Protestantism

» pink101 - Freedom's Power

In response to Freedom's Power posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Do you EVER read books by moderates and/or conservatives?
.
I'm not sure if I do or not. How can I tell if a moderate or a conservative wrote any particular book I might be reading?
.
I read a lot.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Endorsements and Reviews

In response to Freedom's Power posted by pink101:

By looking at the dust jacket endorsements and by reading a book's reviews (if even just on Amazon), you can pretty much tell which books are conservative, liberal or moderate. And sometimes, the TITLE alone gives it away, like the one you just mentioned.

» pink101 - Endorsements and Reviews

In response to Endorsements and Reviews posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I did pick up a book by Bill O'Reilly at Barnes & Noble the other day. Then I put it down and put some other books over it just in case some dummy might think it was worth reading.
.
heh heh
.
But, here is what Publishers Weekly has to say about Starr's book, Freedom's Power. I lifted the following from the Barnes & Noble's site on the book.
.
Publishers Weekly
.
"Part political theory and part intellectual history, this book tracks the development of liberalism as the world's dominant political tradition and argues for its continued ascendancy as the best guarantor of individual rights and prosperity on the global stage. Starr, a Princeton sociology and public affairs professor and founding editor of the American Prospect, explains modern liberalism as an evolutionary process, rooted in classical laissez-faire liberalism, and gradually accreting a greater role for the state to provide a social safety net, defend equal rights for all and institute true democratic pluralism. Defending liberalism from its socialist as well as its conservative critics, Starr sees his ideology as a middle path, harnessing the creative power of the free market while tempering some of its capriciousness. A central thesis is that "[t]he peculiar internal tension of liberal constitutions is that they constrain power even as they authorize it-that is, they attempt to curb the despotic power and ambitions of individual rulers and officials and, by doing so, to permit stronger systemic capacities." The first section of the book discusses the causes and consequences of liberal revolutions in Britain, America and France, while later chapters cover recent events, including the 2006 congressional elections. Complex macroeconomic, demographic and philosophical trends are presented engagingly and understandably for casual readers and political buffs alike." (Apr.)
.
Copyright 2007 Reed Business Information
.
_____________________________________________

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Example of what I mean...

In response to Endorsements and Reviews posted by pink101:

Contrary to the "arrogance" that you and Migisi think I sometimes convey, I do NOT hold myself up as the greatest example on this point. I could stand to be more widely read myself. I will admit that. I do, for example, favor moderate to conservative authors. However, even I will occasionally read a book from the other side.

How many Baptist preachers do you know, for example, that have read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?

» pink101 - Example of what I mean...

In response to Example of what I mean... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Right.
.
And, I am careful to give you credit.
.
Look to your health. Life is the most precious gift you have--everything else depends on it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Endorsements and Reviews

In response to Endorsements and Reviews posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Interesting. You can judge a book's slant by its cover - before you read it. But you can't judge a PBS documentary's slant before you see the film. (wink)

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Good one, Migisi

In response to Endorsements and Reviews posted by Migisi:

Nicely put, Migisi. Touche. However, note that I still READ books written by people who disagree with me.

Like I say, I read Harris and Dawkins. Heck, I've got a list of to be read books right now that include Jimmy Carter's attack on the Religious Right "Our Endangered Values" and Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason." So, yes, I know that these books are written from a POV different from mine, and I know going in that I'm not going to agree with all or even most of what they say - but I don't DISMISS them!

With Richard Dawkins, for example, I've actually found myself chuckling and/or nodding in agreement with a lot of his points. A lot of his criticisms of extremist "religionists" (to use Pink's word) are right on.

Likewise, Sam Harris does score a few valid hits against the Religious Right in his book "Letter to a Christian Nation." He has some good things to say.

So, I don't just dismiss out of hand those who come from a different POV or persective than I do. And I don't think anyone else should either.

» Brian Tubbs - And...

For Pink's sake, I'll add that I've read Ray Raphael's book on the American Revolution - or at least most of it - and found it to be a VERY useful resource on the war. Raphael makes a lot of excellent points and provides some great information.

For all my criticism of Howard Zinn, I've read about 60% of (and skimmed the rest) A People's History of the United States. I think Zinn brings out an important perspective, and he is right on a lot of what he has to say.

So, you see, despite my opposition to much of what these guys write (particularly Zinn), I still pay attention to them. I still read and listen to what they have to say.

I don't just dismiss them out of hand. And, frankly, YOU shouldn't dismiss those out of hand with whom you might disagree. No one should. When we do that, civic discourse breaks down - and democracy is finished!!!!!

» pink101 - And...

In response to And... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Like I said, there's hope for us yet.
.
:~)
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Founding Mothers

.
I'm reading Raphael's accounting of women in the War for Independence.
.
We don't know very much about how women in the lower classes made it through that tribulation; but, we can get a pretty good idea. To say that it was a miserable time for them would be putting it mildly. The wealthy upper classes gave up tea. The upper middle classes joined in meetings at their preachers' homes where they did some spinning and weaving making cloth for shirts. The men who could afford it paid those lower down the economic pole to go to war in their behalf. Those who went to war left their wifes and youngsters to fend for themselves. I can't begin to explain how tough it must have been for those poor women. Many of the poor class women were turned into camp followers doing laundry, cooking meals and nursing the injured and sick. I read there was one woman to 20 or 30 men on the colonists' side and one woman to every 5 men or so on the brits' side.
.
Women and girls had terrible times defending their integrity and honor when enemy soldiers came raping and pillaging.
.
After the war, the women who lost husbands and who fought along side the men, did the laundry, nursed the injured and sick, and the cooking, were hard pressed to qualify for pensions. Those who did qualify had a tough time getting paid. Finally, in 1821, forty years or so later, the pensions were made available by an act of congress. Most of the women had died by then.
.
It was a shameful way to treat women of such valor without whom the war would have been most likely lost..
.
It looks to me as though American society was thoroughly militarized during that civil war we call the American Revolution.
.

-- posted by pink101