Latest News and Record Article on Behalf of Kay Hagan

Sunday's paper had an interesting article about Greensboro's own Kay Hagan.  She had spoken before a group gathered at Temple Emanuel  There are several points that need to be made.

1. Temple Emanuel is the more liberal of Greensboro's two synagogues from a religious standpoint-- but it should be noted it is also liberal politically.  Concerns over separation of church and state apparently did not dissuade the Temple from hosting this particular meeting.

2. Hagan predicted that "we'll have health care reform", and "discussed her disappointment with partisan bickering".  This is a standard line apparently to be used when progressive agenda items, designed to increase the degree of socialism in our national economy, are opposed.

3. The News and Record once again raised the matter of the Godless Americans PAC episode, with which the newspaper assisted Hagan during the campaign. 

4. And once again, she is described as an active member of First Presbyterian-- a liberal church.  Moreover, she advises that "my faith strengthens my life".  While that might seem inspiring at least on a superficial level, the more consequential question is what her faith requires of her life.  Does it require taking folks' money, under the threat of imprisonment, to redistribute it to others?  Does it require that tax monies be used to pay for abortions?  Those are the types of policies she supported when she voted repeatedly in favor of health care reform.

5. Absent from the article was any hint of journalistic skepticism, or any attempt to present an alternative point of view.

Comments

[Roger Greene]

If we truly want to spread faith to all the people then all the people at one time or another should run for office.

[Ken Hill]

Has anyone noticed that the Bill Of Rights in the Constitution (hopefully) protects rights from being abridged by the government? No requirement to confiscate the time and property of others to grant these rights. I think there is an implied right to starve if one is slothful. The "rights" demanded by this group and that, right to food, right to housing, etc., require that the labor and money of OTHERS supply these things. The Constitution also prohibits involuntary servitude.

[Sue]

All right, I'll bite. Joe wrote, "1. Temple Emanuel is the more liberal of Greensboro's two synagogue from a religious standpoint-- but it should be noted it is also liberal politically. Concerns over separation of church and state apparently did not dissuade the Temple from hosting this particular meeting."

On what basis do you make the claim that Temple Emanuel is "liberal politically?" Do you understand the difference between Reform and Conservative Judaism or are you perhaps misinterpreting the word "liberal" when it describes religious practice?

What separation of church and state law would prohibit a religious institution from having a guest speaker, especially a United States Senator?

What issue do you have with a religious institution having a guest speaker discuss issues that are important to many members of its congregation and the wider community?

Were any community members dissuaded or prohibited from attending? (the answer is 'no.') In fact, were they invited? (the answer is 'yes.') Churches and synagogues have guest speakers all the time. Is your issue that this was Sen. Kay Hagan (with whom you disagree a lot) or that the Temple invited a guest speaker who spoke about important national issues and it would have been OK if had been, say, Sen. Burr? Or is the problem that it is a Jewish institution?

Are people who celebrate their religion differently from how you celebrate yours necessarily wrong, as you insinuate by changing what Sen. Hagan *should* have talked about (because what she mentioned seems to be 'wrong' to you)?

And finally, as for the N&R, the "godless" ad probably had a large influence on the vote. Would you have had them ignore it because you didn't like it?

So I'm taking a chance with serious questions. Let's see what happens. Can I get serious replies?

[Bubba]

"Absent from the article was any hint of journalistic skepticism, or any attempt to present an alternative point of view."

Imagine that!

As we have discussed before, Kay Hagan is the new John Edwards.

[Beelzebubba]

ken: conveniently the Constitution mentions property only once. Jefferson did not intend it that way but they were in a hurry and he wasn't there when it was ratified. This oversight was an Esau like trade...speech, religion, assembly and the press for the government's enumerated right to govern all property, including citizens themselves as possessions of the state. That's in the big print. I wish more than 3 current statesmen would interpret it otherwise. My deepest regrets.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I will answer your questions in order:

1. My assessment that Temple Emanuel is liberal politically is based on a few considerations. First, I have seen Rabbi Guttman's op-ed pieces over the years. Second, I recall the disagreement he had with a protester, I believe last year, and his stated position on universal health care. Third, the national statistics are that Jewish Americans tend to vote Democratic in national elections about 70-75% of the time. If this synagogue, which is part of Judaism's most liberal branch, is in any way representative of the national picture, the Temple is probably liberal politically. And yes, I understand the difference between doctrinal liberalism and political liberalism-- but I find that in various religious groups, there tends to be a fair amount of overlap between the two.

2. I am not aware of any "separation of church law" that would prevent that. I only have an issue with it to the extent that there is a double standard. When liberal religious groups do this type of thing, there is no howl of protest. But when conservative religious groups attempt to do so, they are violating the constitutional principle of separation of church and state; they are fire-breathing theocrats; they are stepping way out of bounds. Those are what the ground rules have been with respect to media discourse, and with respect to the actions and perceptions of the political left.

3. I am unaware of anybody being dissuaded from attending. It seems highly unlikely to me that Temple Emanuel would have invited Senator Burr-- and only Senator Burr-- to speak. My problem is not that it was Senator Hagan, or that it was a Jewish institution. Instead, my issue with it is as I stated under #2. It is OK for liberal religious groups to advocate and pontificate on liberal issues, but it is not OK for conservative religious groups to advocate on conservative issues. Those have been the ground rules.

