Does Liberal = AAA (Agnostic, Aethist, & Apostate)
That is the message I am getting from a lot of the Republican pundits and power brokers.
And yet fourty years ago much of the power of the left came from the pulpit. Desegragation and civil rights was not fought for against the churches of this country, but by the churches of this country.
The Peace Movement of the 60's was often led by clergy.
The movement to stop Hunger in the US, that led to Johnson's war on Poverty, that led to our current welfare system, was pushed by those clergy that witnessed dailly the dehumanizing weight of poverty and starvation effecting their fellow Americans.
Need I show Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a prime example of Christians who pushed liberal ideas?
What are the Christian beliefs? Peace. Care for those less fortunate The God given special dignity and worth of every soul. Brotherhood not just for those of us in any certain group or race, but universal. Freedom from the Government telling you how to pray.
Are these the values of big business? Are these the values of Enron or Haliburton or Clearchannel?
Yet the leaders of these conglomerates claim to be conservative Republicans, and push for economic conservative values.
Values such as "let the churches care for the losers, I don't need to".
Values such as "Greed is good."
Values such as "I am not my brother's keeper."
Values such as "Render unto me what is mine. The rest can fight for what is left."
Values such as "The world is ours to exploit. Who cares what damage I may cause. I'll be rich and retired before the truth comes out."
Are these Christian values?
Are these Christian values for all Christians?
How did the power brokers manage it? How did they subvert the religious ideals of Christianity, and warp them to support their ideals?
How did they take the Christian desire to help all the unfortunate of the world, and direct it into a laser-beam tight focus so that it shines only on the un-born, only on those the powerful knew would put them in conflict with thier natural allies?
How did those who hope to pillage the world before our children ever come to know it ally themselves with those who's main concern is the care of our children?
How did the money changers get back into the temple?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they are to people like Ken Lay, and other corporate Big-Wigs that are pushing for deregulation and powers to consolidate. The are claiming to be Economic Conservatives and are calling on their Conservative buddies to back them against the heathen liberal horde.
OK. I got a bit carried away with the rhetoric.
This is something I am thinking about and I am using Hatrack to help me find the words to express my thoughts.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK. I got a bit carried away with the rhetoric.
Yes. You did. In fact, your statement was so obviously "stacked against" conservatives I didn't think it was worth discussing with you.
Ken Lay does not represent conservative values. Ken Lay has no values as far as I'm concerned. He's a criminal.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I personally wish that Christian churches, including my own, would take a stronger stance against the excesses of capitalism and hyper-consumerism. [although with Mormonism there is Hugh Nibley who has some hilarious, great, trenchant critiques of business and the 'management' mind-set]. What I don't see enough of is Christian-based rhetoric that supports a free-market based economy and individual and property rights, but slams uncharitable, predatory behavior by corporations, politicians and individuals. It may be out there (I hope it is), but if it is, it doesn't seem to have much currency.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the confusion here is between a traditional economically conservative value -- like "greed is good" and a traditionally religiously conservative value -- like "greed is bad."
I'd suggest that these two values are mutually exclusive, but Republicans don't seem to think so.
"let the churches care for the losers, I don't need to". comes from the Conservative idea to dismantle Social Security and the Welfare System before they break on their own. Robespiere has often said that with no Welfare system, the charities would feed the poor. That is taking conservatism a bit far, I know.
"Greed is good." comes from the "Trickle Down" theory of conservative economics. The more money I make, the more I will spend.
"I am not my brother's keeper." This comes from the conservative idea that Welfare and Social Security and even Health Care for those less fortunate are not the pervue of the Government, but should be the choice of everyone's conceinse. Taxing me to pay for someone else's food or medicine is considered by some to be wrong.
"Render unto me what is mine. The rest can fight for what is left." This goes back to Trickle Down economics and the idea that Taxation is a burden unless I personally benefit from it.
"The world is ours to exploit. Who cares what damage I may cause. I'll be rich and retired before the truth comes out." This is where I see President Bush's environmental policy, with things like Drilling in the Artic Refuge, the cancellaton of the Toxic Cleanup Superfund, and other anti-environmental, pro-business conservative officials demands.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<raises hand> I'm a member of the religious left.
I have some stances that are associated with the right: I'm very against gun control, for instance, since everyone with a lathe can make a gun they aren't things that we can effectively control. I don't know if it was right for us to go to war in Iraq, but I'm very glad we ousted those monsters and freed the Iraqi people. I think we have to stay the course, now, and see it through. I think pretty much everything the government does, they do poorly, compared to the private sector. (The GUM store in Moscow, where there were only left shoes, and you waited in line for days on end, is the normal public-sector verson of Wal-Mart.) I would like to see as many government functions as possible be put in the private sector, including drivers license renewals and car tag renewals and social security accounts, and so on.
