Christians Welcome

This story looks just a little too silly to believe. “9/11 Christians,” I mean, come on.

Congratulations Cordoba House protesting Islamophobes. When you start making ridiculous arguments equating all Mulsims to the 9/11 attackers and argue in favor of deny people their rights simply because of their religion you send out a siren song dog whistle to the real fringe loonies. They see it as an invitation to emerge from their holes and live amongst the sane people.

Cue the breathless right-wingers with their multiple rationalizations as to why it’s not the same as the Park51 project.

Its because Christians didn’t fly towers into the buildings. That’s the argument they will make, and it isn’t surprising. If you want to draw a parallel you’d do better to mention the Oklahoma City bombing, perpetrated by a far right wing nut job for various reasons including religious ones and asking whether there should be church’s in that area.

I only wish that right-wing Christians were the worst who were inspired by this stupidity.

“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
.
America’s enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed “Ground Zero mosque.” The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims — far bigger even than France’s ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: “We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.”) This time the target is America itself. “We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage.”
.
Zabihullah also claims that the issue is such a propaganda windfall — so tailor-made to show how “anti-Islamic” America is — that it now heads the list of talking points in Taliban meetings with fighters, villagers, and potential recruits. “We talk about how America tortures with waterboarding, about the cruel confinement of Muslims in wire cages in Guantanamo, about the killing of innocent women and children in air attacks — and now America gives us another gift with its street protests to prevent a mosque from being built in New York,” Zabihullah says. “Showing reality always makes the best propaganda.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/taliban-using-mosque-controversy-to-recruit.html
.
But don’t worry, conservatives. Even though your religious bigotry is clearly aiding and abetting our terrorist enemies, when they strike our nation again the target will be some liberal city like New York.
.
Palin will be safe in Wasilla, and Gingrich will be fine in Marietta, and they can both rush to New York, and use our tragedy as a photo op. Again.

Its because Christians didn’t fly towers into the buildings.
.
They flew planes, but I get your point. I was anticipating that response as well as ye old “It’s a Christian country” saw.

.. that’s a bit too creepy for my taste!

A fine Pork barbecue place on each side will be good enough

http://www.alternet.org/election08/99118/sarah_palin_linked_her_electoral_success_to_prayer_of_kenyan_witch_hunter/
.
How much crazier is Keller than Glenn Beck? He only used bullet points in his rally speech so God could speak to him more clearly.
God talks to Sarah Palin through a witch doctor. See above link.

If you want to see the America that Beck is urging on with his dangerous rhetoric and false prophecy, you need only read his followers’ comments on this site http://wp.me/pNmlT-mI which is critical of Beck and his rally. They are completely blind to facts presented to them if they are contrary to their beliefs. It is scary to see the hold he has over them despite him offering so little substance, truth or real faith.

One can appreciate the wisdom of the founders and those liberals who originally developed the principle of the separation of church and state, more and more, with age. I’ve read that the original creators of the concept simply found the state a lot smarter than the Church. Not much has changed it seems. The separation of church and state is one liberal principle that works for all sides. On the one hand, the 9/11 Christians and Muslims can believe anything they one. They can believe things that were discredited as logical arguments hundreds of years ago, no one will stop them. On the other hand atheists can take comfort in the fact that we keep them away from the state, which is then allowed to rely more on reason and empirical fact, to guide it’s actions. It’s a win-win, all around.

Joe, speaking of “life in the real America,” hopefully you’ll find that during your road trip, but that trip needs to be done right: on motorcycles, not a plush, comfy, AC-running SUV with satellite radio …kinda like Peter Fonda in Easy Rider or Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but don’t emulate those two literally. Do ride a flag-colored Harley and wear a leather jacket while riding.
.
It will be interesting in your upcoming Chautauquas / road trip posts how you encounter hardcore R “Christians” and their money-grabbing megachurches vs. more traditional real Christians who live simply and do good things for their neighbors. But if you’re riding into roughneck territories, Joe, do take along lovely Jay N-S as a bodyguard, I mean, colleague and co-author.

