George:
Socialist systems inevitably move towards centralized control of economy, politics, culture, and every aspect of human life. History confirms a wise statement: “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It happens always when Christian values are only being used to gain the needed initial popular support. The means to achieve the total control of a society and its politics range from moral poses, manipulation, an incredible amount of lies, physical or moral destruction of the opponents, etc.
Usually It does not take too long until the ‘real truth’ is revealed: “The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted”.(Psalm 12,8)

I’m not sure he could be called cowardly (i.e., a poltroon). Since we are expressing this in somewhat obsolete terms, it might be more accurate to call him a pecksniffian rapscallion.

With apologies for being overtly political, Isa’s comment (#3) called to mind an old line from Wm. F. Buckley:

“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security.”

thanks! I could have said “poltroon” but I reserve that for Al Sharpton.

Michael, one way to expose Wallis as the mountebank that he is is to ask him which world leader does he admire more: Fidel Castro or Ronald Reagan? Hugo Chavez or Margaret Thatcher? Only a moral reprobate would chose the dictators over democrats.

Eliot, I’ve long ago rejected the idea that the Left is on the side of the angels. They bring nothing to the intellectual table anymore. I for one will not concede any philosophical ground to “theomachists” and “pagans” in favor of any politically correct groupsing of Kum-ba-ya. Their arguments are nothing but moral poses.

1> Jim Wallis does not advocate positions that are in line with traditional Chrisitan thought and practice. He never has. As someone who read Sourjourners in the 1970’s (before I was Christian), left politics not faith was always the point. Cryanorox should address that issue.

2> That being said, rhetoric here does tend to get out of hand a bit. We should do better.

It is inevitable that we will not get on with everyone all the time. But this is not a reason for not remaining Orthodox. We are Orthodox and we remain in the Church in order to save our souls, and nothing else. In order to save our souls, we have to know ourselves, first by being ourselves, and later discovering our sins and failings. If we lose this perspective we start dwelling on the faults of others.

I do not think Cyranorox deserve one more chance. I would suggest a mild sanitation of his latest post

Cnthia, Wallis is a fool. Or a liar. I haven’t decided which.

Cyranox, the Confederate flag was not a slave standard. Nor were the vast majority of Southerners fighting for slavery but to keep their lands free from invasion. * (U S Grant admitted as much to Robert E Lee after the war.) But leave that aside, what exactly about my critique of Wallis was I “losing”? Any chance perusal of Wallis’ writings show clear Marxian tendancies. I just think he should be honest about it that’s all. At least I could respect the Liberation theologians of South America because they were open about their anti-free-market philosophy.

*It might amuse some to learn that the Army of the CSA had over 90,000 black men in it, of which some 15,000 actually bore arms. Also, 9% of slave owners in the South were black. I’m not saying that this was an army that upheld the equality of the races, but then again, neither did the Union. Nor would it until Harry Truman integrated the armed forces some eighty years later. And no, I’m not a racist, just somebody who believes that the historical record needs to be upheld, not political mythology. For those who want to castigate the South for slavery, they would be well-advised to take their umbrage out on the present-day slave trade that is going on in Africa, by practicioners of the “Religion of Peace.”

Last warning Cyranorox. You came here scolding critics of Wallis but failed to provide any substantive ideas justifying your disapproval. Then you scolded George M. for allegedly using the “N word” (never really understanding his context) and insist that your disapproval should be as self-evident to others as it is to you. Now you scold the entire blog, because, why? — your friends wouldn’t approve?

Finger wagging doesn’t get much traction here. This isn’t a politically correct crowd.

You get one more chance. If it’s just more of the same, it might be time to start your own blog. Nothing personal but when people emote instead of think, discussion gets sidetracked. Things move too fast for that here.