God's Politics

God's Politics


Brian McLaren: What Really Sucks

posted by God's Politics

A friend recently brought to my attention the July 8, 2007, column by Rod Dreher in the Dallas Morning News. Dreher, famous as a “Crunchy Con”—a conservative who cares deeply about the environment—provides another excellent example of the important shift taking place on the fault line that for too long has polarized and paralyzed “left” and “right.” His title, “Evils of Capitalism,” and the subhead, “Big business can be as dangerous a threat as big government,” tell you that he defies old binary categories.


The greatest challenge facing American conservatives today, he says, is not liberalism but capitalism, which he says, “in its current form, undermines not only the virtues necessary to the kind of society conservatives claim to want, but ultimately risks subverting itself.”


He acknowledges capitalism’s strengths, but laments that today’s capitalism “is defined not by a producer mentality but by a consumer ethos,” evidenced by the fact that personal savings—undercut by credit card debt—have slipped into the negative zone for the first time since 1933.


He calls the mentality promoted by consumerism “childishness,” quoting Benjamin Barber’s recent release, Consumed. When big business promotes consumerism by inhibiting adult judgment and self-discipline, Dreher says, it works against the very family values conservatives cherish, making them “prisoners of their own cravings.”


“Childishness” sounds like the mentality that has been reinforced by our political and corporate titans. On one hand, we hear warnings that inspire fear, and then on the other, we hear a lot of “Trust me and don’t ask questions.” These titans profit if the rest of us act like children, trusting and submitting without thinking and making mature decisions with foresight, self-discipline, and concern for the common good.


Rod Dreher is so right. Consumerism, whether in government or business, sucks.


Consumerist government sucks in more and more power and tax revenue that it uses to create bloated bureaucracies, consuming time and money without producing improved social infrastructure. It sucks in more and more power to all its branches, waging ill-advised wars and protecting powerful partners with whom it colludes for narrow interests rather than the common good. It also sucks in attention, focusing on short-term political fights while ignoring the longer-range, bigger-picture issues that demand our best thinking and leadership. The framers of our constitution were aware of the danger posed by the craving for more power among the already powerful. Their brilliant system of checks and balances was intended to curb the suck of consumerism in government.


And just as consumerist government sucks in power, revenue, human energy, and attention, consumerist business sucks resources—human and natural—to satisfy a craving for profit that has been raised to the level of idolatry. Here’s how I put it in my upcoming book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope (Nelson, October 2, 2007):

Our current prosperity system … is amazingly powerful—growing more so every day—yet it is unsustainable long-term, an example of self-delusion and denial about our creaturely limits that may be one of the most striking characteristics of modern times. As part of this insane and suicidal economy, we act as though the resources we consume are infinite and the wastes we deposit are invisible. Just as our bodies consume food and produce excrement, in this economy we consume trees and produce smoke, consume clean air and produce smog, consume clean water and produce sewage and toxic waste, consume rock and produce radiation, consume oil and coal and produce gases that turn our planet into an overheating oven in which storms boil and oceans rise and deserts spread and forests whither. Our prosperity system thus becomes an excrement factory.

In order to be healthy and not implode, our economy needs virtue, Dreher says, especially virtues of self-restraint. He defines a kind of conservatism that people across the ideological spectrum would be wise to warmly receive: “to do more with less … to conserve for the sake of a higher good.” He continues, “…we can’t pretend that our prosperity does not present us with serious civic problems. Consumer capitalism contains within its unfolding dynamic the seeds of its own destruction, to say nothing of the way it chews up traditional loyalties to faith, family, community and place.”


Dreher expresses exactly the kind of both/and thinking we need in a world where conservatives have tended to focus on personal sin and liberals on social sin. If we define our freedom only as individual choice, he says, we make it difficult to “inculcate a sense of obligation to any traditions or ideals higher than serving the autonomous self and its desires,” which are exactly the kinds of traditions and ideals proclaimed by the biblical prophets and Jesus.


We truly reach a new stage in our civic dialogue when more and more of us climb to a political and moral higher ground that acknowledges the twin downsides of both big business and big government.


Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) serves as board chair for Sojourners/Call to Renewal. His next book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, will be released in October.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(40)
post a comment
jesse

posted July 18, 2007 at 10:26 am


If the problem is capitalism, what in particular has changed in the last 50 or so years that has given rise to consumerism? Government has actually gotten a lot more intrusive and the welfare state has expanded significantly. It seems Dreher and McLaren’s problem isn’t so much free markets as it is our culture. Free markets alone will not lead to a stable or good society. But then promoters of capitalism never guaranteed that they would. They have always emphasized the importance of culture in restraining consumerism and greed.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 18, 2007 at 10:28 am


I should add that Dreher, who has supported Democrats in the past, is by no means a spokesperson for conservatives.



report abuse
 

Ben Wheaton

posted July 18, 2007 at 10:31 am


I think that, while Dreher states some true things, he overstates his case. Rampant consumerism is indeed an evil, one which permeates our own era; nevertheless it is primarily a heart issue. No change in institutions will eliminate evil in men’s hearts. The liberal fallacy is to suppose that by becoming less capitalist in our system we will somehow solve its problems. And granted, we may lessen capitalism’s evils, but at the same time we will bring new evils upon ourselves, perhaps worse than capitalism’s evils. In our fallen world, it’s a Catch-22 situation: any way you turn it’s going to end in disaster. In my opinion, capitalism is the least evil of all systems, and so should be strengthened. Leavened, of course, with restraint (including some–but not too much–government restraint).



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 18, 2007 at 10:39 am


I enjoy Dreher. He far more intellectually honest than a lot of what I read on this blog. Further, the notion that capitalism is the biggest threat to itself is an age old conservative adage. You heard it a lot back in the Enron scandal years.
However, I don’t see a tie between “childish consumerism” and the environment, particularly as outlined by McLaren.
Dreher would surely point out that China and India will soon be the leading polluters. China, in particular, is not a capitalist model by any stretch of the imagination.
The government is no more likely to prioritize the environment than a business. In fact, I would argue that it is less likely. If Ford invents a car that gets 100 mpg, they make billions. Governments do not have this particular incentive.



report abuse
 

splinterlog

posted July 18, 2007 at 10:54 am


Yes and it appears that many free market stalwarts are also beginning to the problems with so called “free markets”.
Take Raghuram Rajan, former prof at the Univ. Chicago Business school and currently a Director at the IMF. His last book “Saving Capitalism fromt the Capitalists” outlined his concerns about the ability of corporations to distort the functioning of free markets.
It’s ironic that Marx talked about this very thing more thana century ago! Anyway, the final sentence is just an observation – let’s not tak ethe discussion down that road :)



report abuse
 

Ben Wheaton

posted July 18, 2007 at 11:04 am


Yes, please, splinterlog–no murderous marxism on this thread.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 18, 2007 at 11:37 am


Yes, please, splinterlog–no murderous marxism on this thread.Posted by: Ben Wheaton
You would think he had invoked the name of Satan in mentioning Marx’s name. Only in America.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted July 18, 2007 at 11:52 am


“However, I don’t see a tie between “childish consumerism” and the environment, particularly as outlined by McLaren.”
Of course there’s a tie. Childish consumerism is consumption without thought. Consumption without thought leads to consumption of products we don’t need, consumption of products that are specifically designed not to last, leads to wastefully using resources to create such products, leads to such products ending up in landfills rather than being reused or fixed if broken. We do this because we can afford to. Although, in reality, few of us really can afford to. The credit cards allow us to afford it by giving us high interest loans and our American mindset to have and have NOW results in the increase of personal debt we have seen. I read the article as more the enemy is not capitalism, but consumerism. Another enemy would be our need for instant gratification. Anyone out there ever save up for something you want anymore, or do most of us just go buy it and put it on plastic? Fewer and fewer take the former option…



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted July 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm


splinterlog:
While I don’t quite view Marx as Satan, I do tend to see him as one of the most overrated intellectuals of human history. He is credited with forseeing all kinds of things that in reality he completely botched.
For my money, the public choice theorists do a much better job of explaining how wealthy individuals and businesses can use government to distort the functioning of a market.
As far as Dreher goes, I have a great deal of respect for him, and I wonder if his ideas aren’t getting a little bit distorted here. Dreher’s world view still centers on communities of affinity and shared culture, as opposed to organization by the government.
While Dreher’s not a libertarian, the self control versus state control distinction is very much in play, and just because he shares some of Sojo’s goals doesn’t mean he wouldn’t pursue them through very different means.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

nad2

posted July 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm


the idea that we all have an obligation to and a stake in each other and are parts of a greater whole is of vital importance, from both a religious and sociological point of view. likewise, the ideas of individual freedom and accountability must be protected equally; but i think it is clear we have let the balance of this dichotomy skew far too much toward the individual, reinterpreting the lines of demarcation to where far too many choices are seen as having only individual consequences rather than evaluating the greater harm or good to us all. the idea that individuals each seeking what is best for them individually as the best thing for greater society is foolishness, yet we have somehow been fooled by those who stand to gain most from such an idea that this is the essence of the american character.
capitalism as a means of exchange must be commended as the best we have come up with at present when put in practice, and representative government as a means of enforcing the rights of individuals and the greater good above the individual must likewise be given its due. but capitalism cares not for those who cannot succeed at it, and at its heart is unashamedly driven by greed, as are the hearts of many who either answer the call to serve in government or seek to influence the governing process for individual gain. the forest is being lost through the overzealous individualistic trees, the individual is destroying the collective, the sociologists can see it, as could the prophets who railed against it. i pray that enough of us see it, through religious lenses or otherwise, to begin to give everything we have to care for the environment, for poor children who have no roll models, for the drug addict, for those who chase materialism to their families’ demise, for inmates who will be put back into our societies, for those coming home from iraq emotionally battered, for those who must live in iraq psychologically broken, for our business and government leaders who have stopped trying to see the forest all us trees abide in and are a part of, for personal responsibility and true justice for all. it is our prophetic traditions’ call to us, our societal responsibility as members of it, and oddly enough, the soundest approach to protecting our own self-interest.



report abuse
 

B. Nozick

posted July 18, 2007 at 12:40 pm


I’m personally opposed to childish consumerism but I don’t think I can impose my own sectarian religious convictions on the rest of society. And I’m firmly opposed to regulating capitalist acts between consenting adults. But the stuff about how big government really sucks is important. So, let’s all agree to eliminate the department of education.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted July 18, 2007 at 12:41 pm


I agree with squeaky, the enemy is our own lack of self-control and unrestrain consumption, not capitalism. Capitalism is merely an ecomomic system. If we restrained our consumption, capitalism would function fine. We don’t need to move away from capitalism, just institute some self-control.
I think this is what Rod is saying too, but I could be wrong. I agree with him that large businesses should be viewed with as much skepticism as big government and I’m glad to hear Brian say so as well.
I’d be interested in hearing from those who think capitalism is the problem what the solution is.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 18, 2007 at 1:20 pm


“Of course there’s a tie. Childish consumerism is consumption without thought. ”
I sort of botched what I was trying to say. Moreso, I don’t believe that the process of using resources necessarily connotes childish consumerism, or that environmental damage can be laid at the feet of capitalism. This is tough to deal with, though, because the question of what constitutes childish consumerism is so vague.
Is driving to work childish consumerism? What about blogging? What about writing a book about childish consumerism?
“For my money, the public choice theorists do a much better job of explaining how wealthy individuals and businesses can use government to distort the functioning of a market.”
And Rajan is one of those theorists, IIRC. Corporate welfare is problematic, but is often the necessary corollary to regulation. The airline industry is a perfect example of this.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 18, 2007 at 1:45 pm


“I think the great evil of our day is marketing. But advertisements and commericials pay the bills.”
Why is marketing the great evil of our day?



report abuse
 

B Nozick

posted July 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm


The great evil of the day is not marketing but is big government because it tries to regulate or prohibit capitalist acts between consenting adults. But Big government sucks, so let’s shut down the Department of Health and Human Services.



report abuse
 

Jerseykid

posted July 18, 2007 at 2:33 pm


“I sort of botched what I was trying to say. Moreso, I don’t believe that the process of using resources necessarily connotes childish consumerism, or that environmental damage can be laid at the feet of capitalism. This is tough to deal with, though, because the question of what constitutes childish consumerism is so vague.”
I can see where you are going with this and your point is well taken. Who determines what is childish consumerism? But if we don’t do something about wasteful consumption, there will soon be precious little left to consume. So we’re going to have to come up with some definition childish consumerism as a society for everybody’s good.



