I liked the interview, I have always liked Tony, ever since I heard him speak to our student body in Briercrest, only thing I only thing i would add to Tony is not call him self RLC, but just call him self after a group that began that movement called Mennonites!
Yeah I don't know about this. It seems to me that Bush has given more aid to Africa then Clinton ever dreamed about. It also occurs to me that some Christians do not need the government to give on their behalf. Most Christians give their money privately. Social conservatives want to vote for someone who is going to do something about the issues they think government is responsible for such as making abortion illegal and same sex marraige. They won't find many in the Democrat party who are going to do that for them. I also think calling the mennonites the original RLC is a little off. I am aware of MCC and the work they do in recent times but unfortunately they haven't been around that long. Mennonite history is mostly filled with colonies running from one place to another avoiding conflict and living apart from society. I am not sure of any points that were made in the interview that stand up under scrutiny. Although I wouldn't mind getting the social conservatives out of the Republican party myself being a classic liberal.
Yeah I thought he did a great job. George can be pretty hostile to Christitianity, but Tony didn't give him much room to say much. It was really good. I get to see Tony in two weeks in Winkler. He's doing a youth leaders breakfast. Should be really cool. Maybe I'll ask him about talking to George
i can appreciate that some christians might not want the government to 'give' on their behalf. but while my appreciation is extended - my agreement couldn't be more retracted from that position. We pay taxes. The taxes are used (in part) to support the initiatives of our government. In a democracy it stands to reason that a citizen not only can but should bear influence on the political powers to affect appropriate change to reflect good principles. To abdicate that role is responsible - especially for Christians. That is not the same as saying we should EXPECT our governments to reflect Christian directions only that we have a responsibility to advocate such a direction.
When you boil it down Tony is saying the Republican party should not be considered the only party an orthodox Christian could vote for. Sure that's a fine point. It shouldn't be considered a sin to not vote Republican. Traditionally Christians vote Republican because of the two hot button issues of Gay rights and abortion. Tony says Christians ought not just decide on those issues but consider also voting for a party that cares about the poor and gives aid to Africa. As the USA only has two major parties[sorry Ross Perot and Ralph Nader] is there any reason to vote for the Democrats based on the issue of helping out the poor? As I linked to Bush has increased aid to Africa by a substantial amount[not that aid actually works but we are looking at good intentions here]. Bush has also cut taxes for the poor. As a percentage of income it was a much greater tax cut then the rich got. Those are a few things that Republicans have done for the poor. What sort of poicies do the Democrats offer that help the poor that would be better than what the Republicans offer? Well they ran on raising the minimum wage. They are trying to push that bill through the Senate right now and it probably won't pass. Raising the minimum wage just lowers the amount of low skilled jobs availible and raises the price of goods so the producers can afford their new payroll. You can look at how badly the idea of raising the minimum wage is up www.cato.org. Just search minimum wage there. I am not really sure of any other policies that Democrats ran on that would help the poor.
So you are a Christian in the USA and you have choice between Republican and Democrat. You agree with the Republicans on at least the two issues of gay rights and abortion. You look at the Republican agenda versus the Democrat agenda on the poor and decide the Democrats aren't really offering anything better.
Tony has only offered a bunch of rhetoric it seems to me. If people really want to help the poor they are free to do so. The only reason they would need the government to accomplish this would be to force other people to give money to poor.
I'm not sure how much of Tony Campolo you have heard or read but from what I have gleaned Tony would have a huge problem with making Jesus a democrat or a republican. I think he would advocate the idea of lobbying our governments of whatever stripe to deal with the poor in increasingly more beneficial ways. I am aware of Bill's record in Africa (Rwanda for instance) and it is far from glowing. My main contention is that it makes a difference how our governments choose to behave inthe world and we as citizen of these countries ought to honor the responsibility we have to guide the decision making process within the democratic process.
7 comments:
I liked the interview, I have always liked Tony, ever since I heard him speak to our student body in Briercrest, only thing I only thing i would add to Tony is not call him self RLC, but just call him self after a group that began that movement called Mennonites!
hear hear
Yeah I don't know about this. It seems to me that Bush has given more aid to Africa then Clinton ever dreamed about. It also occurs to me that some Christians do not need the government to give on their behalf. Most Christians give their money privately. Social conservatives want to vote for someone who is going to do something about the issues they think government is responsible for such as making abortion illegal and same sex marraige. They won't find many in the Democrat party who are going to do that for them. I also think calling the mennonites the original RLC is a little off. I am aware of MCC and the work they do in recent times but unfortunately they haven't been around that long. Mennonite history is mostly filled with colonies running from one place to another avoiding conflict and living apart from society. I am not sure of any points that were made in the interview that stand up under scrutiny. Although I wouldn't mind getting the social conservatives out of the Republican party myself being a classic liberal.
Yeah I thought he did a great job. George can be pretty hostile to Christitianity, but Tony didn't give him much room to say much. It was really good. I get to see Tony in two weeks in Winkler. He's doing a youth leaders breakfast. Should be really cool. Maybe I'll ask him about talking to George
i can appreciate that some christians might not want the government to 'give' on their behalf. but while my appreciation is extended - my agreement couldn't be more retracted from that position.
We pay taxes.
The taxes are used (in part) to support the initiatives of our government.
In a democracy it stands to reason that a citizen not only can but should bear influence on the political powers to affect appropriate change to reflect good principles.
To abdicate that role is responsible - especially for Christians.
That is not the same as saying we should EXPECT our governments to reflect Christian directions only that we have a responsibility to advocate such a direction.
When you boil it down Tony is saying the Republican party should not be considered the only party an orthodox Christian could vote for. Sure that's a fine point. It shouldn't be considered a sin to not vote Republican. Traditionally Christians vote Republican because of the two hot button issues of Gay rights and abortion. Tony says Christians ought not just decide on those issues but consider also voting for a party that cares about the poor and gives aid to Africa. As the USA only has two major parties[sorry Ross Perot and Ralph Nader] is there any reason to vote for the Democrats based on the issue of helping out the poor? As I linked to Bush has increased aid to Africa by a substantial amount[not that aid actually works but we are looking at good intentions here]. Bush has also cut taxes for the poor. As a percentage of income it was a much greater tax cut then the rich got. Those are a few things that Republicans have done for the poor. What sort of poicies do the Democrats offer that help the poor that would be better than what the Republicans offer? Well they ran on raising the minimum wage. They are trying to push that bill through the Senate right now and it probably won't pass. Raising the minimum wage just lowers the amount of low skilled jobs availible and raises the price of goods so the producers can afford their new payroll. You can look at how badly the idea of raising the minimum wage is up www.cato.org. Just search minimum wage there. I am not really sure of any other policies that Democrats ran on that would help the poor.
So you are a Christian in the USA and you have choice between Republican and Democrat. You agree with the Republicans on at least the two issues of gay rights and abortion. You look at the Republican agenda versus the Democrat agenda on the poor and decide the Democrats aren't really offering anything better.
Tony has only offered a bunch of rhetoric it seems to me. If people really want to help the poor they are free to do so. The only reason they would need the government to accomplish this would be to force other people to give money to poor.
I'm not sure how much of Tony Campolo you have heard or read but from what I have gleaned Tony would have a huge problem with making Jesus a democrat or a republican. I think he would advocate the idea of lobbying our governments of whatever stripe to deal with the poor in increasingly more beneficial ways.
I am aware of Bill's record in Africa (Rwanda for instance) and it is far from glowing.
My main contention is that it makes a difference how our governments choose to behave inthe world and we as citizen of these countries ought to honor the responsibility we have to guide the decision making process within the democratic process.
Post a Comment