“JOE KLEIN, TIME: Newt Gingrich should be embarrassed by the way. He’s much smarter than this. Glenn Beck something different. The guy’s obviously a paranoid lunatic who is a great entertainer. And He is exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war. During World War I, if people were caught speaking German in the street, other people would beat them up. During World War II, we interned the Japanese. And now there, the combination of bad, bad economic times over the last couple of years and, and, you know. the terrorism, has, has led to this wave that Glenn Beck and his puppet master Rupert Murdoch are exploiting.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/29/national-reviewer-schools-chris-matthews-and-joe-klein#ixzz0y85UT0lq
.
Hey Joe Slime, I mean Klein. Who DID round up people during WWI and WWII and put them in displacement camps? Do you even have a clue?
.
Well let me teach you a thing or two, Mr Klein. It was Rupert Murdock or Glenn Beck, it was Presidents Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D Roosevelt.
.
Do you know what both of these insane madmen represeted in their time, Mr. Klein? PROGRESSIVISM. The very same thing you represent today, Mr. Klein.
.
But, you just keep opening up your big flap trap you call a mouth. Keep on pounding on those keyboards typing out the garbage you spew. America has awoken to your various ploys. America knows what is and isn’t the truth. America knows when people like you write garbage and hide the truth behind your “Jounolister” emails to your other lame stream media buddys and pals.

“It was Rupert Murdock or Glenn Beck, it was Presidents Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D Roosevelt.”

.
Should read, “It was NOT Rupert Mrdock or Glenn Beck, it was Presidents Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D Roosevelt”.

Hmmm aper. I’m thinking there is a big difference between a witch doctor and a witch hunter. Do you read your loony sites or just post em? Perhaps it’s time to get the ole peepers checked. Or is it true what they say, that hatred makes you blind?
.
Looking forward to your usual non-response.

Oh I can’t wait for you to define those liberal founders, this ought to be nothing short of magical.

“Looking forward to your usual non-response.”

.
You may have to wait until april2563 disembarks from the spaceship she is on, I am sure. Anyone who cites “alter-net” as a source surely follows Dennis Kuccinich and all the rest of the star children.
.
This is april2563′s old “Minister”. Isn’t that right april?
.

A) So what? It matters not one whit what the political ideology is of those “exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war.” Are you suggesting that undesirable actions, if undertaken by people identified with one’s own political views, become then desirable actions?
.
I don’t think you would admit to being of that opinion, but I do have to wonder after reading you so dutifully and passionately back certain demagogues, despite evidence of some of their rather unseemly behaviors.
.
So why would it make any difference to JK if perpetrators of acts he derides held the very same political notions that JK does today?

apr, here’s the complete footage of sermon + Sarah Palin receiving protection from witchcraft….
.

.
If they had baptized her or just dumped a bucket of water on her, would she have melted?

The greatest influence on the revolutionaries who created the US constitution was John Locke, otherwise known as the “Father of Liberalism.” His social contract theory was highly influential in the development of the separation of church and state, liberal principle.

Oh, this is hilarious. The guy who called the japanese slime and hoped for their nuclear annihilation is now using internment camps as an excuse to criticize libruls. Nowadays, it’s the conservatives who generally try to ignore or downplay those events your pretend to find so objectionable (see: Malkin) But by all means, keep on defending minorities even as you spew racist bile.

As per usual, a depthless understanding of “separation of church and state,” a phrased that is not included in the US Constitution and therefore has no relevance to American governing practices. The phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is nothing more than that. The principle to which you refer is only vaguely alluded to in the First Amendment which prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion, in other words, the prohibition of a national/state religion. That’s as far as it goes.

it truly would be hilarious if it was not so indicative of a serious disease.

Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of political science recognizes the term “separation of church and state.” That may be why the term is unfamiliar to you.

I’m extremely familiar with the term. Being familiar with it does not imply that it has any constitutionally binding significance whatsoever. So, what is your point?

I was trying to figure what your point is, other than personal attack. My simple point was I’m glad the founders were sympathetic to the liberal principle of putting a wall between the church and state.

My point, being a student of history and political science, was that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state. Simple. It’s not included in any official document of the United States. The prohibition of a national religion, found in the First Amendment, still says nothing about separating the spiritual from the political. Religion can be infused into any and all state affairs, so long as no national religion is established. There have been minor peripheral prohibitions added later protecting political candidates from religious oaths, but, legally speaking, there exists no binding separation of church and state affairs. The term is so loosely and frequently thrown around that a vast number of people actually believe it to be included in the Constitution. I don’t know what knowledge you have or what interpretation you were putting forth; I was just clarifying for the uninformed.