report abuse
 

nad2

posted July 18, 2007 at 2:37 pm


eric,
i would not say capitalism is the problem, but is wholly incomplete, and our over-emphasis on it as the best way to determine greater good is the problem. the environment for example – call it bush-bashing if you will, but to me his approach of ‘let the market fix the environment’ is delusional. this has to be one place we all demand responsible government intervention to set the rules for the market because there is no market mechanism for preventing environmental destruction. the market did not pass the clean air, clean water, or the other great environmental acts in the 70s that have kept us from destroying ourselves even faster. it is a classic problem of competitive advantage – without government regulation, the overwhelming majority of businesses aren’t going to do the right thing by the environment on their own when others they are competing with will do it the cheaper and dirtier way.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm


I disagree w/ some of the more recent thought. I would argue that all human systems are evil. Marx may have gotten a lot of things wrong but his critique of capitalism was spot on. We turn everything into commoidities to be used for our own enjoyment. That’s a strictly capitalist ideal. I think we need to stop commodifying everything and remember what real joy is.
Oh and I would argue that all human systems (capitalism, socialism, kingdoms…) are evil.
p



report abuse
 

carl copas

posted July 18, 2007 at 4:41 pm


The value of Marx was that he identified certain contradictions within capitalism that are inherent to it and cannot be removed: one that is well-known is the contradiction between capitalists seeking simultaneously both maximum profits and and minimum wage bills (i.e., what they pay employees).
It should surprised no one on this blog that capitalism has inherent flaws; it’s a human construction, and at least since the Fall, anything human-made is going to have certain problems.
Does that mean that all human systems are evil, as Payshun suggests? That seems to be an overstatement, but–to borrow language from Reinhold Niebuhr–all human systems are fundamentally flawed.
One more comment, now that I’m on my soapbox. There are those, including Christians, who argue that all we have to do to solve our economic problems is remove the fetters of government and unions and allow the free market to operate without any interference whatsoever. That, I’m increasingly convinced, is sheer idolatry. To paraphrase Marx, it’s to fetishize the market.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm


There are those, including Christians, who argue that all we have to do to solve our economic problems is remove the fetters of government and unions and allow the free market to operate without any interference whatsoever. That, I’m increasingly convinced, is sheer idolatry. To paraphrase Marx, it’s to fetishize the market.
Not only that, but the very way our political system is built leaves it vulnerable to lobbyists angling for favorable treatment concerning taxes, regulations et al. Therefore, business groups, with the money they spread around, can expect to get it. Economic libertarianism, on the other hand, assumes that business has no pull with the government, which is of course ridiculous.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 18, 2007 at 5:31 pm


I have yet to see anyone declare that capitalism is without fault. It cannot be without fault because people cannot be without fault. Further, nobody is advocating for the removal of all governmental regulations.
In fact, I would argue that the majority of Americans want the least possible amount of governmental intervention. The debate is as to how much intervention that entails. If you see governmental regulation is the way to mitigate against the failings of man, you are equally guilty of idolatry, though I disagree that idolatry really enters into this discussion in the first place.
Rick makes a good point that lobbysists angle for special treatment from our elected leadership. This, to me, argues for even less governmental regulation, not more. Economic libertarianism (and I am not sure whether Rick considers this synonymous with fiscal conservatism) fully understands the impact of lobbying.



report abuse
 

Ngchen

posted July 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm


Capitalism has lots of benefits, and studies have shown that generally, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is incredibly good in the long run at allocating resources in a reasonably efficient manner. That being said, I see the biggest problem with capitalism being its inability to deal with what economists call “externalities.” The environment is a typical and classic example. If I can make more $$$ producing more X, even though making more X increases the pollution dumped into the environment, I still am pushed to make more X anyway because I get 100% of the benefit of making more X, while unfairly transferring the cost (a worse environment) to the populace as a whole. This is something markets are poor at dealing with, in spite of the fact that certain “green” items have a market of their own. The typical proposed solution then is some form of state regulation; however, state regulation has the potential to become corrupt very quickly via corrupt lobbyists and the like.
Capitalism is not consumerism though. Consumerism is out-and-out idolatry. It is caused by people idolizing the purchase of stuff for the sake of getting stuff. I don’t see any real benefit to that. As other posters have noted, we live in a fallen world, and consumerism is an example of that.



