You'd think that would be something anyone could be happy about. For example,

Too many conservative evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. (Thomas)

cl, are you trying to be funny? That's like criticizing white by saying it's not white enough when blue is a better color.

CL, Confucius is quoted as saying almost the exact same thing in the Analects:

“If a man manages to make himself correct, what difficulty will there be for him to take part in government? If he cannot make himself correct, what business has he with making others correct.”

How's that for timeless truths?

I submit that Ebonmuse is not being objective about Hebrews 13:2. Somebody commented before that Ebon was at his worst when he plunges into biblical exegesis, and my experience supports that observation. When he discusses scripture, he'll quote mine to prove his point (see his comment January 18, 2009, 1:41 am). Here, he claims that religion (& Hebrews 13:2 by stated implication) keeps people in line with appeals to greed and fear. This entails his subsequent preclusion of "encouraging goodness for its own sake" in his estimation of Christian morality.

We can discuss the role fear plays in religion another time, as no intellectually honest person can deny connections. Point is, a reasoned reading of Hebrews chapter 13 verses 1-5 does not permit Ebon's conclusions - and in fact - directly challenges them. As in the link above, he omits verses only words away that directly challenge his positions (v 1, 5). You decide: Is that clear and objective analysis? Or painting bulls-eyes around our targets?

As for the Cal Thomas thing, I understand the charge against him, and I'm willing to bet his paunchy moral undercurrents are a bit off-putting to us all, but his original article denounces the religious right and calls to abandon religious "more of the same" attitudes. You'd think that would be something anyone could be happy about. For example,

Too many conservative evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. (Thomas)

This is true of people in general. Culture is the sum of individuals, and apart from individuals there is no such thing as culture. On the other hand, government consists of individuals and certainly qualifies as a culture of its own, and individuals always retain the power to catalyze transformation in other individuals. This means that theoretically, government can catalyze cultural transformation, but this is not likely to happen with a paper-producing, impersonal beaurocracy. And that seems to be much of what Thomas rallies against.

Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. (Thomas)

Sounds good to me, no matter who's saying it. The problem is, Ebon lifted Cal's statement and made it appear as nothing more than a call to do right for wrong's sake - when Cal wasn't necessarily discussing motives for behavior - and that's not so easily the case IMO. After several paragraphs explaining the religious right's three decades of failures to positively transform culture and criticizing their strategies, Thomas asked what strategies might actually produce results, i.e., what might actually transform culture. It is in that context he offered the quote cited.

To me, Thomas was blasting Sunday Christians who think that voting for Bush while existing in their Christian bubbles entails helping the hungry because Bush peddled Christianity too.

...or just put it on all of my holiday cards to counteract the religious piffle I get from the family.

But of course - if government helped them, they might get the idea that government could help people, or even that it was the function of government to help people.

A government FOR the people? Surely, you jest.

But of course - if government helped them, they might get the idea that government could help people, or even that it was the function of government to help people.

Cause all sins are really against god, not people. So, if god forgives you, it's all good.

But of course. Because all people are either sinners or righteous. If they're righteous then they'll forgive you anyway. If they're sinners then f**k em.

Of course, most of those people needing assistance (at least in America) are already Christians, but this is completely beyond the ability to someone like Thomas to understand. It was not a lack of faith that caused their poverty, but, among other things, lack of a social infrastructure that could have prevented the poverty in the first place, and it was Christians like him who agitated against building such an infrastructure and tearing down what already existed.

People like Thomas treat the poor, the sick, the whatever, the same way vampires treat their "herd".

He never once mentions that he wronged a MAN twice, (a foreigner btw, from one of those nations the Israelites were commanded to exterminate) with the second wrong unto death.

'Cause all sins are really against god, not people. So, if god forgives you, it's all good.

I don't think it disingenuous to work for a specific aim or goal, no matter how superstitious the reward. The problem with most religionists is that they feel entitled to the reward and might throw tantrums when it's not received. (Unless the reward was heaven, then their tantrums are suffered by the worms.) Entitlement is one thing, but hope or ambition for personal benefit, especially when others benefit too, is honest (and human, IMO).