Posted on 01/17/2005 12:20:04 AM PST by nickcarraway
First time I ever heard of him. What brand of protestant does he claim to be?
PBS's religion and ethics program http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week720/profile.html had a feature on Congressman John Lewis this weekend. His current cause seems to be immigration. He's amazingly anti-Bush, and I guess I can be critical sometimes too but do blacks really feel he hasn't done well by him? That's what he says here: http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2004/10/11/john-lewis-fights-back/ . We need a way to represent American citizens in the obligations we have, and I would hope it would be color blind. Maybe it's time for that. I don't know that Rev. Lewis can accept such a change, though. But PBS wanted to talk him and his agenda up, and they sure got a chance for it. Is this part of the new left wing moral values campaign?
Fred Barnes is right and I'm probably wrong. We will see how the claim stands up when the Senator actually has to vote on pro-life legislation over the coming year. Here's a good opportunity for him to show he's not Barbra Boxer's brother.
Klein quotes Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, as saying of Reid, "I'm honored to be his friend." When Reid ran for Democratic leader, neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood voiced a peep of opposition. And WeNews, an online publication for women, concluded Reid's ascension wouldn't affect the strong pro-abortion position of Senate Democrats. Meanwhile, Douglas Johnson, the chief lobbyist for National Right to Life, said Reid "is certainly no ally of the pro-life movement. He usually votes against pro-life interests when it matters most."
In other words, more of that slick labeling I mentioned in an earlier post. I hope they keep it up. Deceit only carries you so far and the Democrats' strategem is getting tired.
Speaking of Jim Wallis, this is an example:
Bogus Betrayal - [New York Times {mis}identifies livid lib as disillusioned Bush supporter
They were never conservatives to begin with. There are liberals who do serve in a Republican administration. They simply don't reveal their true colors until well after they've left office.
Unfortunately it carried Bill Clinton very far.
I still can't get over how funny it is to have the guy who wrote off his 'charitable' gift of used underwear on his income taxes act the part of talking head to persuade OTHER Americans to dig deeply in their pocketbooks for the relief effort overseas.
11. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs
Oh yeah? Tell me how candidates Clinton has endorsed have fared in past elections. What goes around, comes around.
Nah. More like, "Thy God is the Democratic Party and The One Commandment Is "If It Feels Good, Do It." That's all that's necessary to be on the Left these days.
So now the scumbag Democrats are going to revise the Bible and proclaim Jesus a big-government socialist. They will paint him as a typical Demcorat: an athiest, a drunken pornographer, and an abortion enthusiast. Finally, they'll claim He was a homosexual. The scumbag Democrats will stop at nothing.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Actually it's pretty funny. They dredge up some leftist Democrats who claim allegiance to religious denominations in order to whitewash the Dem's leftist agenda; to make it look as though there's some kind of religious morality involved.
It's like watching someone trip over their own feet over and over again.
I wonder if anyone will be fooled?
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Note: if they really believed that alleviating poverty was a religious duty, they'd let people keep more of their own money, so they could donate more to churches and private charities who help the poor.
Some of them already do claim Jesus Christ was a homosexual. Sickos.
Oh... Democrats look to the polls to see if they should be religious... Now I understand. So when the Muslim population in the US grows they will become Muslim? My guess is yes...
They they will say Dubya called Ted Kennedy the conservative Senator from MS.
"Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners..."
That's all you need to know.
Book Review: Why the Left Is Not RightThe Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe by Ronald Nash Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - December 1997 by Doug Bandow http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3918
(snip)
...However, Nash devotes most of his attention to the lesser-known left-wing evangelicalism. He argues that the New Left and “the adversary culture” of the 1960s spawned political liberalism among Protestants who purport to hold a more conservative, orthodox theological view. Nash focuses on three leading leftish evangelicals: Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action and author of Rich Christians in a World of Hunger; and Tony Campolo, sociology professor, well-published author, and presidential confidante.
The scrutiny is warranted, though Nash seems more skeptical of the trio’s good intentions than is justified. Wallis, for instance, lives his beliefs. Two decades ago Wallis moved his magazine to a poor section of Washington, D.C., and formed a community of the same name. At the same time, however, he has, as Nash points out, remained imbued with the leftist Zeitgeist of the 1960s. The boat people fleeing communist Vietnam, Wallis wrote, were leaving “to support their consumer habit in other lands.” Their departure should not be taken to “discredit” Vietnam. Wallis’s views toward Cuba and Nicaragua were similarly skewed. ...
Ooops I meant - They they will say Dubya called Ted Kennedy the conservative Senator from MA
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.