report abuse
 

Aldous Huxley

posted July 18, 2007 at 7:59 pm


“Why is marketing the great evil of our day?”
Advertising is the organized effort to extend and intensify craving – to extend and intensify, that is to say, the workings of that force, which (as all the saints and teachers of all the higher religions have always taught) is the principle cause of suffering and wrong-doing and the greatest obstacle between the human soul and its divine Ground.
To expiate further on the modern Weltanschauung is unnecessary; explicitly or by implication it is set forth on every page of the advertising sections of every newspaper and magazine.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm


If you see governmental regulation is the way to mitigate against the failings of man, you are equally guilty of idolatry, though I disagree that idolatry really enters into this discussion in the first place.
It actually does, especially when we focus on a “system” as being particularly “godly.” On more than a few Christian TV shows, especially in the 1980s, I saw folks glorifying not just capitalism but consumerism. In fact, I read in a conservative campus newspaper over a decade ago that the poor in this country have more gadgets than the middle class in Europe, which of course was, in its view, a good thing. While that may be factually true, perhaps Europeans don’t feel they need all that stuff.
That said, I agree that regulation can go only so far.
Economic libertarianism (and I am not sure whether Rick considers this synonymous with fiscal conservatism) fully understands the impact of lobbying.
For the record, I don’t consider them synonymous. Back in the 1990s I worked for a metals-distribution firm that was fiscally conservative; while the pay for all workers, even management, was low compared to other firms it was on pretty steady ground financially with practically no debt. Then, however, the company ended up being bought out, and new management decided to take some risks and get out of its core market — I’m so far removed from that situation I don’t remember now — and it ended up breaking apart.
Fiscal conservatism means, to me, “Don’t do anything stupid.” Economic libertarianism, on the other hand, can be dangerous because it always leads to wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands; that’s what we had in the 1920s and it contributed to, if not caused, the Great Depression. (We also saw a tamer version of such in the 1980s.) I don’t see the problem as regulation per se but whom such regulation benefits and why, and as we saw during the GWB years, corporate lobbyists were essentially — perhaps in some cases literally — writing legislation. Furthermore, in the ’80s one of the major companies in my city actually tried to get in on the real estate craze, but when the market tanked the company went with it.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 18, 2007 at 8:07 pm


To expiate further on the modern Weltanschauung is unnecessary; explicitly or by implication it is set forth on every page of the advertising sections of every newspaper and magazine.
And it’s why I have a job … :-)



report abuse
 

nad2

posted July 18, 2007 at 11:31 pm


rick, there is no ‘perhaps,’ lobbyists write legislation quite often. an educated, informed and active electorate is the key to government regulation functioning as intended. unfortunately much of the means by which that can be achieved are also within the reach of the tentacles of those with a vested interest in that not happening. political apathy is a hot commodity, and really good for business!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 18, 2007 at 11:56 pm


“It actually does, especially when we focus on a “system” as being particularly “godly.” ”
Well, I don’t, and plenty of conservtives don’t, regardless of what Christian TV shows in the 1980s said.
“Advertising is the organized effort to extend and intensify craving ”
I disagree. Effecitve advertising finds existing needs, and identifies core brand attributes to meet those needs. The days of simply illiciting pavlovian responses died with the “lemon” ad.
That is why “I’m Thinkin’ Arby’s” is such a profound waste of money as a campaign.
“To expiate further on the modern Weltanschauung is unnecessary; explicitly or by implication it is set forth on every page of the advertising sections of every newspaper and magazine.”
And every Youtube creation posted on a left-wing blog. Are we at the year of the Purdue Wonderchicken yet?
“And it’s why I have a job … :-)”
And why I have mine.



