Podcast Interview w/ Frank Schaeffer
george...@gmail.com
left/right dichotomies. This podcast conversation with Frank Schaeffer
perfectly illustrates the point. Frank, who was once one of the brains
behind the rise of the Christian right (called "the best speaker in
America" by no less than Cal Thomas, Vice President of the Moral
Majority), has followed an astonishing personal trajectory that takes
him today to being a passionate Obama supporter and, in terms of
faith, no longer a fundamentalist but a member of the Greek Orthodox
Church.
He's a New York Times bestselling author, having also written, among
others, highly acclaimed books about the experience of having his son
join the Marine Corps. On this and so many other issues Frank brings a
blast of fresh air -- a revival of the ideal of decent character.
If you have time to listen please feel free to pass along the link.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2008/05/the_art_of_faith.html
Charles Hohenstein
<97ac48c0-114e-4f0b...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"george...@gmail.com" <george...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a lot to be said for fusion politics, or the convergence of
> left/right dichotomies. This podcast conversation with Frank Schaeffer
> perfectly illustrates the point. Frank, who was once one of the brains
> behind the rise of the Christian right (called "the best speaker in
> America" by no less than Cal Thomas, Vice President of the Moral
> Majority), has followed an astonishing personal trajectory that takes
> him today to being a passionate Obama supporter and, in terms of
> faith, no longer a fundamentalist but a member of the Greek Orthodox
> Church.
And Obama's support for abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is
not a problem for him?
--
Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers,
treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies,
and chronic petition signers that makes up the current
Episcopal Church . . ." -‹Thomas Lipscomb
Alexander Arnakis
<chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>And Obama's support for abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is
>not a problem for him?
Each politician has positions on a whole "constellation" of issues. No
one politician exemplifies everything that might be desired by any
given voter. We vote based on the *preponderance* of the issues.
A candidate who espouses complete "purity" -- that is, agrees with us
on every issue -- probably can't get elected. Electoral politics is a
process of coalition-building.
Single-issue voters are shortchanging themselves, and allowing cynical
manipulators, like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, to exploit them.
Be honest -- you're a right-wing conservative generally, not just on
the right-to-life issue. Raising this dovetails neatly into your
strategy. If you're such a Christian, what do you have to say about
Bush's (and McCain's) view of war (just to throw out a random
example)?
Most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. They don't like it, but
they want it to be available as an option of last resort. Personally,
I think we're focusing on the wrong end of the process -- we should be
concerned about changing the culture so that inappropriate pregnancies
don't take place at all, rather than trying to figure out what to do
once they take place. If the question of abortion gets raised in
someone's life, then it's proof that they've made some bad decisions
already.
Dan
<chohensteGeneRobin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <97ac48c0-114e-4f0b-8f87-c5a986ffe...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "georgeken...@gmail.com" <georgeken...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's a lot to be said for fusion politics, or the convergence of
> > left/right dichotomies. This podcast conversation with Frank Schaeffer
> > perfectly illustrates the point. Frank, who was once one of the brains
> > behind the rise of the Christian right (called "the best speaker in
> > America" by no less than Cal Thomas, Vice President of the Moral
> > Majority), has followed an astonishing personal trajectory that takes
> > him today to being a passionate Obama supporter and, in terms of
> > faith, no longer a fundamentalist but a member of the Greek Orthodox
> > Church.
>
> And Obama's support for abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is
> not a problem for him?
Charles,
If you want to understand Schaeffer better, his recent autobiography
"Crazy for God", will allow you to put his move to the left in
context. He believes that the "Christian right"--to which he once made
very meaningful contributions--represents such a danger to democracy
and civil society in the U.S., that combatting it must take precedence
over all other considerations. Why? Because supporting those who would
overturn the rule of law will not ultimately benefit anyone--including
the unborn.
Cheers,
Dan
Percival P. Cassidy
>> There's a lot to be said for fusion politics, or the convergence of
>> left/right dichotomies. This podcast conversation with Frank Schaeffer
>> perfectly illustrates the point. Frank, who was once one of the brains
>> behind the rise of the Christian right (called "the best speaker in
>> America" by no less than Cal Thomas, Vice President of the Moral
>> Majority), has followed an astonishing personal trajectory that takes
>> him today to being a passionate Obama supporter and, in terms of
>> faith, no longer a fundamentalist but a member of the Greek Orthodox
>> Church.
> And Obama's support for abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is
> not a problem for him?
Even if abortion remains legal, it might become much rarer if we had
decent health care, paid pregnancy and maternity leave, and infant
welfare services. There are European countries with legal and free
abortion but a far lower rate of abortion than the USA.
When we have instituted such improvements, we'll have a better chance of
outlawing abortion again.
Perce
++
Dan wrote:
>Why? Because supporting those who would overturn the rule of law will not ultimately benefit anyone--including
>the unborn.
>
>
>
>
nicely stated
Charles Hohenstein
<d1f946bb-b815-41ee...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Dan <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then he's just one more liberal hothead. I was thinking about reading
one of his earlier books, but not now.
Dan
<chohensteGeneRobin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d1f946bb-b815-41ee-b759-0f1b7ddb6...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Having read three of his books (with two more in my "to read" pile), I
don't think it does him justice to dismiss him this way. He is not
easy to label, because he doesn't fit neatly into any of the usual
categories. He seems to approach political involvement as a form a
"triage" in which one is always left struggling to discern the greater
good.
Catherine Jefferson
> Then he's just one more liberal hothead. I was thinking about reading
> one of his earlier books, but not now.
Charles, I'm not always a big fan of Schaeffer (he *is* a bit of a
hothead), but to characterize him as "just one more liberal hothead" is
so far from the mark that I choked. I doubt anyone deserves to be
dismissed that cavalierly; Schaeffer certainly does not. If he's
liberal, he's the sort of liberal who is vehemently pro-life,
uncomfortable with big government, and very committed to the principle
that the rule of law is essential for good government and protects us
all. I don't happen to agree with him about Obama, because of the
abortion issue and for many other reasons, but I'd never dismiss his
reasons as being more of the same stuff I hear from other more typical
Obama supporters.
Maybe you could try listening to him, and other people, rather than
slapping a label on them to relieve yourself of the obligation to think
outside your comfort zone? (You might try that with other people too.) ;)
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Catherine Jefferson
> Having read three of his books (with two more in my "to read" pile), I
> don't think it does him justice to dismiss him this way. He is not
> easy to label, because he doesn't fit neatly into any of the usual
> categories. He seems to approach political involvement as a form a
> "triage" in which one is always left struggling to discern the greater
> good.
That's an excellent description of Schaeffer's attitude towards
politics, and I've been reading his stuff since his early evangelical
work "Addicted to Mediocrity: 20th Century Christians and the Arts" came
out.
For Schaeffer, politics is always about triage because this world is not
perfectable -- he doesn't believe that you can create a utopia on earth.
He also doesn't believe that different human beings necessarily want
the same things out of government, or believe the same way. So, as he
sees it, the law and enforcement of the law serve to define the social
contract between people of different desires and different beliefs,
providing a means of resolving conflicts without violence and
sanctioning a limited amount of force/violence against those that won't
adhere to the social contract.
Although I don't agree with his conclusions about the way forward in
this election, I think his view of the role and purpose of law and
government is a fairly good one. I largely share it, and believe his
view is defensible even when I don't share it.
Dan
wrote:
I agree. And he is a compelling writer--always interesting to read,
even when he is in his "hothead" mode.
James
I enjoyed the interview. Thanks for the link.
ps: I also enjoyed Crazy for God and highly recommend it.