On the other hand I support just about everything the ACLU ever does. I'm very much in favor of women's reproductive rights, thinking judges and legislators have no standing at all in such matters. (What I want to do instead is help the mothers be able to bring their children to term, to give them up for adoption, if that is their choice, or to be able to raise them in a decent environment.) I think the Civil Rights movement in this country is the essence of what America is all about. I strongly support it, along with affirmative action. I am very opposed to the draconian justice system in this country which is not at all just. I think we need to stress punishment a lot less and trying to reach people and teach them a whole lot more. I worry at least as much about the abuse of power (like the patriot act powers) by the authorities as I do about terrorism. I think it's absolutely essential to the concept of America that the experience that the rich and the poor have when dealing with the government be as much alike as can possibly be. Ideally it should be exactly the same. The powerful should have the same treatment as the weak. That way if things are not right, the powerful will fix them for everyone. For themselves and for the weak as well. When you get a system that's more and more different for different categories of people, is when you have revolutions. Also it's just wrong.
My religion does teach me that there are things that aren't right in the world, and also that it's my responsibility to do what I can to fix them. We are supposed to be building the Crystal City. So, yes, all my politics are heavily influenced by my religion. It does seem odd that there is so little heard from the religious left. Shouldn't they be the conscience of our society? Why have they been so quiet these last few decades?
[ February 11, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you're talking about extremes Dan. The fact that I'm in favor of welfare reform and that I don't think we should be enabling people who aren't willing to work does not mean I want to take benefits away from the truly needy. If I say I'm conservative on welfare reform I get painted as someone that doesn't care if children starve. It's just not true.
You make it an either/or. Either you care about abandoned, hungry kids or you're conservative.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the academic left abandoned religion in it's engagement in the culture wars and shifted the emphasis away from the responsibility of Christians to act charitably and care for the poor and the sick. Instead the focus became victims rights and gender/sexuality/ethnicity/race.
Now I don't think that the whole agenda of making room for minority voices is wrong. Nor is fighting for the rights of victims. But I do think that memes were sewed in the process that were simplistic and sometimes even wrong and as a result white, non-academic, non-upper-middle-class, Christian liberals were left out in the cold.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ela--I don't think Liberal is a dirty word. Its profanity is just proof of a very good conservative marketing plan.
Belle--I don't want to abuse-away discussion. How about if I deleted "Yet the leaders...Are these the values of all Christians."
I could replace it with "Are the values of self proclaimed conservatives who run the giant corporations Christian values? If not, why do we assume that a conservative is Christian and a Christian is conservative.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics by Ched Myers The Soul of Politics by Jim Wallis Naming the Powers by Walter Wink God & Your Stuff by Wesley Willmer Faith in a Global Economy by Rob van Drimmelen Disarming the Heart by John Dear God of the Oppressed by James Cone The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann Good News for the Poor: John Wesley’s Evangelical Economics by Theodore Jennings Disarmed and Dangerous by Murrya Polner and Jim O’Grady Nevertheless by John Howard Yoder
I’m going to have to say, in answer to your original questions, no, no, and no.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How did the power brokers manage it? How did they subvert the religious ideals of Christianity, and warp them to support their ideals?
And they're the first people ever to subvert the ideals of a religion and warp them?
This is nothing new. When the hijackers crashed into the WTC, a lot of people said they were people who had twisted Islamic teaching to suit their own hatred. Do you think the ideals apply to every person who calls himself Muslim?
Has Ken Lay used an argument that what he did was right by Christian tradition or teachings? If he has, I haven't heard it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a week one summer I went and picked vegetables in something called Harvest of Hope. I heard the best ever doctrine- when you help the poor it's like helping Jesus. How I wished I had grown up hearing that instead of hearing about hell and the end of the world. Because like it or not we are all bond to each other by thin threads. Those matter more than anything, which is why we should take care of each other. Eliminating social programs would make problems so much worse. What about people like me who do work and still need to turn to social programs like foodstamps just to avoid being out on the streets or going hungry?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And they're the first people ever to subvert the ideals of a religion and warp them?
Of course not. But they seem to be the ones that are ascendent in American society at the moment and so are of the most concern -- ALONG WITH (I'm an equal opportunity playa' hata') -- the more loopy* ideas of the left.
*loopy is a technical term meaning, of course, anything I don't agree with.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Which answers my question, Conservative Does Not Equal Christian.
