is, but that’s doubtful). You must love socialism and marxism, and maybe even communism, because that is the type of people who are in power now, and that is the direction the country is heading. If you don’t realize that by now, you must be brain-dead.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:03:34 +0000

danderson, I’ve just read perhaps 20 posts by Baldelomar and Gehring, and I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. The only harsh judgment I can find is one reference to George Weigel as “arrogant.” I find no name-calling, no vituperation, and no snark, all of which typify Gateway Pundit posts and comments.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:58:57 +0000

danderson, I’ll do that. Thank you. Tell me — and I don’t mean this sarcastically, but I really want to know — does Wallis allow the same evident hatred, as measured by objectifying epithets, as Bottum allows on GP?

By: danderson

danderson — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:56:03 +0000

Ken,

I think perhaps you should spend a little bit of time on the Sojourner’s blog if you don’t think the Christian Left engages in the same mean-spiritedness and snarky behavior as does the Right. Pay special attention to the Catholics like Gehring and Baldomar (sp) who blog, and then tell us if you think they are any different than the Right. I voted for Obama and usually vote Democratic, but I’m getting darned sick and tired of hearing that the Left is more loving than the Right.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:10:11 +0000

Paul, I’m afraid I don’t understand the point of your distinction. I have no problem with strong criticism, and I make it myself. It’s the mean-spiritedness and the pettiness and the eagerness to believe the worst about the Left that I object to on the Christian Right and don’t see mirrored on the Christian Left.

And I’m afraid too that this is the 2nd time you’ve rebutted a point I explicitly said I was not making. I wrote that “by “self-professed Christians” I didn’t mean to call into question the sincerity of anyone’s faith . . .”

In regards to Palin, during her convention nomination speech in 2008 she said that her being governor was kind of like being a community organizer with actual responsibility. Jesus wasn’t snarky.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:12:48 +0000

Ken: I’m not making excuses. I’m only introducing distinctions.
I don’t suppose Jesus would have used the Aramaic equivalents of the epithets you cited. On the other hand, he did particularly love a hot-headed apostle who wanted to call fire from heaven down on people.
The point is, I don’t think we should make easy judgments about how Christian someone is, based simply on how they react in the highly artificial world of political controversy. Incivility should be disapproved, to be sure, but don’t rush to the conclusion that someone is a fake Christian merely for calling a politician names. Politics itself is too fake to support such a generalization.
Also, I don’t know what you mean about Palin mocking Obama “for his attempt to serve his community.”

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:12:13 +0000

Paul, of course everyone should be civil, but it is we Christians who are the hypocrites when we use or provide a platform for the language I cited from Gateway Pundit. And when we’re perfect and perfectly loving, as Christ was, or when we have the spiritual authority of the apostles, then we’ll have the right to use harsh language about other people’s spiritual life (and then and only then will that language have any chance of opening people’s eyes instead of just hardening their defenses). In the meantime, kindly go back to that list of epithets I cited. Can you tell me with a straight face that Jesus would have used any of them? Let’s stick to the facts and not make excuses.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:26:13 +0000

Ken: Standards of civilized debate should be expected of everyone engaging in political discourse. They have no uniquely Christian applicability. Indeed, to the extent that Christians have dared to engage in the much more exalted discourse of evangelization (and I do not say that Beck and other “nasties” are so engaged) their means have not always been gentle. Were Christ or the saints being “nasty” when they spoke the ugly truth, even when that meant calling people “whited sepulchres,” “fools,” not to mention other choice epithets?