Non-Quaker mottos
A couple posts back I posted these silly-ass Quaker mottos which the wise and wiley Fish commented on. I was thinking conservatives ought to have their own mottos that they force on people in Christmas cards. (Well maybe not. I just can't see us being that rude.) Here are mine:
We seek a world in which evil people pay dearly and instantly for killing the innocent. And that is a threat you can take to the bank.
We seek a society free of the laws and taxes that hamper individual achievement.
We seek a society in which the victims of crime see the guilty suffer just and swift punishment.
We seek an earth filled with Godly men who respect the beauty of human progress and the glory of nature. They are not mutually exclusive.
How would you write our anti-Quaker motto? (Should say "non-Quaker" motto).
We seek a world in which evil people pay dearly and instantly for killing the innocent. And that is a threat you can take to the bank.
We seek a society free of the laws and taxes that hamper individual achievement.
We seek a society in which the victims of crime see the guilty suffer just and swift punishment.
We seek an earth filled with Godly men who respect the beauty of human progress and the glory of nature. They are not mutually exclusive.
How would you write our anti-Quaker motto? (Should say "non-Quaker" motto).
posted by Walker at 8:27 AM
8 Comments:
Hmm, I'd never write an anti-Quaker motto. They, the Amish
and Mennonites remind us of what
Christianity was once and should still be..peace and community.
Good motto.
but not anti Quaker - and I prefer that.
I've been in love with my oatmeal box since I was a little kid.
Well, can't argue with a good marketing icon, eh Pamela? LOL
But wasn't that conservative favority "Tricky Dick Nixon", a Quaker? Or is that just an urban myth?
Well I think Nixon's family was Quaker. But the Quakers are no longer Christian. Unlike the Amish, who retain Christian values, the Quakers have surrendered to obscene liberalism. They excuse indolence, promiscuity, and terrorism in the name of pacifism. In short, they are liberals and it is impossible to be both Christian and liberal. You have to choose.
You note above "it is impossible to be both Christian and liberal".
If you google christian liberal, you will find 24,000,000 sites covering the subject. Not only have you offended 50% of Christians, but managed also the
atheist conservatives. Assume
your 'Christian' are the correct ones, the ones that agree with you?
"Not only have you offended 50% of Christians, but managed also the atheist conservatives."
That's what I call talent!
I suppose some liberals actually think they are Christian or at least pretend to be Christian but many, even those running churches, don't even pretend to be anything but a liberal.
I cite, as an example nearly the entre body of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians. (My conservative blogger friend Gayle is one of the very few Episcopalian exceptions!) It wasn't long ago that the Methodists were debating whether a group of minister-ettes could offer communion in the name of some goddess.
These folks are actually liberals or socialists, not Christians.
Christians have a set of moral beliefs that are anathema to liberals. I'd say this is how you tell whether you are a liberal and worship liberalism or a Christian and worship Christ.
"Liberal Christians" usually mistake Christ for a social worker something very common in liberal and nominally Catholic circles.
There are certainly conservative atheists out there, and I am sure there are sincere liberal Christians. However, when liberalism begins to replace the clear teachings of Christ, then it's no longer really Christianity. Although much politicizing of the pulpit is probably not particularly Christian. Christ advised that we render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Christ came back again and again to the individual, and what the individual did, and the individual's relationship with God. I'm pretty sure there is no place where he advocated abdicating personal charity via the establishment of a socialist-utopian nanny state.
But more to the point, the socialist fantasies of a world without war or--God forbid--inequity are entirely backwards. Helping the sick and the poor had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to conform to some abstract notion of "equality", and man will always be sinful, and only forgiven through the blood of Christ--not by how enthusiastically they support very limited human schemes of wealth redistribution or abandoning entire nations to be slaughtered by despots as so to "avoid war and live in peace".
And, btw, Nixon was not and is not a conservative favorite. He governed in an extremely liberal manner, and was the source of many of the agencies and regulations that confound conservatives now. He even tried that Soviet-style command economy as a way to combat inflation and fuel prices (and, boy, didn't that work so great?).
He may have been marginally better than McGovern. But not by much.
Post a Comment
<< Home