NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Politics-American-Right-Doesnt/dp/0745952240/ref=pd_ka_1/026-2087024-0390010?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173423406&sr=8-1

Who here has read this and what did they think

To those who havent read it I thourghly encorage you to do so. Christian or not you will find something of merit here to stir thoughts about the future of America

I don't think I'll bother...

...for crying out loud, there are only TWO customer reviews. Did this just come out yesterday or something?

My mom got me this book. :/

Meh.
Another Christian intellectual that want to pretend that most Christians don't identify with the anti-freedom rhetoric of the radical Evangelicals.
They may not go to church every Sunday; they may believe that war is bad and that the poor should be taken care of, but in the end, most nod their heads in what they think looks like profound agreement when the Evangelicals start talking about the "moral decay" of society, and that is all the deceivers need.

I don't think I'll bother...

...for crying out loud, there are only TWO customer reviews. Did this just come out yesterday or something?

No, its been out for a very long while, and the point it makes is important. Some products that have been out for ages don't have any customer reviews. Its accumulation of reviews isnt whats important. The point of the book is. And the point its making is to try and get people to understand that neither party in America holds a religious monopoly, so if more people would look beyond certian narrow views of what it is to be a politically active Christian, then America would be better off and the Church would be better understood

Meh.
Another Christian intellectual that want to pretend that most Christians don't identify with the anti-freedom rhetoric of the radical Evangelicals.
They may not go to church every Sunday; they may believe that war is bad and that the poor should be taken care of, but in the end, most nod their heads in what they think looks like profound agreement when the Evangelicals start talking about the "moral decay" of society, and that is all the deceivers need.

Have you ever looked at the word prejudice carefully. Its made up of a prefix and a word. "Pre" meaning before, and "judice" meaning decision, judgement etc. I'd encorage you to read this before making narrow minded judgements

And the point its making is to try and get people to understand that neither party in America holds a religious monopoly...

The only people who don't already know that are the religious nutters.

Yeah...I'll definetly pass.

Sounds like more Christian propaganda, thinly disguised under the pretext of "Looking into the problems of America." Funny how the solution is to go to Church more and be more Christian. Never would of thought of that...

I'd rather have an Atheist president.

Sorry, "family values" crap is still crap even when it's added to moderately left-wing politics.

Edit: And, yes, I've read the book.

...for crying out loud, there are only TWO customer reviews. Did this just come out yesterday or something?

No, it came out years ago - soon after the '04 elections, if I recall correctly.

Made quite a stir. The scarcity of reviews is probably due to the fact that it's amazon.co.uk.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060834471/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8421967-6496814?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173426022&sr=8-1

most nod their heads in what they think looks like profound agreement when the Evangelicals start talking about the "moral decay" of society

So does Wallis. He just wants to go after the capitalists instead of the gays.

I empathize, only my concerns aren't his.

I'd rather have an Atheist president.

I'd rather have a president that works according to what's best for the country rather than what's best for their faith. Faith is a personal issue.

You could easily have an atheist president whose decisions are as biased as any hardcore religious believer's; I don't think an atheist would honestly be any better or less influenced by their beliefs than any theist. Frankly, I would be concerned at any candidate that played up their religious faith or philosophy rather than their policies, regardless of what they believe.

Faith is a personal issue.

Since faith is often crucial to the formation of morality, that is hardly the case - unless we expect religious conservatives to always consider their beliefs to be subordinate to secular reason.

Since faith is often crucial to the formation of morality, that is hardly the case - unless we expect religious conservatives to always consider their beliefs to be subordinate to secular reason.

They should put their beliefs subordinate to their responsibility as President of the United States; when you assume that role, the good of the country and the welfare of the people that comprise it come first no matter what your personal beliefs might say on the issues.

Faith is not a personal issue. If MLK had kept his faith as a 'personal issue' where would we be.

Martin Luther King also wasn't president of the United States.

I'd rather have a president that works according to what's best for the country rather than what's best for their faith. Faith is a personal issue.


Faith is not a personal issue. If MLK had kept his faith as a 'personal issue' where would we be.

when you assume that role, the good of the country and the welfare of the people that comprise it come first

Um, why?

And aren't both what one conceives to be "the good of the country" and "the welfare of the people" highly dependent on one's faith?

For one particularly significant example these days, who wants to live in a country that legally recognizes the relationships of intrinsically depraved perverts who engage in abominable acts?

Um, why?

Because otherwise, what's the point of the position other than its power?

The very preamble of the Constitution itself says that the government was founded to promote the general welfare, and anything less than that is a slight against the founding principles of the country.