And, where was my personal attack on you? “Depthless understanding?” Rather benign if you ask me.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
.
– Matthew 6:5-6

Thank you, Shep, for inserting one of my very favorite passages in Matthew…almost as good as Matthew 24, which is the best.

Sweet Jesus, Rusty is off his meds. He’s making textee look sane lately.
.
I’m guessing the fact that his prediction that FIVE MILLION ANGRY AMERICANS would show up at the awesome Glenn Beck Restoring Something or Other Rally was laughably wrong has made him feel a little sad and lonely.
.
Rant louder and angrier, Rusty. I’m sure that will win over more people to your side.

“If Jesus were around today, he might say that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a telecharlatan to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

That is really uncouth, Joe. I have learned that your efforts at irony are at best suspect, but that was simply bad taste. To repeat it later one is sacrilege.

“telecharlatan”

Too kind.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/wish-you-were-here/

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16: 18)
…

Bad mouthing Glenn Beck is … sacrilege? Seriously?
.
I know conservatives are under the laughable notion that liberals worship and idolize Obama, but you folks really need to take a long look in the mirror.

There have been minor peripheral prohibitions added later protecting political candidates from religious oaths
.
Well, I’m not sure I’d characterize the explicit language against religious oaths and religious tests for office as detailed in Article VI of the Constitution as a “minor peripheral prohibition.”
.
Your larger point about “separation of church and state” not being mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is, of course, true. As is the distinction between the constitutionally permissible mingling of “faith and politics” and the unconstitutional establishment of religion.
.
But Derek’s point is also true — the founders were certainly liberal (in the 18th century sense of the term) in their approach to religion, and their insistence that their new nation would not be embroiled by the religious wars and religious persecutions of the Old World.
.
The founders would spin in their graves at the insistence of Beck and others that America is or was a “Christian nation.” In their private writings, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. were explicit in their belief that America was no such thing.
.
And we do have formal documents of the government in the founders’ generation that say as much. In the Treaty of Tripoli — signed by President John Adams and ratified by a Senate that was led by Thomas Jefferson and included many of the same men who ratified the Constitution — the founders’ generation was quite explicit in insisting that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation

allow me to venture a guess, because I suspect that you two would like one another plenty enough if you met in person.
.
Perhaps, Exiled, in the wording of your opening of 7.3 “As per usual, a depthless understanding, was an easily-made interpretation that you were opining that Derek usually displays a depthless understanding.
.
Perhaps, Derek, that was a mis-interpretaion of Exiled’s intent, which was to point out that there is a commonly-held, oft-brandished, subtle but profound, misunderstanding of the concept of “separation of church and state”.

Either way, I did not read Derek define what “separation of church and state”: meant. Therefore, Exiled, perhaps you made an assumption about Derek’s use of the phrase (not an unlikely assumption, but, still, an assumption) and since it is a pet issue for you, perhaps you began your lesson a tiny bit more sternly than neccessary.
.
No harm need remain, though. Each of your points have been clarified, and I’d bet you both agree with the other’s!

and kevin’s rounds it out nicely

I don’t disagree with anything you say, Kevin. It just irks me when people throw around the term “separation of church and state” as if it is some inherent American principle akin to freedom of speech; it’s not. It’s not sanctioned by any legal document, it’s an ideal, it’s a vision, and a manipulated phrase used to justify all sorts of rank assaults on freedom of expression and religion. With that said, I think it is also quite obvious that the framers’ intent was to break from the state-religion concept as practiced by Europe and to demarcate authority of the state from the authority of organized religion within society, but not necessarily to severe the influence between the two. The founders were, after all, Deists by and large. They owed their very existence to Divine Providence, and espoused the basic principles of Christianity, while also carefully delineating the identity of the nation from such a specific religious characterization.
.
And, yes, Rusty, they were the liberals of the time, they were clashing with monarchy for God’s sake! In the broad scheme of political theory (not limited to within the American ideological spectrum), all American political thought falls under the penumbra of classical liberalism as opposed to totalitarian fascism, or monarchy. The idea of democracy is itself a classical liberal concept. Within that, there exists neo-liberalism and conservative liberalism, neither of which are much more than social philosphies on how to operate within a democratic, i.e liberal, society.

