 |
 |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment
|
||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:07 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Mar 10, 2009
|
|
| Tags: Columns, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology | ||
Sometimes it seems most of my columns here originally come from alternate sources — such as NarniaWeb or the Boundless blog. What often happens is that I'll start a short comment on either site, and it turns into a column that I end up writing with FaithFusion in mind. In this case, the focus is Rush Limbaugh, about whom Boundless writer Motte Brown posted yesterday. He gave a summary of Liberals’ efforts to take out Limbaugh and that garnered, predictably, lots of support from readers along with even more predictable grumblings from those who consider Limbaugh and firmer conservative advocacy the bane of the Republican party and polite political discourse. The silliest of responses came from commentator BDB, who often has some great things to say but in this case is just ill-informed about right-wing rhetoric and recent elections: Rush and Hannity are so great for Republicans! Just look at how well the 2008 elections went! I had to respond to this. BDB, the only way your point has any validity is if Republicans in 2008, especially John McCain, had actually been implementing philosophy-based political conservativism the way Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advocate it. You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice. None other than Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who seems to enjoy American politics just as much as defending Biblical creation (sometimes resulting in similar “that’s so mean” objections), also noted: BDB (#2), yeah, look how great the GOP did by NOT listening to Rush and Hannity, and instead impersonating the big-spending Dems. Being elected largely on “fiscal responsibily” then spending big is hardly inspiring—it's not quite such a big vote-winner to campaign, “yes, we love spending, but we're a lesser evil than the Dems”, even though it's right. The following is edited from my recent comment in response to the why-did-Republicans-lose question, along with other Rush-related myth-conceptions and the Biblical basis of capitalism. Framing fallaciesDr. Sarfati (no. 11) and I seem to agree that far from embracing talk-radio incarnations of Reagan-esque conservativism, Republicans' lack of regard for these principles contributed to their drastic losses in 2008, and even back in 2006. For those of you convinced that Limbaugh's (and Hannity's, etc.) mere co-existence at the time of Republican campaigns is fact enough to prove that's why they lost, can you show more definitive evidence that supposed pandering to Rush was what killed McCain's or congressional candidates' chances in the last election? Rush rebuttalsMeanwhile, though attacking one's source of news or ideas is often nothing more than an ad hominem argument, I'm surprised (well, not really) by the amount of myths about Limbaugh rehashed by well-meaning commentators here — myths perpetrated by left-meaning media outlets that want Limbaugh to fail. Why are you not taking into account such outlets' bias nearly as much as you declare your aversion to Limbaugh's bias? I found the mention and seeming approval of his “musical parodies” especially odd - were you aware that Limbaugh's been in a lot of trouble lately for playing the racist and offensive ditty “Barack the Magic Negro” on his show? Myth No. 1: Limbaugh's — actually, conservative comedian/impersonator Paul Shanklin's — “Barack the Magic Negro” parody is racist. Refuted: That parody is a reference to a Los Angeles Times columnist's language describing Obama during the early 2007 campaigns, and spoofs questionable or even racist attitudes on the political Left. The song in question is sang in the voice of a bullhorn-filtered impersonation of the liberal activist Al Sharpton, one of the leaders of the “racism industry.” If the song is racist, then so are any of us on this blog for merely mentioning the phrase “magic Negro” (according to the columnist, this was a term was “coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education”). Please see Ted Slater's debunking of the Racist by Association fallacy. People of good faith can agree to disagree on the methodology, but wanting the president to fail in his endeavors to clean up the mess he inherited don't seem to jive with the biblical mandate to pray for those in leadership. Myth No. 2: Rush's “I hope he fails” is a personal attack on Obama and means, in effect, that he wants the country to fail to prove his point. Refuted: This seems little more than political-Liberal projection. Unimaginative political leftists apparently believe that anyone else who wants a policy to fail is also rooting for the country to fail — the same as they did during the eight Bush years and especially the Iraq conflict. Limbaugh has placed his “I hope he fails” comment over and over in context — declaring that if Obama's destructive policies fail, the country will succeed. Why would he hope for someone who — and someone's socialistic policies which — he truly believes will cause