And aren't both what one conceives to be "the good of the country" and "the welfare of the people" highly dependent on one's faith?

To a degree yes and to a degree no. A rational leader will be able to put their faith in the proper context and think about whether or not their personal beliefs are what's best for the country rather than what's best for them or their supporters.

For one particularly significant example these days, who wants to live in a country that legally recognizes the relationships of intrinsically depraved perverts who engage in abominable acts?

But what of the contrary: Who wants to live in a country where the government interferes in the personal activities of consenting adults and spends taxpayer money enforcing a law that offers no tangible benefit whatsoever to anyone?

Martin Luther King also wasn't president of the United States.

And if he had been, and you had told him to leave his Christianity on the doorstep, you would be treating him with contempt.

You can't tell people to ignore their deep-seated moral convictions simply because they're based upon a worldview containing God and His Law. Not only will it not work, but it also implies that you don't really take them seriously, as rational beings with real beliefs regarding what is and isn't moral.

A rational leader will be able to put their faith in the proper context and think about whether or not their personal beliefs are what's best for the country rather than what's best for them or their supporters.

This is not a question of selfishness. They are being moral, and quite possibly without regard for their own welfare - only they are being moral according to moralities that we happen to find despicable.

But what of the contrary: Who wants to live in a country where the government interferes in the personal activities of consenting adults

Lots of people.

The problem is that you are presupposing a notion of "victimless" acts that many people do not recognize. Sin is sin.

and spends taxpayer money enforcing a law that offers no tangible benefit whatsoever to anyone?

But there is a clear tangible benefit to those people - the government, instead of endorsing sin, is combating it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Politics-American-Right-Doesnt/dp/0745952240/ref=pd_ka_1/026-2087024-0390010?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173423406&sr=8-1

Who here has read this and what did they think

To those who havent read it I thourghly encorage you to do so. Christian or not you will find something of merit here to stir thoughts about the future of America

Reading those reviews I don't feel like reading the book. But then I'm one of those silly Europeans who think that religion and politics ought to be kept seperate at all costs.

If they think rationally, they should have no problem applying their beliefs in a manner consistent with their responsibilities as president.

And it won't involve keeping their faith personal. What people believe religiously does matter as far as their role in making public policy.

And if he had been, and you had told him to leave his Christianity on the doorstep, you would be treating him with contempt.

I don't say that at all. I've said place your beliefs in the proper context of the position you've assumed responsibility for.

You can't tell people to ignore their deep-seated moral convictions simply because they're based upon a worldview containing God and His Law. Not only will it not work, but it also implies that you don't really take them seriously, as rational beings with real beliefs regarding what is and isn't moral.

If they think rationally, they should have no problem applying their beliefs in a manner consistent with their responsibilities as president.

And it won't involve keeping their faith personal. What people believe religiously does matter as far as their role in making public policy.

Why is it that this only matters in the USA and the Middle East? :confused:

I'm a catholic and i see no problem with keeping your faith from affecting your job. One day i might go into politics but my faith wouldn't affect my decision making.

Why is it that this only matters in the USA and the Middle East? :confused:

Um, it does.

Europe has more secular politics than the US, but it is also far less religious - which only reinforces my point. Faith, and the lack of it, matters.

Um, it does.

Europe has more secular politics than the US, but it is also far less religious - which only reinforces my point. Faith, and the lack of it, matters.

I know it does. What puzzles me is why religion is such a big factor in mostly two big regions on the planet - the USA and the Middle East.
You don't win votes by displaying religiousness in Europe, and I somehow can't see Japan electing someone for being a good Shinto, or Ghana electing someone for his impeccable reputation as a Voodoo follower....

I rather religion & faith played no part at all.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Politics-American-Right-Doesnt/dp/0745952240/ref=pd_ka_1/026-2087024-0390010?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173423406&sr=8-1

Who here has read this and what did they think
It has been recommended to me by my father, and I will probably read it over the easter break.

I am naturally biased to suspect, however, that the book will, like so many works from American Christianity, fail to make the distinction between The Christian Religion and Christian Theology, and will thus be rather unsuccessful in its attempt to tell me what "Christianity" has to say about the current political climate in the West. It'll be an interesting insight into the mind of the American Apologetic, though.

I'd rather have an Atheist president.

America is ruled by religion, "In God We Trust" seems quite a popular phrase on bank notes!!!!

Seems putting God and $$$'s first is a priority above all else.

And if he had been, and you had told him to leave his Christianity on the doorstep, you would be treating him with contempt.

