Showing posts with label cnn's "What would Jesus Want?". Show all posts
Showing posts with label cnn's "What would Jesus Want?". Show all posts

Monday, April 9, 2007

WHAT WOULD JESUS WANT? CNN special with Roland Martin

I saw the program tonight, "What would Jesus want?" with the CNN guy Roland Martin. It was excellent, overall. Loved Rick Warren's remarks. I'll bet martin was a little disappointed that the preachers didn't say quite what he'd hoped. Falwell and T.D. Jakes were also featured, as well as some woman I've never heard of whose plastic surgery looked a little tight. But she and Jakes were ok, too.

Falwell and Warren did the best on the war question--saying there is such a thing as "a just war" that is Biblically defensible. Both said freedom and security were worth dying for. They both said our war on terrorism was not a war on Islam. Neither said what they could have on that point --that we were, in fact, helping Muslims in both Afghanistan and Iraq who wanted democracy, freedom, and peace and they needed our help to achieve it.

One of them said the meaning of martyr had been distorted --that a martyr was one who was killed for his faith --not one who died by blowing up others--that no religion tells us to "blow up yourself!"

Rick said the AIDS victims were today's lepers and Jesus would be working among them. I agree that he would and we should. However, I don't know where they are or how to help them. I've seen no call for our help--except for money for their healthcare --and gov't and insurance companies have undertaken those expenses. Most of them, as I understand it, are doing pretty well with the drugs available to them. According to one blogger, they are favored in insurance policies and benefits as homosexual partners --getting benefits that unmarried heteros don't get. I don't know of any move among Republicans to deny care for AIDS victims. IN fact, Bush ordered tons of aid for AFrican AIDS.

Pastor Warren also said he was pro-life and for the Bible's view on homosexuality vs hetero marriage --but just didn't want evangelicals known for only those 2 things. Didn't like being called "right wing" because of the 2-issue connotations --because he wants to be a pastor to all people.

Being known for just two issues isn't primarily our doing --it's the two issues where liberals and social conservs are most polarized --so liberals are just as vocal about these two issues--except when they are trying to ride the fence for votes. I write on the gay issue a lot --and abortion some --because they ARE the most controversial issues and the liberals are winning, I think --because they repeat misinformation/propaganda over and over, emotionally, and people assume it's the truth.

You know I have observed in the blogsphere before that the two most important issues to the democrats are homosexuality and abortion. Truth be told, they are the dividing issues today between the parties. They'd rather play up the war, however, in order to get a Democrat in the White House. I'm betting they'll overplay their hand. they are so afraid that if we start to succeed in Iraq --that the Republicans will win the presidency and regain the house and senate --which could happen after we are all sick of pelosi.

Look how many of Mudville's posts are dedicated to attack on Christians for these two issues. He accuses me of not caring about any other social issues --but we do agree that we want improvement in social problems of concern to the left(poverty, economy, jobs, environment, education). We just don't agree about solutions and how to get the money. We say stimulate the economy with low taxes and there will be more tax revenue. They think we should just rob the rich and middle class with more taxes to pay for all their big ideas, which are more government, more regulation, more big brother.

I think we also differ with liberals about drugs, porn, immigration,campaign financing law, grassroots role, etc.

I do think social conservs. are more concerned about what kind of world we will bequeathe to the kids--not just earth issues and the economy --but moral issues.
The radical left is dangerous on these issues --more dangerous to kids than the religious right.

Another consideration, many of us don't know WHAT should be done about environment or the war, education, etc. Some of us don't think gov't can fix everything even if they try and don't have solutions to recommend. But they KNOW how they feel about the moral/social issues. That's another reason for the perception that the religious right cares about just the 2 issues. We know that sinning is not the way to have God's protection on our nation--whereas other issues may not be as clear.