I could go on and on about this particular form of dishonesty, but I'd rather point out an interesting recasting of a term. "Middleclassness", isn't that just another way of saying the burgeousie?

I also like how `To whom much is given much is required,' can be quickly recast into "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Maybe it's late and I'm paranoid, but this just seems transparent...

On another, much happier and brighter moment, Happy Easter to all!

"Middleclassness", isn't that just another way of saying the burgeousie?

I've noticed that many times elsewhere, but didn't pick up on it so much here: good spot.

Things like this are part of why I think leftism is actually an inherant, ongoing, almost "eternal" (not really, but in the sense of not being anchored to any particular time or culture) human psychological condition.

I really don't think the church was meaning to quote Marx, I think it's just part of the reflexive set of behaviors that come with this state -- just as the ancient Pharisees were composed of academics, lawyers, and teachers -- and wanted more and more government, offered public displays of moral rectitude, and believed in a "living, breathing" Torah which was constantly up for re-interpretation.

It's just a pattern we can all fall into if we allow a certain set of impulses to take control.

I've also encountered less than honest reports on the right on those radio shows.

(1) Specific examples are always welcomed.

(2) Are you talking blatant dishonesty or simply spin? I have no problem with spin (everyone has their interpretation of how the facts fit together), but simply lying is never acceptable.

Many people don't draw a distinction between the two. I've read many left-leaning articles which talked about "lying", only to realize "lying" meant "supporting a cause I think is bad."

I see the above artcle as deceptive, not mere spin, because it top claim is that it purports to "explain the controversy" to readers -- while actually hiding the most important elements of it.

Right-leaning radio shows don't pretend to be unbiased sources of news. They're a editorial/commentary/debate format. People generally have their guard up in situations like that. They expect a bit of spin.

So I have no problem with people who editorialize in a editorial area -- such as the editorial page, or a radio show. Right or left. My beef here is people who are pretending to give their readers all the background on a debate, as though from a neutral stance, yet are clearly pursuing a partisan agenda.

So I draw a huge distinction between the situations you seem to be equating in this example.

(3) Though I'm using the left as an illustration (there always seems to be a handy example) this technique can be practiced by anyone.

(4) BUT, I personally don't happen to see it happening in the conservative columnists and radio shows I listen to. So the times I tend to run into it are generally from the left.

I can listen to, say, Dennis Prager for hours and not hear him say anything which even strikes me as unfair. I've never seen the Weekly Standard publish an article where I could spot an honesty problem. Same for City Journal and American Thinker. And Medved, and Hewitt, and Ingraham, and a few others I overhear once in a while.

Yet I can almost pick newpaper articles at random and generate blog entires like this one.

So, and I'm not trying to just cheer for my team here, "Rara" (:-)), but if that's my actual experience, it would be perhaps understandable why I'd get the impression deception is far more common on the left.

If you heard me as saying that no conservative would ever get the facts wrong, or even lie (as your response seems to indicate), then you've misunderstood my position.

(And the above is not a case of merely getting the facts wrong. It was hiding the elephant in the room. I cannot intellectually believe the authors of the article were totally unaware of these things, or that they'd never heard of nor used Google, which quickly produces all the information I'm citing above.)

And I'm sure rightward leaning papers do the same thing.

Really? Both of them? ;-)

Again, examples are welcomed.

I'm sure it's happened at times. My challenge to you would be to look for actual examples (feel free to post them here) from either side, and then try to be as fair as you can about the frequency.

I've done this for years, and that's the reason I have the expectations I do now. I didn't start out with that view. Quite to the contrary.

As an aside, I CAN'T STAND IT when pastors use the pulpit to preach politics.

My personal feelings are that I agree with you. I think the Apostle Paul was wise when he stated that among the Corinthians "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

If I was a pastor, speaking from the pulpit, and a person comes in needing to hear the gospel, should I drive him or her away with some tangential point about taxes or environmentalism? I have strong views on those areas, but why throw up a stumbling block? And if I'm actually right about some topic, God will have a chance to work on him/her after they let Him into their life.

Obama's church appears to be orthodox, but certainly seems fairly interested in politics. Noticing they didn't have a statement of faith, I searched for a few different terms, and found:

Maybe you haven't noticed anything unfair or false because you yourself are biased. Or maybe you haven't been reading extensively. Who knows?

Rara: As someone who's argued with Tim on more than one occasion, I can vouch for him this far; He is very well read politically and he is more than willing to entertain the possibility of biases in his thinking if reasonable evidence is given to support the notion.

>Maybe you haven't noticed anything unfair or false because you yourself are biased. Or maybe you haven't been reading extensively. Who knows?

>>Rara: As someone who's argued with Tim on more than one occasion, I can vouch for him this far; He is very well read politically and he is more than willing to entertain the possibility of biases in his thinking if reasonable evidence is given to support the notion.

I'll second that :)

Friends,

Ryan and Tracey: that's probably among the nicest things anyone has ever said to me in this context, given the integrity I know both of you have. But I would be implicitly dishonest if I didn't return the compliment, as I've seen the same trait in both of you two as well, from the same experience.

And more text for Rara...

Maybe you haven't noticed anything unfair or false because you yourself are biased.

It's always possible, friend. That's what this wide-open "Comments" section is for. Frankly, on many issues, I would *love* to debate someone who disagrees with me, but, on many of the more important issues, it's really hard to find a good, constructive adversary.

... the few lefties I've listened to, it honestly seems that a lot of the time, they really don't think their positions through at all.

That's been my experience as well, Rara. I started out thinking I would end up in the middle -- that the "right" was right about approximately half the issues, and the left was right about the other half. In particular, I suspected the "right wing" had the economics right, but the left wing cared more.