You can't tell people to ignore their deep-seated moral convictions simply because they're based upon a worldview containing God and His Law. Not only will it not work, but it also implies that you don't really take them seriously, as rational beings with real beliefs regarding what is and isn't moral.

Deep seated moral convictions have nowt to do with faith, and everything to do with being human.

I don't think I'll bother...

...for crying out loud, there are only TWO customer reviews. Did this just come out yesterday or something?

Al Franken's last book had about a hundred bad reviews a week before it came out. Just because it wasn't heavily reviewed doesn't mean it was bad. John Stewart had him on the Daily Show and had a lot of praise for the book.

Um, why?

And aren't both what one conceives to be "the good of the country" and "the welfare of the people" highly dependent on one's faith?

For one particularly significant example these days, who wants to live in a country that legally recognizes the relationships of intrinsically depraved perverts who engage in abominable acts?

If you mean gay marriage, I think that the majority of the country supports it. Just not the most vocal majority.

If they think rationally, they should have no problem applying their beliefs in a manner consistent with their responsibilities as president.

If they think rationally they won't believe that all human failing is the fault of a snake that lived in a garden with God who created the world 6,000 years ago and decided to stop sending us all to hell 2,000 years ago.

No, its been out for a very long while

Whilke it wasn't published yesterday, two years is hardly a very long while.

No, it came out years ago - soon after the '04 elections, if I recall correctly.

Technically correct, but when most people use the expression "years ago", they mean more than two...

I somehow can't see Japan electing someone for being a good Shinto [sic]

No? Care to explain why almost every Japanese PM goes and prays at Yasukuni shrine? (Hint: consider the power of the Izokukai...)

I'd rather have an Atheist president.

Good idea. That is why everyone qualified, should write me in for Pres in 2008. I promise to be perfectly open and honest about my corruption.

Plus cushy Government jobs for my friends.:D

It's scary that books like that (must) exist at all. USA sucks.

Europe has more secular politics than the US, but it is also far less religious - which only reinforces my point. Faith, and the lack of it, matters.Europe is not necessarily less religious than the US. But Europeans don't have this weird attitude of pride in religion, and Europeans are just not as loud as US folks generally are about all their "values".

And if he had been, and you had told him to leave his Christianity on the doorstep, you would be treating him with contempt.

You can't tell people to ignore their deep-seated moral convictions simply because they're based upon a worldview containing God and His Law. Not only will it not work, but it also implies that you don't really take them seriously, as rational beings with real beliefs regarding what is and isn't moral.

All good reasoning we need a less religious more secular person in presidency, if their religious convictions apparently can not be set aside to work to maintain the enharnetly secular government they should not be in that position

If MLK as much as I respect him had been unable to "leave his Christianity on the doorstep" Then he should not be president. simple as that

Utterly uninterested. Seen this lot before. Those who bemoan the current state of religion and politics, claiming christianity is not just about condemning abortion rights and gay rights, that it's about kindness and charity and all that.

Except when it comes time for this "progressive" christian groups to actually condemn the groups they attack and have the opportunity to speak out in favor of abortion rights and gay rights, they fall strangly silent. Or it becomes a "oh, well we really don't ACTUALLY disagree with their anti-choice, anti-gay position per se, it's just that there are other things too"

So yeah, good for them that they promote charity and social welfare and compassion. But at the end of the day, they're still anti-choice and anti-gay, and while I might applaud them for the "other" virtues, the presence of that regressive viewpoint still makes any of them a totally unviable candidate for any political position in my eyes.

Frankly speaking, there are other people who promote charity, social welfare and compassion while at the same time aren't trying to speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time, speaking about compassion while at the same time, trying to restrict the rights of others. Those are the ones that interest me, and those are the ones that get my vote. No matter how "progressive" the christian movement tries to claim they are, no matter how much they scream "oh, those crazy right wing evangelicals don't really represent us or our political beliefs" as long as they cling to their attempts to restrict the rights of women and non heterosexuals, none of their other good acts will make up for it.

I resent that remark. Not all Christian intellectuals act like that, you know. My parents certainly don't. My parents, though they may be deluded, are kindhearted people who would never complain about the "moral decay" nor do they EVER agree with anything the radical Evangelicals state.

do they believe in gay marriage and abortion rights?