Now would you mind telling that to the conservative media, from Paul Harvey to Rush Limbaugh, who try to tie the two together permanately?
Every initiative presented by a Conservative politicain does not meet Christian morality.
On another front, you complain that I am suggesting an all or nothing option--either Keep families hooked on welfare or be the cruel person who wants to make them starve.
That is not my intention.
I am trying to say that one does not have to be conservative and follow the conservative line to be a Christian.
You want to do what is best for those on Welfare. Your goal with welfare reform is to help those in need by the best way possible. The question you have is how to go about it.
Liberal ideals strive for the same, how to help the most people. Sure, they have been corrupted and bogged down in a process that doesn't work well. The truth is that both sides claim to want the same thing. Liberals talk about how we need to help those in need.
Conservatives strive to do the same with "tough love." They realize the need to force people to stand on their own to feet.
Yet economic conservatives talk about the cost of the Welfare System. They would rather save a little money than all the people they are trying to help. Others talk about the unfairness of thier money going to help people who are not worthy. They talk about justice in poverty, how those who are hungry or homeless deserve that fate.
You can be a Christian and a Conservative. However, you can also be a Christian and a Liberal, and both have to battle very unchristian people who claim to be in either camp, but are truly only in their own.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, are you seriously saying you were raised in a church without ever hearing the story of the sheep and the goats? I find that very sad. And strange.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
C.S. Lewis once said something to the effect that a truly Christian society would seem very old and traditional with regards to social values and almost communistic in economic matters. He said the fact that almost every person on earth would find something to hate about such a society was pretty good evidence of the fallen state of humanity. (This is from memory - I hope I'm not mangling it too much.)
He also said in The Screwtape Letters that the best way to corrupt a Christian was to make him a Christian and. Christian and pacifist, Christian and Liberal, Christian and Conservative, etc. It kept people focused on their faith as a tool to justify their social desires rather than as a series of guidelines on how to live.
Though, I think this quote answers you question most succinctly "Neoconservatives have a profound belief in America's moral superiority, which facilitates alliances with the Christian Right and other social conservatives."
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the problems with a two party system. What I'm about to say will be very, very oversimplified, but if it gets my point across, so be it. Also I have to point out that this is the first time I'm actually sticking my head in a serious thread, so be kind.
It can be basically generalized that there are two major camps in politics, economics and social. Everyone has some opinion on both of these. For instance, I more or less agree with economic and social liberal leanings. But usually folks have stronger opinions on one side or the other. People who feel strongly enough to place themselves in the religious camp are (please don't bite my head off for overgeneralizing) social conservatives (usually), and may not feel as strongly about economic issues. So they vote as they believe they need to in order to affect the social changes they want, and accept the economic policies as part of the package. An economic conservative may not care one whit about social issues like drugs (illegal) or even disagree with the stance of the right, but (s)he will put up with them and vote republican because it's the only viable option to them that gets the legislation passed that they want.
So what we really need is a good 4 party system (or 8, if you see another divide that I don't), where you can have a social conservative/economic liberal, or a social liberal/economic conservative.
Sure you've got Libertarians and Greens, etc, etc. but those parties aren't truly viable options for anything but bringing issues into the light.
One other thing to note. Many people agree with straight party platforms, but I wonder how many of them have come to that way of thinking because thier environment has taught them that a republican is one way, and a democrat is another, and those are the ways the issues are divided (I said all that really badly). I'll admit, I lean left probably because my parents do, and that's the way they raised me. Not that I blindly follow the Democratic party, but I generally agree with their platform. I don't know if we'd see an even split if a 4 party system were the way it is, it's so hard to predict. Though I somehow doubt that there would be all that much support for an economically liberal/socially conservative party, it's only a hunch.
Okay, have I rambled enough? Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a letter to the editor in my local paper today from a person who was clearly a fiscal/social conservative. They claimed that GW Bush was chosen by God to serve as our President.
I bring this up because I believe that in the minds of many religious conservatives, the two ideologies are inextricably tied together and, furthermore, they are convinced of active Divine participation in the American political process.
I consider this attitude, however popular it becomes in America, to be both anti-Christian and anti-American.
It is basically putting the President up on a plane above the rest of us -- sort of a demi-God. GWB does not rule by divine right. No President ever has nor will one ever. That's America. As for the anti-Christian part of it, Jesus was pretty clear about the separation of our spirit from our everyday lives and situation. It is our spirit that is what's important to get above and beyond it all. The concentration on religion in politics is, to me, just grasping at straws. When people can't figure out a true justification for their prejudices (social, economic, whatever), as Americans, they first turn to our guiding documents. When that doesn't work -- i.e., the Constitution is not restrictive enough for them, they glom onto Scripture and say that this is the reason for their opinions. As if that somehow replaces a need for logic and common sense.