Thanks for your insights Kevin and Mycophile. My apologies to Derek if I came off a tad too condescending.

Exiled @ 7.12~
.
I find your explanation to Rusty to be extremely well articulated. (He of course, unable to refute it with any sound historical reference, will call it BS by calling you such.)

I’m all too familiar with Rusty’s ploys. His loyalty is to party, falsely draped in the facade of conservatism. Why? Because the GOP says so. Next to him, I’m Friedrich Engels, and he’ll be the first to point that out. What was it, Rusty? I’m a neo-socialist liberal libertarian, or something to that effect…

a neo-socialist liberal libertarian

WOW, now that’s a brainfull (of short circuits and brainfarts)
.
You realize, don’t you, that when he reads this interchange, he is going to see even more Reds than he usually sees — because we are having fun at his expense when he’s not looking?

Don’t hate the player, hate the game, Rusty.

“If Jesus were around today, he might say that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a telecharlatan to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
.
I think Jesus would say “I’m going to key that b@stards’ car, egg his house, TP his trees, put dog crap in a bag, put a match to it, toss it on his porch and then yell fire!”
.
My Jesus don’t take no sh!t.

I wasn’t sure what kind of sacrilege Ike was referring to
.
Maybe just putting the name Glenn Beck in the same sentence as Jesus’ name?

Michael Crowley: OK, OK, sacred, jesus, I’ll put up a pic of the pig for you to wipe the lipstick off already. I can see you need to get out about 100 lines.

LOL. I’m a little testy today. I was supposed to re-upholster chairs today but my better half decided she wanted to put up fall decorations instead. I was up in the attic hunting for the fall stuff and it was at least 100 degrees. The fall stuff will stay up until October 1st and then we’ll take most of that down and put up the Halloween stuff. Then we’ll take down the Halloween stuff and put the fall and Thanksgiving stuff up. Then we’ll take the Thanksgiving stuff down and put up the Christmas stuff. We put up 7 trees and have about 40 of the big plastic storage containers full of Christams decorations. On top of that, I donated blood today. On top of that I cut my hand picking up glass from a crystal vase my MIL broke.

I’ve held the opinion for years that if Jesus were alive today, the conservatives would have him in a straight jacket and institutionalized in a mental hospital.

that might have been true as recently as 20 years ago.
.
but, today, the infotainment industry would pay him well.

no wonder Rod has mostly stayed away today — and lucky for you(r soul, wherever it hides.)

Well put, Exiled. While I do believe the principle of separation of church and state is, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Everson, a fair interpretation of the founders’ intent, I too am surprised by how many people assume that exact phrase appears in the Constitution.
.
Politics and spirituality have always mixed, as you note, and in some instances — Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, the Berrigans, etc. — it’s been employed for causes that liberals support and they’ve never minded the presence of religion there. It’s unfair, and hypocritical, to argue that conservatives can’t do the same.

Oh I can’t wait for you to define those liberal founders, this ought to be nothing short of magical.
.
I know Rusty doesn’t take in any information that isn’t spoonfed to him by Fox News, but if anyone else here really is interested in learning about our liberal founders, you should check out the excellent history by noted historian Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. An excellent read.

I was cleaning the glass in the storm door after I got back from Red Cross and the MIL was eating a chocolate eclaire (I bought them because she’s diabetic) and she put her hand right in the middle of the panel I’d just cleaned. I sprayed her eclaire with Windex. It has been one of those days.

i could lol, but . . .bummer!

kevin~

Politics and spirituality have always mixed . . .it’s been employed for causes that liberals support and they’ve never minded the presence of religion there. It’s unfair, and hypocritical, to argue that conservatives can’t do the same.

Absolutely agreed
.
Where I bristle is when it is being disingenuously done, or when the religious argument is in support of elitism in any form.
.

I love that : telecharlatan.
By the way – did anybody watch telecharlatan after Saturday?
What was changed?
Did Beck started his Jorney to honor and loving people, all of them, and quit his hate?
Please, let me know.
Thank you

“If Jesus were around today, he might say that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a telecharlatan to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

.
He meant of course, the E ye of the Needle being a small and narrow entry way into through the wall of Jerusalem, That A rich man couldn’t take it with him when he died.
.’
Glenn being a good Mormon of course is trying to achieve godhead, the proof being his self adoration rally Saturday. Maybe that god can take it with him.