the country to fail? What is so absurd anyway about hoping a president you disagree with will fail? Why is that so offensive? The only way I would want Obama and his actions to succeed would be if he were to change who he is and what he believes. In that case, I would wholeheartedly support the president and want his policies to succeed. But unless that happens, sorry, but I'm with Rush. This is not a controversial view. You oppose the people with whom you disagree. You hope they fail. (Do you Rush-critics want Rush to fail? If so, my, my, how unkind of you. ;-).) I find it so illogically amusing that so many people who wanted so badly Bush to fail protest the loudest when the opposition's roles are reversed. What's even more comical is that they take themselves so seriously! Grace is needed in political rhetoric, yes, but for those of you on the right, let us not try to be so “gracious” and out-reaching to political enemies that we end up compromising the country away. Don’t impose your convictionsPersonally, I'm turned off by the attitude I tend to see inflamed in Rush fans (not all, but many). Rather than calm, lucid, enlightening discussion, Rush appears to foster mostly unproductive hot-head ranting and finger pointing. As I've said before, some Christians' enjoyment of Rush, Hannity, or Coulter is like drinking beer or wine. We can enjoy this in moderation without sinning. Some of you act as though you have weaker consciences and cannot partake of the same stuff. But then you take those convictions and impose them on others, the same way “fundamentalist” Christians decide that their views against drinking, playing cards or going to movies should be moral standards for everyone. It seems consumption of strong conservative commentary is not for everybody. But many of your Christian brothers and sisters see past any un-Christlike attitudes or actions and enjoy stronger doses of truth for what they are. Ergo, do not judge me or other fellow Christians for appreciating what your own personal convictions apparently hold is wrong for you (Romans 14). At the same time, I will try not to judge you either. Deal? Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Biblical beliefI think as Christians we need to be careful about how we present ourselves politically. Many of the policies put forth by both parties can interpreted as going for or against what the Bible presents. As for the usual comments about how both parties have un-Biblical and objectionable elements (Richard, no. 3): yes, this is true, that no party can be perfect, but when did perfection become a subconscious standard? Ask yourself, which political philosophy, not necessarily party, is closest to the Biblical standard? Take the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, two very different worldviews behind economics. Both will clearly lead to anti-Biblical extremes — such as greed and power-hunger, in either case, either from the private or government sectors. But instead of throwing up one's hands and deciding “Oh, well, no system is perfect, so why get so mean about it at all?” consider this: which system is the closest to clear Biblical principles, and which will be better and the most moral in a fallen and sinful world until Christ returns? Socialism decides that man can trust a counterfeit “church” of government, and counterfeit “priests” of government leaders, rather than the true Messiah and the true Church. Capitalism (and extreme forms such as libertarianism) would say that man can trust a counterfeit “church” and “priest” of himself rather than the true Messiah and the true Church. However, capitalism leaves the opportunity much more open for man, while trusting “himself,” actually to be trusting the true Christ Who is in him. Both Socialism and Capitalism can include the notions that humans are “basically good.” However, Christianity-based Capitalism can also be based on the view that humans are basically evil and must in some ways be regulated. But Socialism does not even have this option. Biblical standards about private property also lead me to conclude that capitalism is much closer to the Biblical framework of trade and economics than is socialism. That being said, principles of community involvement and interdependency that are often ascribed only to socialism are vital to the success of a Christ-honoring capitalistic system. But Scripture is clear that it is the Church's responsibility to promote this Grace, even common grace, in a community — not government's, and not government leaders. Finally, for those of you who somehow find Socialism a Biblical concept, here's this little gem from Isaiah about the New Heavens and New Earth that I re-found last week. It's contrary to some Christians' (including myself at one point!) often-subconscious assumption that the future world will somehow be mostly Socialist. The New Earth will clearly contain many modern conceptions of “utopia,” and yet: They [the New Jerusalem's people] shall build houses and inhabit them; Sounds a lot like private property ownership and even Capitalism — even in the New Heavens and New Earth. 
|
||
Comments |
||||
|
||||
Add commentThis item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
|
