Exactly, blaming all the muggles. =)

Indeed, Frank Schaeffer does sound a lot like Lord Voldemort.

I laughed at that, but then I remembered his father. How very sad that his legacy (in his son) has been so trashed. However, his legacy lives on in others in far better ways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/debt-ceiling-chaos-is-a-b_b_899561.html

Bizarrely enough large parts of the Norway killings article are just a cut and paste from the debt article.

Regardless of the problem Frank just rounds up the usual suspects.

“I wouldn’t say that; I’d say he’s, and I’m saying this without any respite or vitriol given my hatred for the current political discourse (and I really don’t have any personal problems with the man), a fairly typical example of left-wing talking points.”

I’m not in/from the US, may assessment that he was a conspiracy theorist was based on his article’s style of reasoning; guilt by tenuous or non-existant association together with a view that a particular group of people he disagrees with are responsible for most or all of the evil in the world.

If that is mainstream US left wing analysis, I would be very worried. The thing the article reminded me most of was the rambling Jewish conspiracy theory rants that seem popular on the far right here in Europe.

It is a pity to see where Frank Schaeffer has ended up, as I regard his father’s “trilogy” of books in the 1960s as being amongst the best Christian analysis of the cultural trends of the period and unfortunately I don’t see anything written today of the same quality.

I wouldn’t say that; I’d say he’s, and I’m saying this without any respite or vitriol given my hatred for the current political discourse (and I really don’t have any personal problems with the man), a fairly typical example of left-wing talking points. It seems like he was a typical right-leaning Christian and then caved to all of the criticisms those commonly called “leftists” lob at Christians and is now part of the club of all of the smart intellectuals who love destroying those “Christian fundamentalists.” The guy blogs on the Huffington Post, for heck’s sake. Now, admittedly, his views don’t have to necessarily be part of some larger ideological group or worldview, but the way he acts gives the impression that he’s trying to impress a certain group of people by his conversion from a group that the aforementioned group dislikes.

I actually rather liked his article “Why I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Obama” (found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-prooba_b_85636.html ). Despite the fact that his views on abortion are rather obfuscated (“I oppose abortion, but I think it must be legal,” which he then never goes on to clarify), he makes some pretty solid points. I like this one:

“What we need in America is a spiritual rebirth, a turning away from the false value of consumerism and utilitarianism that have trumped every aspect of human life. To implement this vision we need leaders that inspire but to do so they have to be what they say they are. It’s not about policy it’s about character.”

Oh, I’m so sorry, I should say “alleged” person responsible.

Christianity is about peace, and love. Anyone who uses it for hate and violence, has done great evil, as this Brevik has allegedly (can’t forget that word) done.

There are plenty of vituperative bomb-throwers like Franky out there on the left and the right, and honestly, with such obtuse, shallow thinking on his part, one wonders if Franky is just trying to fit in.

Hope that hate keeps you warm at night, Mr. Schaeffer.

The media loves them some sensationalism.

And as for Schaeffer, well, his article is really just a straw man dressed as intellectual journalism. I think that says enough.

On the one hand, they will claim that ours is a Christian nation with something like 90% of our citizens belonging to the Judeo-Christian tradition — a very broad use of the term “Christian” to suit cultural conservative arguments.

On the other hand, they will claim particular individuals and/or groups are not Christian because they fail to meet some stringent theological requirements — a very narrow use of the term “Christian” often made to exclude culturally moderate or liberal groups from blurring or muting the cultural conservative’s political use of Christianity.

You can’t have it both ways.

So if you are going to argue that nominal Christians aren’t really Christian, then as a matter of principle, please apply that standard consistently.