Cue me:
.
If you believe in an invisible man in the sky telling you what to do: YOU’RE INSANE.
.
In the modern world we call that schizophrenia.

This “witch” hunter, that some seem to feel is a respectable designation in the 21st Century, supposedly drove out a satanicly inspired old lady from a village. Later proven not so.
Now maybe if he had read about the Salem witch trials he might have been more successful. Next time Sarah can share her knowledge of our handling of witches with him, as they speak in tongues.

Thanks shepherd. That is a lovely and wise passage.
.
I don’t know why Jesus’s words to Peter were posted. As a Catholic, we used that passage to discount the legitimacy of the Protestant faith because Peter was the Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.
Therefore, as a Mormon, Beck has no legitimacy.
.
It is all layer upon layer of religious fervor that takes away all the beauty of what Christ’s disciples say he was preaching.
I don’t think that Jesus would have wanted us to turn his words of kindness to hate against Muslims.

satanicly-if there is such a word

Well my little friends in the swamp seem to know me, but yet do not have any clue what-so-ever.
.
In actuality, this is an area from which I fully agree with Exiled-who was once known as Neo. His description of the separation of church and state is spot on. I fully agree with it all.
.
Yes, in the standards of the time, (the 18th Century) one could say that the founders were not only “progressive” in their thoughts, they were “liberal” in the context of the 18th century. But, to say that those who lived in the 18th century would today meet the “liberal” test, and conform to today’s understanding of what liberalism is and defined today would not only be the biggest stretch of the imagination, but also completely untrue.
.
However, taken in today’s frame of mind, they are not only conservative, but we can also add the label that those of us who are like-minded with our founding fathers would be termed “Traditionalist”.
.
All that has been done is a movement of the bar, that line in the sand, from what was once considered to be more liberal to one that is now considered to be of the middle of the road, or “conservative”.
.
You cannot move the “line in the sand” to meet your feelings of what is now, and compare it to what it was then. Today’s liberals in no way would be considered on par with the “liberals” of the 18th century. You can however say, those of us who self-identify as “conservative” today, would be on par with those of the 18th century’s beliefs of our founding fathers.

“Today’s liberals in no way would be considered on par with the “liberals” of the 18th century. You can however say, those of us who self-identify as “conservative” today, would be on par with those of the 18th century’s beliefs of our founding fathers.”
.
For example, modern liberals believe blacks and women ought to have the right to vote. In fact, they think they ought to have the same rights as everyone else.

I also believe, strongly even, that blacks and women should have the right to vote. As a matter of fact, I also strongly believe in the rights of ALL individuals to be treated equally. Equal Justice, I do believe is the term. Where the spit does occur is when you attempt to bring in social justice in order to justify your position on various issues at-large today.
.
You will not have any argument from me on anything related to equal justice and the promotion of the individual and individual responsibility. But, if you think this is a term exclusive to just “liberals”, you are very sadly mistaken.

You just finished telling us that today’s conservative liberals are on par with those from the 18th century. The expansion of equality is one of the differences between them and modern communist/fascists such as myself. My suspicion is you and other tea baggers are opposed to the developments in liberalism that resulted from the depression and the rise of economics as a science, or positive liberty, as some have described it.

I would think you would not kick the gift-horse in the mouth should you find common areas of agreement, yes?
.
There most certainly were areas which even our founders were wrong. One of those major ones was slavery. Slavery is not justifiable in anyones political or social stand on the issues. And in actuality one of the very first Slave Masters was in fact a Black Man.
.

” Anthony Johnson, a former indentured servant from Africa, became a landowner on the Eastern Shore and a slaveholder in his turn. The major problem with indentured servants was that, in time, they would be freed, but they were unlikely to become prosperous. The best lands in the tidewater regions were already in the hands of wealthy plantation families by 1650, and the former servants became an underclass. Bacon’s Rebellion showed that the poor laborers and farmers could prove a dangerous element to the wealthy landowners.
.
Following the dominance of chattel slavery, there were few migrant European laborers and small farmers other than those who could afford to pay their passage and support themselves. In addition, improving economic conditions in England meant that fewer laborers wanted to migrate to the colonies as indentured servants, so the planters needed to find new sources of labor.
.
The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. There were no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia’s history. However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery.
.
In 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life, “owned” by the black colonist Anthony Johnson. Since persons with African origins were not English citizens by birth, they were not necessarily covered by English Common Law. Elizabeth Key Grinstead successfully gained her freedom in the Virginia courts in 1656 by making her case as the baptized Christian daughter of free Englishman Thomas Key.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
.
So you see, in fact it as a Black man who started slavery in America. Of course it was not the rule, but it was most definately the start. Whites later became the most prominent ethnic group who practiced slavery in the South.