And no, I don't mean that religious views lack reason and common sense. I mean that the kind of person who generally does this sort of thing uses religion IN PLACE OF reason and common sense. And that is anti-Christian too -- in a way that truly damages the faith, IMHO.
But I've had a lot of trouble convincing people of that, so don't go by me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we need to stress punishment a lot less and trying to reach people and teach them a whole lot more.
suggestions on doing this without crossing the church/state boundary?
I guess I agree with you that abortion should *Edit: NOT*be legislated against. Why rely on the churches for charity and not the social change away from unwanted pregnancies and terminations? (This is rhetorical. I'm saying the churches should work on both.)
Both parties are held captive by the lobby that I find most disagreeable in both. Planned Parenthood for the Dems and NRA for the Reps.
More edits while I'm here: I think when the move came about to kick religion out of the classroom is kind of why religious conservatives then say "then can we have our taxes back please." I don't really know what the answer is. I guess if parents are in the schools helping and volunteering, their Christian example would be felt in the long run more than if they were picketing outside.
posted
Definitely not. In fact, I find it difficult to understand how honest Christians can back much of the right wing agenda in good conscience.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting thread. I just wanted to post a couple thoughts that I had as I was reading it.
First off, I'm somewhat of an economic conservative. It is not, as some have stated, because I think "greed is good." Rather, it is because I am of the opinion that "greed exists." It's an incredibly powerful economic force, and trying to legislate it away will only make it show up in more devious and destructive ways.
Second, I am a Christian. I believe that God wants me to help the less fortunate. But I'm not so sure that he wants me to force others to do the same. I'm not going to derail this thread by comparing this to homosexuality or other moral issues, but just let me say that my religious beliefs indicate how I should live my life. I'm very hesitant to pass any laws that would force someone who does not share my beliefs to live by them anyway. I'd much rather give to charity than pay taxes. And, judging from the personal experience that I've had with both, religious charities are far more efficient and equitable in their distribution of goods and services to the less fortunate than government charities anyway.
Don't misunderstand me-- I support severe punishment for white collar crime. I also believe in certain regulations on the free market and some amount of welfare (mainly of the "hand up, not handout" type). But I prefer that my government use a light touch on those last two issues, and I guess that's what makes me consider myself an economic conservative. I don't see any contradiction between these stances and my religious values.
quote:Dan_raven wrote: OK. I got a bit carried away with the rhetoric.
Hahahaha! You sounded a lot like Thor in that first post.
Bob talked about a fiscal conservative voting for Bush (43). But doesn't a fiscal conservative believe in balanced budgets, and paying down the debt? Bush (43) certainly doesn't believe in that. I'm not really sure what an economic conservative is...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw - refresh us about the sheep and goats please?
I think that there is an alarming tendancy to lump people into groups - I'm all for more recogniton of individuals/ism, all the way around.
I.e., there is no typical "right-winger" or "left-winger" in politics. Nor is there any typical religioso.
Everyone has individual strengths and weaknesses, beliefs, abilities . . . I figure I ought to keep an open mind in terms of how I view other folks. They always have one or two surprises . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the sheep and goats dkw is talking about is in Matthew 25 somewhere. I always really liked that chapter. The basic gist is the Good Shepherd (Jesus) is separating the sheep (good peeps) from the goats (bad peeps) and saying, "When I was hungry, you gave me to eat. When I was naked, you clothed me." etc. He says the same to the goats, but says that they didn't do it. They protest, saying that they never saw Jesus. If they had, they certainly would have helped him out in any way they could. Jesus replies with the famous line, "Whatsoever you do, to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Matthew 25:31-46. It’s where the doctrine that Synesthesia mentioned comes from.
Edit: but it's worth noting that the "sheep" also protest that they never saw Jesus hungry and fed him, naked and clothed him, etc. Nobody in that parable recognizes that what they did they did (or didn't) to Jesus.
posted
That actually reminds me. It was sort of a family thing to interpret the parable of the talents somewhat differently than the standard way. My dad had a thing that he passed on to me that a big part of the meaning of that parable dealt with what I later found out was moral relativism. That is, the guy who got 5 talents gave back double (10) and was rewarded and the guy who got given 2 (I think) and returned double (4) was rewarded pretty much the same. We thought that this pointed out that "to those whom much is given, much is expected" and vice versa to those who got kinds screwed when good stuff was being handed out. I was wondering, dkw (or anyone else for that matter), is you knew of any other scholarly type people who read it that way. This was actually a really big thing for me in terms of leading away from the tradition view of morality. edit: and I've never been able to find that interpretation anywhere else.
posted
Phewww - I thought I came from the only screwy family as far as the talent story was concerned.