I've ended up on the right because on issue after issue, I've been more convinced by those arguments. Not because they made me feel better -- to the contrary, I'm often attacked or simply politely dismissed for having believe that -- but because that's where the evidence seems to lead, time after time.

I'm just asking for fairness.

Well, if you find me being unfair, please feel free to use this section to point it out.

I do not believe a church (as an organization) should support a particular candidate or political party. I don't even think by law they are allowed to. Wouldn't that cause their tax-exempt status to be revoked?

Yes, it would be -- or should be, anyway if we're being consistent. (John Kerry did a lot of campaigning from churches, I noticed, and nobody did a thing about it.) But I don't believe that everything that's legal is moral, or vise-versa.

I also don't believe organizations should be taxed -- only individuals. Among other benefits, this approach would take away all this quarreling about "tax-exempt" statuses, and whether the state is "funding" or "subsidizing" religion by failing to tax it.

And why should corporations, and corporate-funded groups like NARAL (funded by the abortion industry, for example) be able to petition the government for protection, and regarding grievences -- but not churches? Why should churches enjoy less protection and influence than these other groups?

Counter-arguments always welcomed.

It is not the job of the church to dabble in politics. It is the job of the church to evangelize and equip the saints. Then those equipped saints can vote their convictions.

My positions here are nuanced, so I'll try to be clear:

(a) As I said above, I think most churches -- meaning a local body -- will be most effective at "evangelism" (explaining who God is, and who we ar in relation to him) and "discipling" (helping people to grow closer to God) if it stays out of controversial areas like politics. For precisely the reasons you mention. Yet...

(b) Jesus said that part of how we'd be judged would be not just by having professed good theology, but by what we have done (Matt 25), which is evidence of our faith. Jesus said that we are salt and light, which means that we are to improve society.

In this, I agree with my opponents on the left.

BUT, my big difference is what role I think the government should play. We're opposites here. To generalize a bit, the left tends to think of the government, as George Lakoff admits, as a parent. In contrast, I think of the government more as a fence.

So where the left believes as Christians we should go vote for the government to feed the poor, I personally believe that, whatever the government does or shouldn't do, we are asked to do such things. (Policies like socialism and univesal health care, then, should just be evaluated on their effectiveness. I find them wanting.)

In contrast, the left believes that people should be free to do whatever they want to do (no governmental restraint on vice), whereas I think there should be some minimal rules and boundaries, which are enforced with the power of the state.

That's too rough a generalization (since the left actually belives in controlling people's private behavior too -- to a greater degree than I do, but in different areas) but it's in the ballpark.

Do you think it would have been better had churches not gotten involved in the struggle for slavery? I don't. Whole denominations split over their views of slavery -- a political issue, remember.

So I don't believe that churches should causually get involved in politics -- not at all. But there are some "political" issues where speech is needed. I don't think God draws a line around them and then says: "Well, not those." Most of the improvements in history to which Christians have contributed have had a political aspect.

But my point is not what is good for churches, it's about freedom of speech. I think churches should be allowed to voice any idea or belief -- including endorsing a candidate. Doing otherwise puts the government in the role of deciding what can and cannot be said in church.

I find that to be profoundly in conflict with what the founding fathers had in mind.

Yeah, endorsing a candidate is a "bad idea". So is teaching, in my view, the "prosperity gospel". But I don't want the government enforcing my notion of a "good idea" on the content of a sermon.

By the way, I don't believe abortion is inherently a political issue, but it has been made into a one. It is about taking of a life.

So you've contradicted yourself here, Rara. You wish it weren't political, but you admit it is. And you think the church should get involved in it.

Why were abortions comparatively scarce in our nation's history, Rara? It was because they were outlawed. And why were they outlawed?

One of the first things early church fathers spoke out against, Rara, was a practice which was utterly normal at the time: abortion. Over the centuries, this opinion became law.

Then, between the late 60s and the late 70s, the abortion rate skyrocketed again. Why? Because of a change in laws. Likewise, if we want to see it reduced, government incentives play a role in that.

The church can also do things to try to stop abortion (e.g. PRAY!!! provide support for unwedded mothers-to-be).

I don't disbelieve in prayer, Rara. But neither do I think praying is the only thing needing to be done in all cases. Slavery wasn't only banned in England the US by praying (though I'm sure a good amount of that happened too) but rather by political moves, pursued by Christians -- and supported by denouncements from pulpits!

(FYI: I'm not actually for Federally banning abortion nationwide. I think it should be decided as it was before Roe, by the voters. Then conscience can be brought into the polls. But that requires a political change.)

As for freedom of speech, everyone, including pastors, should be able to say what they want about anything, but not necessarily from the pulpit.

Right! So you like the fact that the government is currently in charge of deciding what can be said from the pulpit. In constrast. I don't like the arrangement one bit. Except in degree, how is that different than China, where the state also decides which churches are allowed, and what can be said?

But I wouldn't appreciate him telling us that we must all vote for Hillary... I'm not saying there should be a law against it...

Now it sounds like you're agreeing with me again.

I'm really tired and sleepy and even when I'm not, I definitely do not write or express myself as well or clearly as you do.

You write, when sleepy, better than I do. As Ryan can testify, some of the stupidest things I've written were when I stayed up too late.

I read the article whose link you posted -- thank you for posting that. I think I'm going to write a separate entry on it (I've got three separate unfinished blog entries in the queue right now). Comments would be welcomed, of course.

... is it better to be overtly racist, or to hide your racism when you're around black folk?

I view it as being a bit like lust. If one is tempted, one should resist, including externally. By trying to act the right way, even if inside we don't feel that way, our brain will eventually get the hint.

Not that there aren't times for open discussion and confession.