Oh, I’m sorry, Apr. I thought we were posting our favorite Mathew verses.

In the pitch darkness the iron door of the prison is suddenly opened and the Grand Inquisitor himself comes in with a light in his hand. He is alone; the door is closed at once behind him. He stands in the doorway and for a minute or two gazes into His face. At last he goes up slowly, sets the light on the table and speaks.
 
“‘Is it Thou? Thou?’ but receiving no answer, he adds at once. ‘Don’t answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou hast no right to add anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that. But dost thou know what will be to-morrow? I know not who Thou art and care not to know whether it is Thou or only a semblance of Him, but to-morrow I shall condemn Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of heretics. And the very people who have to-day kissed Thy feet, to-morrow at the faintest sign from me will rush to heap up the embers of Thy fire. Knowest Thou that? Yes, maybe Thou knowest it,’ he added with thoughtful penetration, never for a moment taking his eyes off the Prisoner.”
…
“And the Prisoner too is silent? Does He look at him and not say a word?”
 
“That’s inevitable in any case,” Ivan laughed again. “The old man has told Him He hasn’t the right to add anything to what He has said of old. One may say it is the most fundamental feature of Roman Catholicism, in my opinion at least. ‘All has been given by Thee to the Pope,’ they say, ‘and all, therefore, is still in the Pope’s hands, and there is no need for Thee to come now at all. Thou must not meddle for the time, at least.’ That’s how they speak and write too—the Jesuits, at any rate. I have read it myself in the works of their theologians. ‘Hast Thou the right to reveal to us one of the mysteries of that world from which Thou hast come?’ my old man asks Him, and answers the question for Him. ‘No, Thou hast not; that Thou mayest not add to what has been said of old, and mayest not take from men the freedom which Thou didst exalt when Thou wast on earth. Whatsoever Thou revealest anew will encroach on men’s freedom of faith; for it will be manifest as a miracle, and the freedom of their faith was dearer to Thee than anything in those days fifteen hundred years ago. Didst Thou not often say then, “I will make you free”? But now Thou hast seen these “free” men,’ the old man adds suddenly, with a pensive smile. ‘Yes, we’ve paid dearly for it,’ he goes on, looking sternly at Him, ‘but at last we have completed that work in Thy name. For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not believe that it’s over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wroth with me. But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing. Was this what Thou didst? Was this Thy freedom?’”
—Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, V.5

Peter had just asked if Christ was the son of the Living God. He answered Peter that it was reveled to him by God, not man. It was the truth and the revelation of that truth, by God, that he was building his church on, not Peter.
.
Thus my break with the Roman Catholic Church.

C.S. Lewis, often favored by the Christian right in this country, would not have had much patience for 9/11 Christians. He wrote “Mere Christianity” to counter all the “Christianity plus other things” movements that arise from time to time. No Christianity and 9/11, no Christianity and the honor of America, not even Christianity and social justice. We are not to make God a servant to another cause. One could legitimately argue, in fact (and I would) that this is taking the name of God in vain.

And yet it is also true that our understanding of God informs our political views, even drives us to be active in ways that will help us usher in what we like to think of as God’s Kingdom. That’s not a bad thing in itself, at least as long as we remember that – pardon me, this sounds so corny as to be naive – that’s supposed to be a kingdom of love.

And as for Joe’s invoking the image of the camel going through the eye of the needle, for centuries that image has been interpreted (correctly or not) as referring to a gate in Jerusalem that was so narrow you could only lead your camel through the gate once all the baggage was removed. So I think Joe’s image was precisely apt.

Am I missing something, or do you seriously think that believing adults think God is an invisible man in the sky? You might want to look into this a little more.

“not even Christianity and social justice. We are not to make God a servant to another cause. One could legitimately argue, in fact (and I would) that this is taking the name of God in vain.”
.
I respectfully disagree. The what is the point of Christianity, if we can not, do not apply it to our public life? On the contrary if we do not live according to his teachings, we take God in vain. Clearly Jesus intended his church to take on Social Justice, it becomes a responsibility that can not be denied.
.
Perhaps it is the intent of the argument you mean?

No, it was a “christian” who blew up the building in Oklahoma City and yet we allow them to continue to build churches all over the country without protest. Don’t know the religion of the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas but his reasons weren’t religious, just hatred, which seems to be an acceptable “christian” attitude.

Christains don’t have a real good track record from drowning “witches” to the IRA to the Crusades.

Dear Exiled:

If you were such a “student of history,” as you claim, you would know that Jefferson did not coin the phrase “separation of church & state”; he borrowed both phrase & concept from Roger Williams, the founder of Providence, Rhode Island. And Williams borrowed the concept from Martin Luther. Luther probably borrowed it from somebody else, but I’m not a student of history, just a reasonably informed person, so I wouldn’t know.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Will Bunch — It takes Beck just 55 hours to start cashing in “restoring honor” to America

Sheep meet fleecer. Fleecer met sheep.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/It_takes_Beck_just_55_hours_to_start_cashing_in_on_the_Restoring_Honor_hoopla.html

allthings:

Ah, but I agree that we’re to apply our religion (or our Christianity, in your and my case) to our public life. And, I agree that if we don’t live as much as possible according to his teachings, we’re missing the boat. And the Church is called on to work for social justice.

But the Church working for social justice is not the same thing as making the Church a branch of our thinking on social justice. Although what matters is not so much the “Church,” as God. Not trying to tie myself in knots here, or cut too fine a line. There just seem to be an awful lot of people who are treating God as a butler, ready to justify their political plans, anoint America as the chosen land, and elect their candidates. And that doesn’t work for those on the left any more than those on the right.

Going back to my anecdote about Ted Kennedy answering Tom Oliphant about why he worked for social justice “Have you read the New Testament?” Kennedy worked for social justice because he was a Christian, but he didn’t argue that you should pass his legislation because he was a Christian and therefore was right. That seems to be the difference between what I hope we do, and what some on the religious right are attempting to do.

And it’s the reason some on the right who comment here don’t think there are are liberal Christians – as a general rule we’re not out here saying “I’m right because I believe in God.” It’s the old Abraham Lincoln thing of hoping we’re on God’s side, rather than proclaiming that God’s on our side.

As for taking God’s name in vain, I take that, in this context, to be about claiming God is something that suits my purpose. Not always easy to distinguish that from witnessing to what I think God’s purpose is. And as for taking God’s name in vain if I don’t like according to his teachings, then count me guilty as hell. Fortunately, I count on grace, not righteousness. What terribly good news that is.

um, that should be “if I don’t live according to his teachings…” Although I don’t always like according to his teachings, either

rather long winded response below, but yes…I think the intent matters.

Thanks for this thoughtprovoking discussion.

It is always a touchy subject but, amongst Christians I see no problem. Now to browbeat a non-christian, with biblical quotes etc………….? However even amongst different religions there are commonalities that can be found but, the discourse has to take place.
.
It is troubling to me, that Christ demands that we , we spread the “Good News”, that we live according to his teachings, that as a society we live according to his commandments, yet calls us all sinners and that we all fail. So we are timid in our approach trying to prove God wrong and, not fail. I guess it what he calls humility, be a “fool for Christ.”
.
I hope I didn’t mangle that too much.

Nice post kathy. I’m not a believer myself, but I do respect those who do and make an honest effort to lead a life that actually does follow the Golden Rule. God isn’t there to back up people because of the way they vote. God doesn’t smile when someone spews hate and intolerance and then shows up at church and drops a $20 bill in the plate. People can wear all the crosses they want to and put all the fish stickers they want to on their bumpers, but unless they actually lead the life and practice the teachings, they’re no more of a christian than I am.

Allthings,

Christ spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word kepha means both ‘Peter’ and ‘rock.’
.
So, “You are Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church.” In this context, it is absolutely clear that the rock to which Christ referred was in fact Peter. That’s my theological position on the matter. It matters not to me whether you find it persuasive. To each his own.

