Dave F. Oliveria runs this particular blog as an associate editor of the Spokesman-Review. He will in fact post anything newsworthy or local gossip and runs the blog (and print version) daily. Today (18 September 2007) Mr. Oliveria admitted to being called a "Communist" by an opinionated poster (or commenter). Why? Because he no longer votes straight ticket Republican. Or why? Another commenter thought that he was showing too many leftish tendencies. Really? Time now for a little education on what makes a communist a communist.
1. and only one: follows an ideological doctrine originally theorized by Karl Marx. As applied: What happened to the former Imperial Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba.
Now, to the fears of Communism that came about in the post WW2 era and was to become known as the Cold War, people who "feared" such an ideology were quite prepared to label as "communistic," lefty, red, etc. anything that smacked of genuine human concern for one's fellow Americans. Conservative, became the strident anti-Communist position and "liberalism" on the other hand could be demonized extensively by people who claimed "Christian" principles that at the same time were also an expression of hatred and fear of anything that could deprive them of their place in the world and on the ideological spectrum. Admittedly, that left no room for such "Christian" concerns as love thy neighbor and all are equal before God (racially).
Thus, race relations, the civil rights movement of the 60s, carried a tint of "red" even though Christians were abundant in the movement to assure that not only were minorities equal before God but that they could also be regarded as equal before the laws. At what point did "Christians" begin to divide into the camps where at least some churches could continue to care about their fellows among God's creations and others pushed the politics of Christ? That is, Christ carries a flag, Christ comes draped in a dollar bill, Christ strides out of a tank waving the red, white and blue, Christ points an M16 A1 at a drooling Commie. If we didn't see such things described in cartoons, we none the less saw it described in the preachings of Pat Robertson and others of his ilk. Was it by the 60s and the civil rights movement? By the 70s and Roe v Wade? By the 80s and the ushering in of the Reagan revolution? By the 90s when the anti-Clinton all the time got off to a roaring start? How about the 21st century? GW comes into office claiming many things and ultimately doesn't practice what he preaches. Thereafter, the GOP begins to feel the affects of preaching the politics of Christ but not practicing what Christ taught. Two latest news examples: Craig and a Justice Dept. official who goes on-line to solicit a "mother" for sex with a "five year old child." A sting operation that nets yet another member of an administration that claimed it would restore "integrity" to the White House.
Shouldn't the "Christian principles" argument really mean that this is what you live by? Not what you are opposed to?
My comment to a poster on HBO who complained that Oliveria was showing leftish tendencies. Oliveria was demonstrating far more of a Christian behavior toward people posting on his blog and that could now be politically demonized as leftish. When did the practice of moral principles become leftist or "Communist?" See above.
Seems to me that there ought to be quite a difference between what people voluntarily do as a matter of faith, because of what they value about their faith and what is imposed on them as ideology through government. Both Democrats and Republicans now must bear the burden of trying to impose ideology on the governed through government And the GOP, who at one point claimed the need for self government for the populace as a whole when trying to take over a Democratic controlled Congress, forgot it very speedily as they also went on to support special interest agendas that desired government to impose ideology onto the rest of us. If the former could be considered "leftist" for doing so, how about the latter? So, who's the Communist?
1. and only one: follows an ideological doctrine originally theorized by Karl Marx. As applied: What happened to the former Imperial Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba.
Now, to the fears of Communism that came about in the post WW2 era and was to become known as the Cold War, people who "feared" such an ideology were quite prepared to label as "communistic," lefty, red, etc. anything that smacked of genuine human concern for one's fellow Americans. Conservative, became the strident anti-Communist position and "liberalism" on the other hand could be demonized extensively by people who claimed "Christian" principles that at the same time were also an expression of hatred and fear of anything that could deprive them of their place in the world and on the ideological spectrum. Admittedly, that left no room for such "Christian" concerns as love thy neighbor and all are equal before God (racially).
Thus, race relations, the civil rights movement of the 60s, carried a tint of "red" even though Christians were abundant in the movement to assure that not only were minorities equal before God but that they could also be regarded as equal before the laws. At what point did "Christians" begin to divide into the camps where at least some churches could continue to care about their fellows among God's creations and others pushed the politics of Christ? That is, Christ carries a flag, Christ comes draped in a dollar bill, Christ strides out of a tank waving the red, white and blue, Christ points an M16 A1 at a drooling Commie. If we didn't see such things described in cartoons, we none the less saw it described in the preachings of Pat Robertson and others of his ilk. Was it by the 60s and the civil rights movement? By the 70s and Roe v Wade? By the 80s and the ushering in of the Reagan revolution? By the 90s when the anti-Clinton all the time got off to a roaring start? How about the 21st century? GW comes into office claiming many things and ultimately doesn't practice what he preaches. Thereafter, the GOP begins to feel the affects of preaching the politics of Christ but not practicing what Christ taught. Two latest news examples: Craig and a Justice Dept. official who goes on-line to solicit a "mother" for sex with a "five year old child." A sting operation that nets yet another member of an administration that claimed it would restore "integrity" to the White House.
Shouldn't the "Christian principles" argument really mean that this is what you live by? Not what you are opposed to?
My comment to a poster on HBO who complained that Oliveria was showing leftish tendencies. Oliveria was demonstrating far more of a Christian behavior toward people posting on his blog and that could now be politically demonized as leftish. When did the practice of moral principles become leftist or "Communist?" See above.
Seems to me that there ought to be quite a difference between what people voluntarily do as a matter of faith, because of what they value about their faith and what is imposed on them as ideology through government. Both Democrats and Republicans now must bear the burden of trying to impose ideology on the governed through government And the GOP, who at one point claimed the need for self government for the populace as a whole when trying to take over a Democratic controlled Congress, forgot it very speedily as they also went on to support special interest agendas that desired government to impose ideology onto the rest of us. If the former could be considered "leftist" for doing so, how about the latter? So, who's the Communist?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment