Crosswalk.com – Albert Mohler’s Weblog

Here Mohler is praising an article in the New Republic by Peter Beinart which asserts that the Democratic party has been : “taken over by Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and is now in the hands of leaders who refuse to support the war on terror and have instead associated the party with far left positions on social and domestic issues.”

Mohler has nothing to say about war. He simply assumes that the Religious Right and the Neocons are right, and never puts them under any sort of accountability microsocope. But, if he did, he would be sure to have some hair-brained version of “The Romans 13 Justification of Capitulation to The Authorities”, and give them Biblical mandate on this basis.

With Mohler, the important matters are whether or not you tow the line with the Religious Right. Anything outside those narrow boundaries, and you are aquiescing and even aiding in the decline of civilization.

Kerry’s approach was dead on arrival. His nomination “was a compromise between a party elite desperate to neutralize the terrorism issue and a liberal base unwilling to redefine itself in a post-September 11 world.”—-

This is where Mohler is an out and out hypocrite: he rails against “re-defining” ANYTHING. But talk about opposing ANY war which has been blessed by the Religous Right, and you are not “comapssionate”, but “unrealistic” and , worse, “liberal”.

Beinhert is quoted by Mohler as saying:

“What they do not recognize, or do not acknowledge,” Beinart laments, “is that Moore does not oppose Bush’s policies because he thinks they fail to effectively address the terrorist threat; he does not believe there is a terrorist threat.”

If that is an accurate quote, then he knows NOTHING of Moore’s argument. Moore absolutely disagrees and condemns, as do I, the Bush administration’s strategy to fight terrorism (becuase what it consists of is bombing and murdering of civilians in hopes of killing 1 terrorist out of 100 to 1000 “others”; those “regrettable, collateral damge victims”. The callousness of the Religous Right is utterly mind-boggling. Here is a clear case of placing ideology over theology (their theological arguments are pre-disposed to the Romans 13 justifications, except, that is, when a political opponent is in office. Gone and totally AWOL are ethics of Jesus or the prophets.)

Mohler attacks political opponents while all the while obviously never considering the very basic question for the Christian: What would Jesus do? I am amazed and appalled by how many “Christians” equate “what woudl Jesus do?” with conventional secular wisdom, so that “Biblical wisdom” becomes synonomous with the “long term realism” and “if we don’t protest ourselves we all die” and “they [the terrorists, and by inference, the Muslims] won’t rest until they’ve killed all of us who won’t convert. I actually hear that very argument from somebody I work with. There seems to be no ability (actually, willingness) to separate a worldview that permeates us that still absolutizes conventional war as an ultimate and pragmatic solution. It is neither ultimate nor pragmatic. Jesus constantly said that violence begets violence, and he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.