A thousand apologies, sir. Perhaps my use of the term ‘coined’ was a bit off. My point still stands, however, that the phrase “separation of church and state” is an idea tossed around at the individual level, and it is not something that governs American politics. The fact that the phrase came from Martin Luther makes it all the more vile.

It was just a comment exiled, not directed at you or anyone in particular. I did no intend it to be argumentative, just my belief.

Kathy and Allthings, I only have a few minutes before I head back to the O.R., but I just want to compliment you both on your very lucid and meaningful commentary. As Christians, it behooves us to conduct ourselves in a thoughtful and charitable way….thank you for your insight. Kathy, most of us on the right don’t “claim” God as our own, this would contradict every Christian principle we were taught…we are ALL his children and to think otherwise, would be foolish and foolhardy. My experience on this blog has taught me to exercise caution in even mentioning God, prayer, or even religion. Doing so subjects one to a torrent of criticism and even scorn, from liberal respondents. Seldom do the liberal believers step into the fray and the impression lingers that most liberals are “anti-God”. Your commentary, along with allthings, have reversed my opinion on this matter and for this, I thank you both.

as I wrote recently here, I am glad to see this development in understanding with earlj. Very glad. It reinforces what I have always believed — that there really is far more common ground between “liberals” and “conservatives” than the common spit-fighting would suggest.
.
It just takes effort to get past the fight,
.
But it is hard. We get distracted and blinded by the confrontational energy. I was reminded of that by earl’s comment above that “Seldom do the liberal believers step into the fray and the impression lingers that most liberals are “anti-God”"
.
My first appearance in the Swamp was duirng hte marathon “Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus” post. It was chocked full of religion discussions. One of the most prominent features of those discussions was argument about “social justice” between . . . “liberal” and “conservative” Christians!
.
If earl was there (and I think he was) that part apparently is not a part that stuck in his mind then. NOT a criticism of earl, just an interesting observation of how easy it is FOR ANYONE to be distracted away from seeing “good” by being upset by seeing “bad”.

First of all,

I find most of the discussion concerning christianity in here to be from baby christians, who are saved but are still living on milk, rather than the solid food of the word.

That said I also believe true Christians here on earth will remain babes in Christ until we are translated to the Kingdopm of God or die the natural death and are ressurected in faith.(there are many wolves amongst us, the pagans dont know who they are, but the to the true Christian the phonies amongst us have neon signs painted across their foreheads…its that obvious). Glenn Beck is no phonie, he is the real deal. I disagree with much of the mormon doctrine, but Beck has specifically stated his own personnal relationship with Jesus Christ and his personnal faith in Christ and it is in fact “textbook Christianity” as opposed to Mr. Kliens phony understanding of what Christianity is…which speaks very badly for Mr. Klien. Its verymuch lke a second grader declaring he is an expert at adding and declaring 2 + 2 = 8. Everybody but Klein knows he’s wrong, Mr. Klein makes a fool of himself and Time Magazine everytime he embarrasses himself publically in this way. Don’t expect them to fix their declining subscription levels, as they are so lost as to theri transparency of ignorance, they literally think they have the masses fooled and figured out…all at the same time.

i doubt that is correct, except maybe about TIME . . .

I was taught that Peter was defined as rock. Therefore the formal oversight of Christ’s church was given to Peter.
This is where it gets rather absurd. The gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. The Bible, New and Old Testament is like a game of gossip. The word has filtered through so many people and millenia that it makes a good story, with some good ethical words to live by (mixed with some pretty horrendous rules in the Old Testament), just as has the Torah and the Koran.

NewsBusters| TIME’s Klein: Beck a ‘Telecharlatan’ Who Will Have Hard Time Entering ‘Kingdom of Heaven’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/08/31/times-klein-beck-telecharlatan-who-will-have-hard-time-entering-kingdo

I do not believe that those who self-identify as “conservative” today hold the same political beliefs as did our Founding Fathers.
.
First of all, they had some major differences between them.
.
Secondly, just as surely as “liberalism” has changed since then in response to changed contexts and conditions, so has “‘conservatism”. Consider, for instance, “equal justice”.
.
I think that those that claim they have the same political views as our Founding Fathers do so in an attempt to wrap themselves in the flag as the only truly patriotic Americans.
.