Posted on 07/06/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Excellent response re. early Christianity.
Of course, I could've just waited for Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings to report Reich's comments on the 5:00 news! /s
Could you imagine if Karen Hughes had said similar things about agnostics and atheists?
Reich would be intersted to know who his allies are. Consider this from Viktor Frankl (holocaust survivor):
"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a product of mere heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and enviornment -- or as the Nazi's liked to say, "of blood and soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidenek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
They'd be marching in the streets.
Honestly, Opus, it sounds to me like a declaration of war from the man.
You can only wonder who else he speaks for.
Capitalism sprang from Christianity, and not in any other culture.
Human rights sprang from Christianity, and not from any other culture.
And as for your statement "it certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it," I would, right off the top of my head, respond with the parable that Jesus taught about the morning workers and the workers hired later that afternoon--and the response he gave to those who argued that it was unfair they be paid the same amount. If that ain't CAPITALIST (hey, it's my money), then I don't know what is. It shows a great personal respect for individual right to dispose of property, of wealth.
So there! ;)
Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God. Spread this wide. To TV, radio, print, churches, etc. It is the MOST sinister comment EVER made for a former national level secretary.
His comment was so close to the truth, and yet so far at the same time. The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the religous and the secular, but between those who support freedom of religion and those who oppose it.
Islamic terrorism and militant secularism are BOTH enemies to freedom of religion. Reich fails to see that he seeks a similar end as the terrorists do, he just employs different methods.
Interestingly, Paul on Mars Hill didn't rail against the other gods and call for riots to clear them out. He simply called on the conscience of the hearers to go a different way based on their own decisions.
Freedom
No need to make that choice. The primacy of individuals (natural law) is our endowment from God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
It's no surprise to me that Reich would consider Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin to be his enemies. His only friend is the nanny state that empowers self-rightous overeducated, unlearned zealots like him.
Please add me to your ping list
Can you back that statement up with any facts?
Ping the appropriate poster. I was responding to that allegation myself, hence the quotes.
>>It's no surprise to me that Reich would consider Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin to be his enemies. His only friend is the nanny state that empowers self-rightous overeducated, unlearned zealots like him.<<
The best description of this "person" I've yet seen, particularly the "overeducated, unlearned" part.
Sorry.
I take Reich very seriously, because I think he has perfectly enunciated the views of the radical left. He would destroy what remains of Judeo-Christian America in public life if he could.
This is simply not the case. If you read the Old Testament in particular you will see in ancient Israel a capitalistic economy, with charity focused on the individual, with a strong belief in private property and the rule of law.
And nothing in the New Testament contradicts it. Those who say that it's the government's job to care for the poor (meaning, of course, that it's the taxpayer's job) aren't reading their Bible very carefully.
No biggie, Ditto!
Ugh. Apparently Reich is too stupid to realize all law is about someone's morality. I'd much rather have laws in the U.S. that reflect my ideas of morality than his. And I dare say he, if honest, would be quick to admit he'd rather have laws that reflect his ideas of morality rather than mine.
Frankly, I'm tired of people always wanting to blame religion for the violence of mankind. It's disingenous at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.