Meh.
Another Christian intellectual that want to pretend that most Christians don't identify with the anti-freedom rhetoric of the radical Evangelicals.
They may not go to church every Sunday; they may believe that war is bad and that the poor should be taken care of, but in the end, most nod their heads in what they think looks like profound agreement when the Evangelicals start talking about the "moral decay" of society, and that is all the deceivers need.
I resent that remark. Not all Christian intellectuals act like that, you know. My parents certainly don't. My parents, though they may be deluded, are kindhearted people who would never complain about the "moral decay" nor do they EVER agree with anything the radical Evangelicals state.

I looked at the synopsis, and I think I dislike this guy enough already. He tries to mix social egalitarianism (concerning property) with subsidiary institution (religiosity), then turns it into a centralized mess using the state. I hope all of his political endeavors fail.

Better yet, read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" before every election.

you think we should tie weights to our politicians and force them to listen to loud music?

Better yet, read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" before every election.

do they believe in gay marriage and abortion rights?

Yes, of course they do.

Yes, of course they do.

Good. However you'll note the poster you quotes said "most", not "all". The fact that your parents do not doesn't disprove the claim that most do, they may well be the exception.

Good. However you'll note the poster you quotes said "most", not "all". The fact that your parents do not doesn't disprove the claim that most do, they may well be the exception.
Logic saves the day again! I should apologize and retract my retort to Neo Undelia.

Good. However you'll note the poster you quotes said "most", not "all". The fact that your parents do not doesn't disprove the claim that most do, they may well be the exception.

Assumptions are a dangerous thing.

Why is it so difficult to grasp the difference between rules needed to maintain peaceful coexistence, and restrictions you place on yourself voluntarily?

What about nuns taking a vow of silence? I'm sure there must be a couple of those in the US. Should they try to silence every single citizen because they've voluntarily applied special restrictions on themselves?

Then again, I don't know why it surprises me. Any place with 'bluelaws' is borderline theocratic.

Then again, I don't know why it surprises me. Any place with 'bluelaws' is borderline theocratic.

Yeah, Connecticut is borderline theocratic.:rolleyes:

Deep seated moral convictions have nowt to do with faith, and everything to do with being human.

They are both rooted in our humanity and highly influenced by faith (not necessarily, but sometimes.) Talk to some religious homophobes someday.

I did not at all mean to imply that deep-seated moral convictions are dependent on religious faith.

If you mean gay marriage, I think that the majority of the country supports it.

You're wrong, though the majority of the country does support some sort of legal recognition.

All good reasoning we need a less religious more secular person in presidency, if their religious convictions apparently can not be set aside to work to maintain the enharnetly secular government they should not be in that position

That was precisely my point, though I wouldn't have a problem with a religious person whose moral convictions matched mine.

do they believe in gay marriage and abortion rights?

Wallis backs civil unions with full benefits and abortion rights, if I recall correctly.

Better yet, read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" before every election.

Hey, that's a good ide--[amplified sound of a ball-peen hammer striking a milk bottle in my head]--uh...y'know, I think I'd rather watch The O'Reilly Factor.

I'm an atheist so why would I need to read this anyway?

I'm an atheist so why would I need to read this anyway?
The same reason you'd have to read the Bible; to know thine enemy. Or to have a vague understanding of how a section of your political opponents think, in this case.

Reading those reviews I don't feel like reading the book. But then I'm one of those silly Europeans who think that religion and politics ought to be kept seperate at all costs.

I'd say bad religion should be. People assume that because people like Ahdimajed (proberbly misspelt there) and some of the more right wing repuplicans are religious that religion in politics is a bad thing. But I would say that true religion criticises both the left and the right. The left is foolish for saying that religion should be kept out of politics and that public morality is not an issue for the government, the right is foolish for ignoring the needs of the disenfranchised, the poor etc, for providing the kinds of services everyone needs and for suggesting that public morality is something you can legislate.

Most of the American liberals in this thread are proving Wallis right. They automatically regard any Christian with extreme suspicion. Christian doesn't mean right-wing, a fact that seems to be beyond the understanding of many Americans.

do they believe in gay marriage and abortion rights?
Why are you Americans so obsessed with these issues?

My mom got me this book. :/
Same here! Trying to tell us something? :D

Same here! Trying to tell us something? :D

That parents suck at getting books kids would actually like to read?

Not that that's a bad thing.

When did atheism become a moral position? :p

Atheists hold a wide variety of political and moral views, and don't make good or bad leaders simply on the basis of religious belief.. it's pretty silly to think so.

Christian doesn't mean right-wing

Of course it doesn't. Even people who want Christianity to play a significant role in politics aren't necessarily right-wing.

But by and large, they are not social liberals either.

That parents suck at getting books kids would actually like to read?
More likely she’s keeping up the hope I’ll go back to the kirk after so long.