A fellow United Methodist on Facebook linked with approval yesterday to the blog post linked below. Here’s what I wrote in response:
But I hope you’d grant that the vast majority of us Christians—white, southern, or otherwise—who believe that God intends for sex to be practiced within the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman do so in good faith—that this person’s hateful actions against this church don’t represent us (or Franklin Graham or Southern Baptists or any other straw man the blogger mentions).
After all, there is real persecution against Christians in the world. In fact, in 2013 Pope Francis even warned that the increase in persecution against Christians is a possible sign of the end of the world. Needless to say, Francis, no less than Franklin Graham, also believes that homosexual practice opposes God’s intentions for Creation and that marriage is between a man and woman.
So why not pick on Francis? Or why not pick on our black brothers and sisters (in Africa) who have prevented the UMC from following their fellow mainline Protestants in changing church doctrine on sexuality? (Not that I’m assuming the blogger is UM.) What do they have in common with the person who vandalized this church?
Nothing, of course. Yet from this blogger’s perspective, it’s us white southern rednecks who stand in the way of LGBT equality? I don’t buy it.
This is REAL Christian Persecution: Augusta Church Hit with anti-LGBT Hate Crime.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals:
Rule 12 – Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Rule 8 -Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep attacking.
You may think I’m joking, but this is the “bible” for the left on social change. And, that’s who this guy is.
Read them all sometime.
And he was, sadly, very effective.
Even sadder is that “was effective”, really is, “is effective”. It’s an assault on every front. They are “flooding the zone”, with so much social and cultural change, that young (and not so young) minds can’t process it all.
It’s another reason that we must keep explaining the fundamentals of our faith, our cultural values, and our political and economic beliefs. The Bible, the rule of law, the Constitution, the work ethic, the importance of marriage and family, and free market capitalism. To name a few.
What have you got against the work of Saul Alinsky? Serious question! (_Rules for Radicals_ are used on the left and the right, BTW.)
Since I know next to nothing about Saul Alinsky, I’ll let Grant field this one. But I’ll take reasoned debate over emotional manipulation and personal attacks any day.
Did I say I had anything against him?
I said that his “Rules” were being employed.
I said that they were being effective.
But, yes, I do think that Alinsky’s rules are “the road map” for radical social change by most of the radical, activist movements out there today. It’s a method of tear down and destroy, not engage in constructive change. I don’t think it’s the way that our country was designed to evolve.
The point was about how they are being used in the attack on our culture.
Brent said “Sadly, he was very effective.” This implies to me that you are sad about what Alinsky accomplished. I was wondering what of his life’s works in particular bothered you. Or if you just assumed they were goals you would not agree with.
I’m sorry. You’re right. I shouldn’t have said it that way. I was responding to the two points that Grant highlighted. I didn’t mean to attack the man or his causes.
OK, I hear you. I think it’s wrong-headed to pinpoint Saul Alinsky as the father of dirty politics. He worked for poor people and civil rights. I was truly bummed that you’d jump on the Alinksy-hating bandwagon without knowing more. Now if you want to see a real master of the brand of politics you dislike (emotional manipulation and personal attacks), I highly recommend “Boogie Man”, the documentary about Lee Atwater. Amazing.
I’ve heard! Thanks.
Amy, Alinsky was a Marxist and an Atheist. His worldview was/is antithetical to mine.