I had the honor of having my blog visited by a young right wing conservative that calls herself conservativekat. She's fourteen years old and quite the writer. Check her out.
My goal... to turn her away from the dark side of the force and to have her embrace the true message of Christ (the left wing ultra liberal one where he takes care of the indigent). I'd like for her to use her powers for good and not for empire. But, I can't hate on her because when I was her age I said all kinds of outrageous stuff. So hopefully she'll grow out of it too.
I'm going to need a catchy name for this operation. You know like the Bush administration had OIL: Operation Iraqi Liberation. I need something catchy just like that. Operation Prodigal Daughter Returns? Operation Conservative Reform? Operation Matrix Deprogramming? I'll come up with something....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The problem of language.
"As a young Conservative, you're pathetic."
Now...is that saying that I (Dave) am a young Conservative and because of that I am pathetic? Or is the person saying that they are a young Conservative and I am pathetic. Judging from the tone of the rest of the comment I'm going with the latter.
"I know that something is right with Kat when she understands the lies of the Left before an adult does."
The Left has lies. I agree with that. But what about the Right?
"Remember Churchill '...if you're not a Conservartive [sic] by 30 you have no brains.'"
Great quote. The first part of it runs something like "Anyone under 30 that isn't liberal has no heart..." Unfortunately, there is no record of Churchill having said that. I am big on the heart though! It rocks. I'd die without it. Seriously. Either way though, I don't agree with the quote. It's catchy and memorable but trite. Was that a clique response?
Churchill was a funny guy. My favorite Churchill story was when this lady MP was so sick of Churchill that she said something like, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your coffee."
"Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it!" Churchill replied.
What a fucking great comeback!
Sweet! This blog war stuff is fun. It's Left vs Right and everyone against the anarchists and nihilists!
Anyone who thinks that Christ would have been left-wing or bleeding-heart liberal obviously hasn't read Scriptures....ever! Jesus would have been completely against everything the Democratic party stands for, including abortion, gay marriage, and keeping people living a life of poverty, which is exactly what the Democratic party does. Do you really think by increasing welfare benefits, hiking taxes, handing out clean needles to drug users and free condoms to kids in schools that you're saving our country?
Thank God my kids will never have you as a history teacher. You have obviously learned NOTHING from history itself. Real Teen was absolutely right, in spite of her incorrect grammar: You're pathetic, and Kat (at age 14) is smarter than you could ever hope to be.
Good luck winning her over from the dark side. She's too clever for you.
Ok... my favorite line from happygirl's comment is "Good luck winning her over from the dark side."
Wow, you're brilliant, aren't you? I guess in my haste I forgot to include quotation marks around "winning her over from the dark side." I intended to quote you specifically, sarcasm emphasized.
But, English lesson aside, I will gladly respond to your comment on my blog, where you invited me to offer you a quote from Jesus that would prove He would have been right wing. So here goes:
Matthew 25:33-34, 41,46:
"And He will set the sheep on His RIGHT hand, but the goats on His LEFT. Then the King will say to those on His RIGHT hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world....(v.41,46) Then He will also say to those on the LEFT hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Thank you for pointing out that Scripture to me; I had never looked at it that way! How interesting! :)
As for Jesus' stance on war, He never specifically takes sides on the issue of war. Yes, He calls for us to live in peace as much as possible, as you mentioned the Scripture Matthew 5:43-48, but He was talking about interpersonal relationships here, not the actions of government. He was also talking to believers, for it is only through Christ's perfect love that we can truly live in peace. Jesus Himself knew that war was inevitable, as we are all sinners, and He even prophesied of "wars and rumors of wars" in Matthew 24:6 as a sign of end times (which is a whole other subject open to debate/discussion). He goes on to tell believers not to be "troubled: for all these things MUST come to pass." He recognized that war is part of the curse of sin. As great commentator Matthew Henry puts it, "Those who will not hear the messengers of peace, shall be made to hear the messengers of war." In this case he is specifically talking about the Israelites, God's chosen people, who rejected Christ as the Messiah and have lived in a state of war against other nations ever since. But I believe you can point at every non-believer and say the same thing: You choose not to follow the message of peace, then get ready for war!
I could go on and on, but I'm right in the middle of my favorite series "Band of Brothers" (speaking of war). Oh, and Christ makes reference to war in one other book, Luke 14:31, where He comments on the folly of any king who heads into war unprepared.
So chew on that one, try to get over the arrogant comments and really think outside the box, and get back to me. I do agree that Christ would not have picked a political side, not then and maybe not now, but there's nothing "left wing" about Christ (by the way, that was YOUR comment, not mine). The left stands for everything that Christ WASN'T, including murder, sexual sin, hatred, etc...
thank you
Here's the thing that most people forget when it comes to the bible. Its based on an oral culture. That said, the current bible (King James - from which Happygirl is quoting) Can't even be verified as the same scripture that was actually "written" around 100 ACE.
Nevermind the fact that scribes around the 10th century ACE normally had their way with the text, changing it as they saw fit to make it more poetic, or prosaic whenever and however they cared to.
My point? Literal readings of the bible, (or Torah, or Koran) do nobody any good. Simply because they come from the hand of fallable men (or women.) The bible and many religous texts are intended to be parables. Guides - if only loose ones - help you with the daily choices that are made in your life.
To read into a text a literal statement that G-D decreed some action to to take the text out of its historical context. I'd suggest that if that sounds confusing or frustrating, that you take a moment and think about it. It's obvious that in a different time in your life you thought differently about different things. So then why would it not also be true for someone else who lived in the 10th Century, or even during the time Mohammed or Christ?
Ask me if you care to... ask your Pastor, Reverend, Rabbi, Imam...even your parents or grandparents, and they will all have a different perspective.
Really, the only point that I am trying to make is that a persons politcal stance is really a matter of perspective. Belief and faith a matter of experience. It is different for everyone.
The desire to share experience shouldn't be a bad thing, nor should it be cast aside.
Post a Comment