My father used it as a bludgeon on all of us - he had definite ideas about what we should do with our lives and how, and if we evinced interest in other directions, we were told how horribly we were failing to use the gifts God gave us . . .
I think he was a frustrated artist at this point in his life . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about religion should never affect political policy? For two reasons: People believe in many different religions or no religions and those religions often conflict more than we give credit for. The Constitution definitely implies that religion should be seperate from government.
Now how can I say that and still be a conservative?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's pretty silly. What makes a religious conviction worse than, say, an anarchist conviction?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: We thought that this pointed out that "to those whom much is given, much is expected" and vice versa to those who got kinds screwed when good stuff was being handed out.
That sounds right. What else would it mean? I guess folks emphasizing the fellow who buried his talent?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan may have posted hyperbolically, however, he struck a chord with me. I grew up in a very conservative area (Lancaster County, Pennsylvania) and I can tell you that (at least around here) there are plenty of people who consider themselves Christians and Conservatives in a way that would render the two terms almost indistinguishable from each other. As a young teenager, I remember going to church around election time and listening to the speakers all preach the conservative Republican Party line. The very clear impression that I got was that if you called yourself a Christian and either didn't vote oor didn't vote the Republican line something was seriously wrong with your faith and most likely needed "deliverence" of some sort.
This experience wasn't limited to one church, but almost every church (and school) I attended in my youth. Dan mentioned Paul Harvey and Rush Limbaugh. These two names were (are) placed on the same pedestal with Billy Graham (certainly not the pope -- he's going to hell) and (heaven forgive me) Pat Robertson. There are very dangerous and vast liberal conspiracies around every corner plotting the corruption of the nation's youth and the ultimate destruction of our country. And dog-gone-it! Why can't we put Ronald Regan back into the White House? He was the best President we've had since Abraham Lincoln. I'm not exaggerating folks -- Dan's not the only one capable of overstatements, except these people view all of this as objective truth.
After expressing many thoughts along the lines brought up here in school, a fellow student gave me this book. You can find an excerpt from it here.
It occured to me at some point that all I ever heard about politics, for the most part, from all of these Christian Conservatives was concerning three issues: 1) Seperation of Church and State, 2) Abortion, and 3) Homosexuality. Now, setting these issues aside, I have heard little to no discussion about foreign policy (except that America, as God's chosen and providential nation in these end times, ought to fully support Israel in virtually everything), economic issues (there is little worry among pastors with rich congregations -- God takes very good care of them), education (it is almost taken for granted that Christians ought to be homeschooling or sending their children to private Christian schools), or any other number of important political issues. Why is that?
Now, I'm not aiming any of my criticism at Christians or Conservatives -- just at a special breed who considers themselves to be both but which I find to be hardly Christian at all and possibly Conservative at best.
I've done a lot of ranting and arguing on this topic to the very people I am talking about -- and I do have a chip on my shoulder. So I'll give it a rest for now...
rivka:
quote:Each time I see
quote:The Religious Left?
I wonder, "Where did they go?"
Well, about 20,000 or so of them gather here for one week every summer. They have their own press, in fact, which occasionally publishes some excellent books (although many I find to be a bit silly).
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about religion should never affect political policy?
Because religion should affect public policy. The reason I beleive in freedom of religion is because of my religion. The reason I think government should marshall public resources to prevent starvation is because my religion teaches me that letting people starve is bad.
A person's religion or other fundamental belief in the ultimate reality of things (and by this I mean their true religion, not just what they profess) informs every opinion that person has. Are you saying religious people should not have opinions about any political policy?
posted
Godric: That's pretty sad. I just wanted to mention, as an aside, one nice thing about my religion (I'm LDS). There is a very strict policy that comes right from the top forbidding anyone from using church time or facilities for any kind of partisan political activities. Every once in a while, particularly around election time, there is a notice released and read in meetings encouraging our members to involve themselves in the political process in whichever way they see as right, but that's about it. There are more Republicans than Democrats in my church, but it's a cultural thing. I know several Democrats, and they're never preached to nor encouraged to change their views. It is, in my opinion, a nice policy for a religion.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh has never been mentioned in my church. I do believe I'd walk out. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godric, After reading what you wrote I don't think it is a coincidence, that my Grandmotherlives in Lancaster County, PA. LOL, you may actually know some of my aunts, uncles and cousins! There are a regular horde of them back there, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Funny rivka!
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