4. I really don't want to air out the Godless ad at length again. That was discussed at length when it happened. Suffice it to say that the News and Record was determined in the waning days of the campaign to assist the candidate it favored; and it led the charge on this particular issue. It facilitated Hagan using First Presbyterian as a prop, without informing readers as to the distinct brand of faith that is practiced there-- which is hardly orthodox in nature.

[JC]

Supporters love to claim Hagan is a moderate. However, challenge them to one major issue where she differs with the democratic party and they struggle to name it.

Facts are facts. Hagan was a liberal democrat in the state senate and the same as a US Senator.

[Bob]

"using First Presbyterian as a prop, without informing readers as to the distinct brand of faith that is practiced there-- which is hardly orthodox in nature."

What exactly do you mean by that comment?

[Joe Guarino]

It's a liberal church, Bob. It is part of the Presbyterian Church USA denomination, which does not nearly fall within the umbrella of orthodox/Biblical Christianity. I think the big question with the Godless Americans PAC incident is why the members of that PAC would have found Hagan so appealing. It might be useful to examine the belief patterns of the church tradition of which she is part to discern possible answers to that question.

The Presbyterian Church USA is part of the National Council of Churches. Again, that represents a very different belief system than that which is consistent with Biblical/orthodox Christianity.

[Ken Hill]

Again, one interested in the history of the liberal/conservative factions within Christian denominations would be well advised to read "The Empty Church" by historian Thomas C. Reeves. Slow reading and filled with evidence to support his conclusions. And Dr. Joe is very correct about the reactions to political support from liberal congregations. I personally heard the pastor of a congregation in Winston-Salem some years ago urge the membership to vote for Libba Evans (Democrat) for Congress. No repercussions at all.

[cpa101]

Good post. As regards number five. I hope you did not honestly expect journalistic integrity. We all know there is little to none left in the Greensboro media business. These entities only exist to promote politically correct causes, not to inform the people of the facts.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Ken.

And there are several attributes of more liberal churches and denominations. They often tend to emphasize "social justice" which is often just a euphemism for economic redistribution forced by government, and an enlargement of the welfare state. From a religious standpoint, they tend to espouse a less literal interpretation of scripture. They often use bible translations that manipulate wording to eliminate gender references with respect to God. They tend to espouse ecumenism, which sometimes can make it seem that "making nice" with members of other religious groups is more important than core beliefs. They often tend to be deeply suspicious of conservative Christians. In fact, some seem more threatened at times by conservative Christians, and their political beliefs, than they are by non-Christians.

On church-state issues like abortion and gay marriage--and on the overall umbrella of religious liberty and faith as it intersects with the public square-- they tend to take positions that groups like the Godless Americans PAC and the ACLU would find most agreeable. They pretend that it is impermissible to let faith influence policy on these issues-- but then they turn around and let faith influence policy on their own pet issues like "social justice".

[Joe Guarino]

cpa101, when I indicated that there was no journalistic skepticism, that is a big problem from a professional standpoint. You shouldn't report a meeting or statements by a public official when the information is completely one-sided, unless there is an attempt to present another point of view, or to solicit opposing quotes. Otherwise, it merely assists the group in promoting its agenda.

[jaycee]

Sue seems to argue that since she personally agrees with the Dem socialist agenda and Sen. Hagan then no one should question further. Us "little people" should just shut up and let the elitist Dems take care of us (and use all of our money to do so).
That's so condescending and snottily liberal that it warrants little response.

[Doug Clark]

Joe, I invite you to attend the Bible-study Sunday school class I teach at First Presbyterian Church in High Point and worship service there so you can see for yourself the biblical Christianity that is taught and preached. You may find that your characterizations here are inaccurate.

The idea that the N&R should have informed readers of the "distinct brand of faith" practiced at FPC Greensboro strikes me as absurd. Wouldn't the paper have to assign a reporter to attend that church for, say, a couple of years to gain a full understanding of its "brand of faith," or should it simply have run with someone else's view that it's "godless"?

[Joe Guarino]

Doug, I appreciate your comments. What you have stated raises a number of issues that I think I would like to address in a separate post. I will try to do that later today or tonight if I can.

[Bubba]

"That's so condescending and snottily liberal that it warrants little response."

The arrogance and sense of entitlement is legendary, even among some of her fellow "progressives".

[jaycee]

Mr. Clark does raise an interesting point about how long one must attend a church to understand it's veiwpoint.
How about a churchgoer who attends faithfully for 20 years while the pastor preaches white-hatred in fiery rhetoric from the pulpit yet the churchgoer denies knowing anything about it? What if that churchgoer is the President of the United States?

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

It's disappointing that you can't make your points without misrepresenting Sen. Hagan's.

You wrote unambiguously, "Hagan predicted that 'we'll have health care reform.'" Yet, Sen. Hagan's full quote was "I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think we’ll have health care reform." The full quote suggests some uncertainty on her part, your selective quote does not.

You also asked "Does it (Hagan's faith) require that tax monies be used to pay for abortions? Those are the types of policies she supported when she voted repeatedly in favor of health care reform."

That's another misrepresentation as the legislation that she voted for expressly prohibits the use of government money for abortions (see, e.g., http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/ ).

Purposefully misrepresenting another's views (some would call it lying) hardly seems consistent with the teachings of "Biblical/orthodox Christianity."