report abuse
 

get_real

posted July 19, 2007 at 8:34 am


“If Ford invents a car that gets 100 mpg, they make billions.”
and yet, the technology is there (and has been for many years) but Ford hasn’t built that car.



report abuse
 

get_real

posted July 19, 2007 at 8:39 am


less governmental interference would be great if all else was equal. all else is not equal.
funny how those who argue for less governmental regulation are the ones who have already “made it”.



report abuse
 

Gwen Moore

posted July 19, 2007 at 9:22 am


I appreciated the article by McLaren and really did read it for content, but my eye can’t help seeing typos. Please tell the proofreaders at Nelson to correct “whither” in the quote – it should be wither – so it won’t detract from the flow of the prose. Thanks!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 19, 2007 at 1:51 pm


“funny how those who argue for less governmental regulation are the ones who have already “made it”.”
Not true of me (depending on your definition of “making it”).
“and yet, the technology is there (and has been for many years) but Ford hasn’t built that car.”
To which technology do you refer? I should amend my statement to say that if Ford could make a reliable, affordable car that gets 100 mpg, they would make billions.



report abuse
 

R.J.

posted July 19, 2007 at 1:59 pm


The typical debates, whether republican vs. democrat or big business vs. big government, are used to polarize society and take our eyes away from the bigger issue: Both political parties have a history of placing corporate interests above private and small business interests.
Less than 1% of the US population owns more than 33% of its wealth. It is this 1% that has the most influence on government policy and action. The US will never be free, and capitalism will never truly work, until there is a separation of business and government.
Read your history (not just the history you’re indoctrinated with in public school).



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 19, 2007 at 2:08 pm


Ford and Edison wanted to partner together to make an electric car over 100 years ago. They were stopped by corporate oil. This was in a recent New York Times magazine article.



report abuse
 

get_real

posted July 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm


“To which technology do you refer? I should amend my statement to say that if Ford could make a reliable, affordable car that gets 100 mpg, they would make billions.”
sorry, but wrong again.
and by “making it”, well, i assume you are visiting these blogs using a computer, by which case you either have enough money to own a computer and pay for internet access and/or your job involves a lot of time spent on a computer and little or none of manual labor. so by this definition, you’re not one of the people i’m talking about who are so hurt when the government steps aside.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 19, 2007 at 3:58 pm


get real said
funny how those who argue for less governmental regulation are the ones who have already “made it”.
Then I gather you have not ?



report abuse
 

Lucas

posted July 20, 2007 at 1:29 am


This article articulates what has been on my mind for a long time. In a world where none of our systems is pure evil or pure good, we’d be wise to remember that capitalism, and even democracy for that matter, is an experimental venture. (Millions of years of history remind us of that…) Instead of saying that the current form of capitalism we have is the ultimate or only form and must either fully stay or fully be thrown out, I don’t think there would be too many, aside from those who profit from the status quo and others’ expense, who would see reform as a bad thing…



report abuse
 

get_real

posted July 20, 2007 at 8:55 am


“Then I gather you have not ?”
oh, no, i have – i’ve been extremely lucky and never had to worry about where my next meal was coming from, or whether i could afford to go to the doctor.
with that comes the responsibility to fight for those who don’t have the things that i’ve been blessed with.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 20, 2007 at 10:45 am


If you see governmental regulation is the way to mitigate against the failings of man, you are equally guilty of idolatry, though I disagree that idolatry really enters into this discussion in the first place.
Another false choice. You can agree that government regulation is the way to mitigate against man’s failings but still understand that it is not a perfect solution and thus not be guilty of idolatry. Funny how you set up staw men and false choices and you apply them against the policies or philosophies you don’t agree with. Totally disengenous, but typical of your rhetorical style.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 20, 2007 at 3:16 pm


“Another false choice. You can agree that government regulation is the way to mitigate against man’s failings but still understand that it is not a perfect solution and thus not be guilty of idolatry. ”
I said that idolatry doesn’t belong in the discussion in the first place.
“Funny how you set up staw men and false choices and you apply them against the policies or philosophies you don’t agree with. Totally disengenous, but typical of your rhetorical style.”
You didn’t even read my post. So, really, you were just waiting until you had enought to launch an insult.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Consumerism Sucks | knightopia.com | the online home of Steve Knight

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.